Going Nuclear?

Before the fear of being blown up by terrorists on a plane, a train, or a sidewalk gave millions of people sleepless nights, it was nuclear annihilation at the hands of the world’s two superpowers that people around the globe worried about.

By the mid-1980s, after decades of squaring off in the Cold War, the United States and the Soviet Union had amassed 63,000 nuclear weapons. If one of those weapons had ever been used—even accidentally—the resulting nuclear war would have destroyed both sides.

But after years of global protests and skyrocketing defense budgets, American and Soviet leaders stepped back from the brink of disaster and began a process of arms control diplomacy that gradually shrank those arsenals by nearly 90 percent. For decades, that process of diplomacy continued.

Now, however, a landmark arms control treaty—the 1987 Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty, or I.N.F.—is being ripped up. The United States announced in February that it would withdraw from the treaty, which bans the possession and deployment of all land-based missiles with a range of 300 to 3,400 miles, because Russia has long been violating its terms.

“We can no longer be restricted by the treaty while Russia shamelessly violates it,” Secretary of State Mike Pompeo declared. In response, Russia said it too would abandon the treaty.

The fear of being blown up by terrorists on a plane, a train, or a sidewalk gives millions of people sleepless nights. But in the past, it was nuclear annihilation at the hands of the world’s two superpowers that people around the globe worried about.

The United States and the Soviet Union squared off for decades during the Cold War. By the mid-1980s, both nations had amassed 63,000 nuclear weapons. If one of those weapons had ever been used, the resulting nuclear war would have destroyed both sides. And it wouldn’t have even mattered if it was an accident.

The arms race led to years of global protests and skyrocketing defense budgets. Then, American and Soviet leaders stepped back from the brink of disaster. They began a process of arms control diplomacy that gradually shrank those arsenals by nearly 90 percent. For decades, that process of diplomacy continued.

But now, a landmark arms control treaty is being ripped up. The Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty, or I.N.F, was put into place in 1987. It bans the possession and deployment of all land-based missiles with a range of 300 to 3,400 miles. The United States announced in February that it would withdraw from the treaty because Russia has long been violating its terms.  

“We can no longer be restricted by the treaty while Russia shamelessly violates it,” Secretary of State Mike Pompeo declared. In response, Russia said it too would abandon the treaty.

The I.N.F. Treaty between the U.S. and Russia is widely regarded as one of the most important in the history of preventing nuclear war. The U.S. withdrawal from the I.N.F. Treaty prompts a much bigger question: Does this signal the unraveling of all the other arms control treaties that have successfully prevented nuclear war since the end of World War II? And if so, is the world about to get much less safe?

“When this whole structure of agreements begins to collapse, you’re back to an arms race where both sides are building up their forces,” says Tom Collina, the policy director for the Ploughshares Fund, a San Francisco-based organization that seeks to prevent the spread and use of nuclear weapons. “That leads to increased dangers to both sides and the possibility of getting into nuclear conflict either by intent or by accident.”

The I.N.F. Treaty between the U.S. and Russia is widely regarded as one of the most important in the history of preventing nuclear war. The U.S. withdrawal from the I.N.F. Treaty prompts a much bigger question: Does this signal the unraveling of all the other arms control treaties that have successfully prevented nuclear war since the end of World War II? And if so, is the world about to get much less safe?

“When this whole structure of agreements begins to collapse, you’re back to an arms race where both sides are building up their forces,” says Tom Collina, the policy director for the Ploughshares Fund, a San Francisco-based organization that seeks to prevent the spread and use of nuclear weapons. “That leads to increased dangers to both sides and the possibility of getting into nuclear conflict either by intent or by accident.”

That tit-for-tat escalation dynamic drove the arms race during the Cold War standoff between the Soviet Union and the West that began after World War II (1939-45). The threat of nuclear war between the two superpowers was so palpable in the 1950s and ’60s that “duck and cover” drills became standard in American schools, with children practicing huddling under their desks in case of a Soviet attack (as if a school desk could shield someone from a nuclear blast). The two nations were so aware of the other’s destructive firepower that neither side dared to intentionally launch an attack, knowing it would be destroyed in response. This became known as the doctrine of “mutually assured destruction,” or MAD.

Fears of a nuclear Armageddon were still widespread when President Ronald Reagan and Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev signed the I.N.F. Treaty in 1987.

“It was a very tense time, especially in Europe,” recalls Thomas Callender, an arms control expert at the Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank in Washington, D.C. “There were thousands of tanks, missiles, and aircraft on both sides of the Iron Curtain,” the line that divided Communist Europe from the democratic West.

That tit-for-tat escalation dynamic drove the arms race during the Cold War standoff between the Soviet Union and the West that began after World War II (1939-45). The threat of nuclear war between the two superpowers seemed like it could happen any day in the 1950s and ’60s. As a result, “duck and cover” drills became standard in American schools. During the drills, children practiced huddling under their desks in case of a Soviet attack. But a school desk could never shield someone from a nuclear blast. The two nations were very aware of the other’s destructive firepower. That’s why neither side dared to intentionally launch an attack. Both sides knew they would both be destroyed in response. This became known as the doctrine of “mutually assured destruction,” or MAD.

Fears of a nuclear Armageddon were still widespread when President Ronald Reagan and Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev signed the I.N.F. Treaty in 1987. 

“It was a very tense time, especially in Europe,” recalls Thomas Callender, an arms control expert at the Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank in Washington, D.C. “There were thousands of tanks, missiles, and aircraft on both sides of the Iron Curtain,” the line that divided Communist Europe from the democratic West.

Part of that tension resulted from the high number of nuclear-armed intermediate-range missiles on both sides. Because those missiles have very short flight times—as little as 10 minutes—they were seen as a possible hair trigger for a nuclear war: With so little time to react, the Soviets set up an automatic response, with computers directed to fire at the U.S. if they detected anything that might be missiles. The potential for a mistake seemed huge.  

“[The I.N.F.] was the first treaty to abolish a whole category of weapons that had already been deployed,” says Robert Jervis, an arms control expert at Columbia University. “And it was accompanied by quite intrusive inspection methods. We watched the Soviets blowing up missiles.”

Just four years later, the Cold War ended with the 1991 collapse of the Soviet Union. But Russia and the U.S. remained bound by the treaty.

Part of that tension resulted from the high number of nuclear-armed intermediate-range missiles on both sides. Those missiles have very short flight times, even as little as 10 minutes. That’s why they were seen as a possible hair trigger for a nuclear war. With so little time to react, the Soviets set up an automatic response. They programmed computers to fire at the U.S. if they detected anything that might be missiles. The potential for a mistake seemed huge.

“[The I.N.F.] was the first treaty to abolish a whole category of weapons that had already been deployed,” says Robert Jervis, an arms control expert at Columbia University. “And it was accompanied by quite intrusive inspection methods. We watched the Soviets blowing up missiles.”

Just four years later, the Cold War ended with the 1991 collapse of the Soviet Union. But Russia and the U.S. remained bound by the treaty. 

Since then, the world has changed substantially. China’s military was unsophisticated when the I.N.F. Treaty was signed. Not anymore. Today, China is a major military power, and it relies on the kind of missiles that are banned by the treaty for 95 percent of its ground-based arsenal. And the list of nuclear powers has grown to nine, including China, India, Pakistan, and the latest, North Korea (see “Who’s Got Nukes?” above).

“The treaty only bound the U.S. and Russia,” says Jervis. “It made perfect sense in the Cold War context, but it doesn’t make sense now.”

Many U.S. officials have long complained about the I.N.F. Treaty, saying it unfairly limits America’s ability to respond effectively to China’s military buildup and counter its growing influence in the Pacific.

The other big issue with the I.N.F. Treaty is that there’s wide agreement that Russia has been violating it for years. In 2014, under the Obama administration, the U.S. accused Russia of deploying weapons in Europe that are banned by the treaty.

Since then, the world has changed a lot. China’s military wasn’t fully developed when the I.N.F. Treaty was signed. Not anymore. Today, China is a major military power. It relies on the kind of missiles that are banned by the treaty for 95 percent of its ground-based arsenal. Meanwhile, the list of nuclear powers has grown to nine. That includes countries like China, India, Pakistan, and the latest, North Korea (see “Who’s Got Nukes?” above).

“The treaty only bound the U.S. and Russia,” says Jervis. “It made perfect sense in the Cold War context, but it doesn’t make sense now.”

Many U.S. officials have long complained about the I.N.F. Treaty. They’ve said it unfairly limits America’s ability to respond effectively to China’s military buildup and counter its growing influence in the Pacific.

The other big issue with the I.N.F. Treaty is that there’s wide agreement that Russia has been violating it for years. In 2014, under the Obama administration, the U.S. accused Russia of deploying weapons in Europe that are banned by the treaty.

Russia denies having violated the treaty. When the U.S. announced in February that it would withdraw from the pact in response to Russia’s violations, Russia immediately countered that it would follow suit.

“Our response will be symmetrical,” Russian President Vladimir Putin said. “Our American partners announced that they are suspending their participation in the I.N.F. Treaty, and we are suspending it too.”

At the same time, Putin announced that Russia would build weapons previously banned under the treaty and would no longer initiate talks with the United States on any matters related to nuclear arms control. And in a further escalation of tensions, Russian state TV announced a list of places in the U.S. that would be targeted in the event of a nuclear conflict. The list includes the Pentagon and Camp David, the presidential retreat outside Washington, D.C.

Russia denies having violated the treaty. When the U.S. announced in February that it would withdraw from the pact in response to Russia’s violations, Russia immediately countered that it would follow suit.

“Our response will be symmetrical,” Russian President Vladimir Putin said. “Our American partners announced that they are suspending their participation in the I.N.F. Treaty, and we are suspending it too.”

At the same time, Putin announced that Russia would build weapons previously banned under the treaty. He added that the Russian government would no longer initiate talks with the United States on any matters related to nuclear arms control. And in a further escalation of tensions, Russian state TV announced a list of places in the U.S. that would be targeted in the event of a nuclear conflict. The list includes the Pentagon and Camp David, the presidential retreat outside Washington, D.C.

These developments have sparked a debate about what the implications of leaving the treaty will be, and whether it was the right thing to do, even with Russia’s violations. Senator Edward Markey, Democrat of Massachusetts, who focuses on nuclear issues on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, calls the suspension of the I.N.F. Treaty “a tragedy that makes the world less safe.”

“President Trump and his war cabinet have yet again decided that America should go it alone, this time by paving the way for a dangerous arms race,” Markey says.

But Senator Lindsey Graham, Republican of South Carolina, says withdrawal is “absolutely the right move” because “the Russians have been cheating.”

Now that the U.S. and Russia have abandoned one important treaty curtailing nuclear weapons, many people worry that other U.S.-Russian arms control treaties, including one signed in 2010, might be at risk.

And experts say any kind of rollback of arms control agreements between the United States and Russia—which together have about 90 percent of the world’s nuclear arsenal—will have ripple effects that could lead to arms proliferation elsewhere. For one thing, the U.S. risks losing its moral authority when trying to rein in nuclear powers such as India, Pakistan, or even North Korea, says Alexandra Bell, an arms control expert with the Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation in Washington, D.C.

These developments have sparked a debate about what impact leaving the treaty might have. People are questioning whether it was the right thing to do, even with Russia’s violations. Senator Edward Markey, Democrat of Massachusetts, who focuses on nuclear issues on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, calls the suspension of the I.N.F. Treaty “a tragedy that makes the world less safe.”

“President Trump and his war cabinet have yet again decided that America should go it alone, this time by paving the way for a dangerous arms race,” Markey says.

But Senator Lindsey Graham, Republican of South Carolina, says withdrawal is “absolutely the right move” because “the Russians have been cheating.”

Now that the U.S. and Russia have abandoned one important treaty curtailing nuclear weapons, many people worry that other U.S.-Russian arms control treaties, including one signed in 2010, might be at risk. 

The United States and Russia together have about 90 percent of the world’s nuclear arsenal. Experts say any kind of rollback of arms control agreements between the two nations will have ripple effects that could lead to arms proliferation elsewhere. For one thing, the U.S. risks losing its moral authority when trying to rein in nuclear powers such as India, Pakistan, or even North Korea, says Alexandra Bell, an arms control expert with the Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation in Washington, D.C.

U.S. participation in arms control treaties like the I.N.F. Treaty, Bell says, “gave us the moral and political high ground to say to other countries that investing in these types of weapons systems is destabilizing. If the treaty falls apart and the U.S. and Russia start developing these kinds of missiles, then we don’t have a leg to stand on to tell other countries they should not.”

If a new arms race does begin to ratchet up, the increased tensions and risks affect the entire world.

Scientists say that firing about 100 nuclear weapons—a small fraction of the U.S. and Russian arsenals—would end life on Earth as we know it.  

“The rest of the world has recently woken up to the fact that if there is nuclear war, it’s going to affect us all,” says Collina of the Ploughshares Fund. “Whether you’re a country with nuclear weapons or not, whether you’re a target or not, you’re going to be severely impacted.”

U.S. participation in arms control treaties like the I.N.F. Treaty, Bell says, “gave us the moral and political high ground to say to other countries that investing in these types of weapons systems is destabilizing. If the treaty falls apart and the U.S. and Russia start developing these kinds of missiles, then we don’t have a leg to stand on to tell other countries they should not.”

If a new arms race does begin to start up, the increased tensions and risks affect the entire world.

Scientists say that firing about 100 nuclear weapons would end life on Earth as we know it. And 100 nuclear weapons is only a small fraction of the U.S. and Russian arsenals.

“The rest of the world has recently woken up to the fact that if there is nuclear war, it’s going to affect us all,” says Collina of the Ploughshares Fund. “Whether you’re a country with nuclear weapons or not, whether you’re a target or not, you’re going to be severely impacted.”

With reporting by David E. Sanger and William J. Broad of The New York Times.

With reporting by David E. Sanger and William J. Broad of The New York Times.