What is INF Treaty — and why the U.S. wants to withdraw from the historic bilateral pact

What is INF Treaty —  and why the U.S. wants to withdraw from the historic bilateral pact

The 1987 Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) treaty prohibits the United States & the Soviet Union from deploying land-based missiles on its territory or anywhere in the world with ranges of 500 to 5,500km, either nuclear or conventional.

The treaty includes shorter range (500-1,000 Km), as well as medium-(1,000-3,000 km), and intermediate-range (3,500-5,500 km) ballistic and cruise missiles. Here we refer to all of these ranges as “INF-range".

Whereas, the treaty doesn't limit or ban sea & air-launched missiles deployed on ships, submarines, as well as the missiles carried by aircraft. ICBM's are land based, but since their range is in excess of INF range i.e, 5,500km, their deployment on land is allowed. Long range nuke carriers are covered under a separate treaty called START (New STrategic Arms Reduction Treaty).

Under this treaty, the number of deployable ICBMs, SLBMs, and heavy bombers equipped for nuclear armaments are limited to 700.

                  ICBM's + SLBM's + Heavy bombers = 700

                             
Why did the treaty allowed air and sea launched weapons?

The reason for not including sea & air launched missiles into the treaty is mainly because ships, submarines and aircraft can carry only a limited & small quantity of missiles. While on land there's no such space/area limitation.

The INF treaty to some extent favors the United States as the U.S Navy has more than 140 naval surface ships & submarines fitted with long range tomahawk cruise missiles. Each of the convered Ohio class guided missile submarine (SSGN) alone can carry up to 154 conventionally-armed tomahawks.


Why the treaty bans INF range missiles?

Long range intercontinental missiles (ICBM's) have flight times of 30 min or more and therefore provide maximum warning time of an incoming attack.

While Short, medium and intermediate range missiles (otherwise called INF range missiles) have a relatively short flight times, they reach targets so quickly that an adversary facing an attack would be left with little or no time to respond.

Any country acting first by launching such missiles could overwhelm another country, leaving it able to retaliate only in a weakened form with much of its nuclear weapons, leadership and military forces destroyed.

INF range missiles have flight times of 5 to 15 min and when armed with trajectory shaping vehicles (TSV's) it could be very hard for the missile defenses to shoot down. Any adversary launching surprise attack or attempting first strike by using such missiles would risk an accidental nuclear war. INF treaty bans such destabilizing missiles which are more likely to start an accidental nuclear war. It was considered a crucial step in signing the treaty for defusing coldwar tensions.


Missile Flight Time Calculation:

Flight Times of Ballistic Missiles lofted in Maximum-Range Trajectories,

Time (T) = [SQUARE ROOT of (Range) X 14] where Time is in seconds, Range is in kilometers.

For a short range ballistic missile of 500km range, the flight time,
Time (T) = [SQUARE ROOT of (500) X 14] = 313 seconds or approx 5 minutes.



What happens if the treaty is abandoned?

United States: It would be far cheaper for the U.S to deploy land based missiles when compared to the expensive & limited capacities of sea and air launched platforms.

After pullout from treaty, to counter China, the U.S would place missiles on the territories of Japan, Australia & other Asian allies if their governments are willing. Also, in Central Europe (Poland, Germany) and if necessary in Eastern Europe (Romania, Ukraine) for targets inside Russia.

Russia : Russia would be free to deploy INF range missiles on its territory (i.e, in Kaliningrad exclave, between Poland and Lithuania) which can put all of the military targets in Europe with in range.

Ukraine is the doorstep to Russia as Cuba is to the United States. It is unlikely that the US will send missiles to Ukraine (similar to the Cuban missile crisis of 1962). But in that case russia might respond by deploying missiles close to U.S borders, that is in Cuba & possibly even in Venezuela.

China: China was not a signatory to the INF treaty, and this has allowed China to build up and field a vast arsenal of ballistic and cruise missiles. But the INF treaty constrained the United States from deploying missiles in Western pacific & Europe. In the event of conflict, China's missiles could pose a serious threat to U.S Pacific bases and carrier strike groups. However, withdrawal from treaty, could help reverse this dynamic and lead to a nightmare scenario for China.

Europe: The 1987 INF treaty was mainly signed for safeguarding Europe from Russia's multiple-warhead intermediate range SS-20 missile. Thus, the treaty pullout could bring Europe back to a situation similar to the one during coldwar. Some politicians in Europe believe that the U.S has sacrificed Europe's security in order to counter China's missile threat to U.S bases in the Pacific.

Europe doesn't possess any land based or ground launched intermediate range missile to counterbalance the perceived threat posed by Russia's long range 9M729 novator cruise missile. Developing a new ground launched missile with no prior experience would take years to accomplish & for initial research, development, testing and missile production would cost billions of dollars. Instead of funding a new missile development, Europe would ask U.S to host missiles on it's territory as it did during the coldwar.


Is China the reason behind Trump's withdrawl from the treaty?

Raining down missiles on airbases is an inexpensive but very very effective tactic. Even countries like Iran and North Korea which can't afford to buy fighter planes and aircraft carriers could deploy large numbers of such unsophisticated missiles to target NATO bases in the event of war.

The great distances between the continental United States and China mean the U.S. military will need bases in Pacific to prosecute any war between the two countries. The united states surrounded China with hundreds of military bases, and China sees this as a threat. Most of the U.S bases in Pacific are well within reach of hundreds of Chinese land based ballistic & cruise missiles.

Missile barrage from an adversary will be armed with different types of warheads like submunitions, penetration warheads (bunker buster) and even chemical weapons.

Submunitions 

Submunitions/Bomblets striking airbase

            Hardened aircraft shelter (HAS) hit by penetration warhead

Some of the U.S airbases in Japan & South Korea have hardened Aircraft shelters (HAS) to house and protect military aircraft from enemy attack.

The attacking force (China) could use submunitions to destroy parked aircraft, vehicles, missile defenses (THAAD and Patriot) ---- and penetrating warheads to destroy aircraft shelters, airfield runways & semi-underground aircraft fuel tanks.

Even if the aircraft stored in hardened shelters ride out the attack undamaged, but still the massive debris formed by missile fragments along with thousands of unexploded submunitions on the parking space & runways could shutdown all flying operations (takeoffs and landings) rendering the base unusable until debris removal and  extensive runway repairs were undertaken. Most attackers view the damage inflicted to runways and taxiways to be temporary, and will plan to frequently reattack to keep an airbase closed.

                         Primary Runway, Taxiway & Auxiliary runway

The initial wave of missile barrage is generally used to crater runways and neutralize missile/air defenses which would then allow manned aircraft with precision-guided weapons to carry out further strikes on hardened aircraft shelters, semi underground fuel tanks & maintenance facilities

Chinese DF-21D, a medium range land based antiship ballistic missile (ASBM) could target U.S carrier strike groups at sea, while the Dong Feng 26 (DF-26) also known as “Guam Killer” by some analysts, is an Intermediate range ballistic missile of range 3000-4000km. This range would cover U.S bases in Guam & Japan. Guam is roughly 3,000 km (1,800 mi) from the Chinese mainland. While China would use short range ballistic missiles (SRBMs) against Taiwan.

China joining INF treaty is highly unlikely as most of the Chinese missiles fall under the INF range. China sees U.S bases in Pacific as a threat and therefore its vast missile arsenal as the best way to counter superior US capabilities in the event of conflict


How would you counter hundreds of advanced chinese land based missiles raining down on U.S pacific bases in the event of war??

Japan and South Korea doesn't have a ballistic missile development program. Also, they haven't developed any standoff land attack cruise missile equivalent to the U.S Tomahawk, and therefore, have to rely on US warships and subs. But how many missiles a warship or a submarine can carry?? Only limited numbers.

INF withdrawl would allow the US to quickly build up a formidable regional arsenal of new weapons to challenge china. And, by basing missiles on allied territories, the US would be in a position to quickly launch attacks on airbases, ports and China's air defense network.

However, abandoning treaty would place Russia at an advantage. Russia doesn't have the range of aerial and naval platforms enjoyed by the United States. Till now, Russian defense ministry hasn't placed any orders for new Sukhoi (Su-57) stealth fighters and its stealth bomber PAK-DA is expected to fly by 2025–2026 and enter serial production by 2028 or 2029. INF treaty therefore placed it at a disadvantage.

With it's land based 9M726 missile deployment, Russia would be in a better position to launch attacks on NATO's (European) military installations and it could use it's nuclear attack submarines to assign other targets in Atlantic & Pacific.


Missile Basing challenges

Japan: Japan opposes U.S withdrawal from the INF treaty. The majority of the US presence in Japan is on Okinawa, and it has long been home to anti-base protest movements. U.S missle deployment there and elsewhere in Japan would face intense opposition.

South Korea: THAAD deployment in South Korea faced intense opposition from protesters, blocking entrance to the THAAD installation site. Also, China retaliated with informal economic and diplomatic sanctions. China’s decision to boycott South Korea’s tourism industry cost the economy some 7.5 trillion won ($6.8 billion).

Australia : Australia had always opposed China's militarisation of South China Sea. Being a major US ally, Australia would be more willing to host U.S land based missiles against China. Australia is over 5000Km away from china, and hence not a perfect location to host U.S intermediate range missiles. But instead, deployment of shore based antiship missiles (LRASM) or coastal missile defense could threaten Chinese surface fleet.

Conclusion:
Withdrawal from treaty would allow the U.S to place missiles on territories of Japan, Australia and other Asian allies to address Chinese missile threat, but at the same time Russia would be free to place missiles anywhere in the world close to the US doorstep i.e, in Cuba and Venezuela, creating a new security crisis. In my opinion exit from INF treaty would be a mistake as US already has ample amount of cruise missile armed ships, submarines & aircraft deployed across Asia-pacific to counter Chinese threat. Instead the U.S should encourage japan & South Korea for development & deployment of their own land based missiles. Also cruise missiles mounted on container ships could be another option as they provide credible deterrence & also remain undetected from satellites and other surveillance platforms.

Note: I have a technical solution that allows the United States to place missiles on allied territories to counter Chinese threat, as well as helps to stay in treaty with Russia. I'm not disclosing that, but will be happy to share info with the main stream media.