President Trump last year announced the U.S. would withdraw from the 1987 Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty. That made sense because Russia was violating the pact and China, which was not a signatory, had exploited it to undermine the U.S. conventional military edge in Asia.
Some in Congress who objected to Mr. Trump’s decision are trying to nullify it by defunding conventional weapons covered by the soon-to-be defunct treaty. The House voted largely on party lines last month to zero out research and development for conventional intermediate-range missiles. If they prevail, it will heighten the risk of nuclear war.
The best way to reduce the chance of nuclear confrontation with great-power competitors is by having conventional forces able to repel any invasion of U.S. allies, and conventional ground-based missile systems would help. Nor would they undermine any efforts to manage nuclear risks. The original INF pact was essentially about nuclear weapons; conventional missiles were included largely for verification reasons. The R&D funding the House zeroed out wasn’t even prohibited under the treaty.
Read the full article in The Wall Street Journal.
More from CNAS
CommentaryThe All-Volunteer Force: Civil-Military Relations Hit Home—and Abroad
Tensions in the civil-military relationship threaten national security from conflicts abroad to cities across the United States....
By Nathalie Grogan
CommentaryThe Decline of Deterrence
Deterrence is not as stable as believed, and is becoming less so....
By Dr. Andrew F. Krepinevich
CommentaryThe Next National Defense Strategy Will Be Shaped by Post-BCA Budget Instability
The post-BCA world will lead to greater uncertainty for the federal budget....
By Diem Salmon
CommentaryAddressing Deepening Russia-China Relations
Russia-China cooperation increases the challenge that each country poses to the United States....
By Andrea Kendall-Taylor & Jeffrey Edmonds