House Democrats’ Missile Mess They want to block weapons the U.S. needs to deter China.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/house-democrats-missile-mess-11564701864
The 1987 Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty officially passes into the annals of Cold War history on Friday, dumped by the Trump Administration after more than a decade of Russian violations. Congressional arms-controllers can’t revive the treaty, but they are aiming to deny the U.S. any defense advantages from its demise.
The INF treaty name is misleading, because it bans all ground-based missiles, nuclear or conventional, with a range between 500 and 5,500 kilometers. As a result of the treaty, the U.S. has the ability to launch mid-range missiles (like the Tomahawks used to strike Syria in 2017 and 2018) from the air and sea, but not from ground bases.
With the treaty defunct, the Pentagon now seeks to develop and test such weapons as part of its strategy to maintain an advantage over Russia and China. Yet House Democrats are trying to block this. A National Defense Authorization Act amendment, passed on a party-line vote, essentially forces the U.S. to continue to abide unilaterally by the INF. An appropriations bill eliminates funding even for research and development of mid-range weapons, though that was not prohibited under the treaty.
The INF was the result of the Cold War standoff over Europe, yet in recent years it has eroded U.S. power in particular in Asia. China was never bound by the treaty and has undertaken a major arms buildup to unseat the U.S. as the dominant power in the Pacific. It has as many as 2,650 missiles that would be prohibited under the treaty and can target U.S. bases and allies. Adm. Harry Harris of the Pacific Command (now ambassador to South Korea) told Congress in 2017 that “restrictions on conventional land-based weapons are hindering the U.S. military’s ability to keep up with China.”
The U.S. has had to depend on air and sea power to counter China. As military analyst Eric Sayers points out, this is far more costly and inefficient, as planes and ships might be better used for other missions. A destroyer can carry a small fraction of the missiles that could be launched from a U.S. base like Guam. Adm. Phil Davidson, commander of U.S. forces in the Indo-Pacific, told the Senate this year that ground-based missile capability “restores maneuver to the force, making the air, maritime and land component much more viable.”
Critics say U.S. intermediate-range missiles would spark an arms race. Yet such weapons are already the norm in the Pacific theater. As Elbridge Colby and Mike Gallagher have explained in these pages, if Moscow or Beijing becomes convinced that it has a conventional advantage over the U.S., they could be more easily tempted to seize territories in a fait accompli. This is the most likely route to nuclear war. If the conventional balance of power shifts further away from the U.S., it becomes more likely.
The INF treaty did not happen because the U.S. stopped investing in defense out of high moral principle. It was achieved through credible deterrence and after the U.S. military buildup of the 1980s, as Ronald Reagan deployed U.S. missiles to Europe to counter Russia’s. Adversaries don’t seek arms agreements if they have a military advantage.
The Democratic missile ban will be sorted out in conference with the Senate. A ban would vindicate Russia’s contempt for its treaty commitments and accelerate China’s drive for military dominance in the Pacific.
Comments are closed.
