Could the withdrawal of the nuclear weapons treaty create opportunities for the army?

Army modernization officials are convinced that they can further expand the scope of the Precision Strike missile if the United States withdraws from its Cold War missile treaty, but national security experts warn that Such an approach would increase the risks of confrontation with Russia.

President Trump recently announced his intention to step out of the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) treaty, saying that Russia is already violating the agreement, which bans all conventional and nuclear ground-based missiles. range of 500 to 1,000 km.

Apparently, the long-range drafting program of the Army – absolute priority of the service – would benefit from withdrawing from the NIF Treaty. This would allow the service to extend the reach of its precision missile missile (PRSM) well beyond the existing 499-kilometer limits prescribed by the treaty.

The PRSM is designed to replace the tactical missile system of the army, or ATACMS, which has a range of about 300 kilometers. The service plans to put the first versions of the PRSM into service in 2023 under an urgent release version.

"We are going to the limit of the INF Treaty, if it changes, which I do not belong to, we started to wonder if there would still be room for the PRSM – the answer is yes," said recently Colonel John Rafferty, director of the cross-functional long-range precision fires team, "Could this be improved with additional propulsion technology? The answer to this question is yes."

Scott Boston, defense analyst and Russian expert of the RAND Corporation, acknowledges that the deterrence of Russian aggression in Europe is important, especially to fight against Russian anti-aircraft fire and defenses. But lifting the boundaries on weapons such as the new PRSM will only increase tensions with Russia.

"I'm nervous when the radius of action gets too long, because it's starting to scare the Russians," Boston said, arguing that the commissioning of new missiles with a significantly increased range "could destabilize" the region. if she manages to reach her targets well in Russia.

The INF Treaty does not apply to long-range missiles launched by the sea, which the United States must consider relevant in the Pacific, said Boston.

"But it's not like you could be like," and trust us, we'll never send them to Europe, "said Boston. "As if they were going to believe that … there is no nuclear warhead."

Trump claims that Russia has violated the INF treaty "for many years" and claims that it prevents the United States from developing new weapons, the Associated Press reported recently.

In 2017, the White House declared that Russia had deployed a cruise missile in violation of the treaty.

The Obama administration has also accused Russia of developing and testing a banned cruise missile. Russia has denied the allegations and made similar accusations that the United States has violated the treaty, the Associated Press reported.

Lawrence Korb, senior researcher at the Center for American Progress, asks if the army really needs to increase the scope of the PRSM, sharing Boston's view that the US military already has many long-range weapons launched by the sea and by the air in his arsenal. .

Senior military officials said the service had to modernize its long-range precision fire, as it can no longer be certain that the air force will still be able to penetrate into sophisticated air defense networks to attack long-range targets.

But Korb argues that each of the services tends to ignore that they are part of a common force when they advocate for essential modernization efforts.

"All services are guilty: the navy wants 355 ships, the air force wants 92 new squadrons and the army wants to go up to 540,000 people," Korb said. . "It seems to me that, given our conventional advantage vis-à-vis the Russians, we could use [missiles] it was necessary. Basically, you do not have to do that. "

– Matthew Cox can be contacted at [email protected].

View the full article