"The INF treaty singles out for elimination all land-based missiles of a specified range". Gives the background to the treaty from 1979. In effect it resulted from the USSR calling Reagan's bluff on his zero-option proposal of 1981. The consequence is that the West is on the defensive, lacking a coherent approach and compelled to proceed on the basis of its present policy. The lesson of the treaty is therefore for the West to define its long-term objectives, and the roles of the USA and Western Europe within them. US deputy assistant secretary for defense (policy plans), 1977-81.
Lynn E. Davis is a Visiting Research Fellow at Kings College, London, and was Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Policy Plans from 1977 to 1981.
The Intermediate-range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty, signed by President Reagan and General Secretary Gorbachev on December 8, 1987, is certainly a success if measured against the West’s proclaimed arms control objectives during the 1980s. In the face of opposition from both the Soviet Union and West European peace movements, NATO carried out its 1979 decision to deploy intermediate-range nuclear missiles in five West European countries. Later, after the deployment was completed, NATO succeeded in securing Soviet agreement to all of its arms control goals, including the global elimination of Soviet SS-20 missiles and acceptance of very intrusive verification measures.
Nevertheless, the INF treaty has provoked considerable unease in the West, by its provisions as well as by its implications for the future. Will NATO’s strategy of flexible response remain credible? Will the imbalance between conventional forces in Europe now become more dangerous? Will the treaty unleash political forces leading to the denuclearization of the continent and American disengagement from NATO? It would be both ironic and tragic if this NATO success became the vehicle for a future alliance crisis.
The story of the negotiation of the INF treaty is well known. What is important now is to consider the critical lessons of the INF experience.
II
The INF saga began in the late 1970s as a result of two West European worries. First, the Soviets were deploying new SS-20 missiles, which were mobile, accurate, equipped with multiple warheads, and targeted on Western Europe. Second, the Americans were ignoring European interests in negotiating the second Strategic Arms Limitation Talks (SALT II) Treaty, seeking limits only on the nuclear threat to the United States. President Carter’s inept handling of the neutron bomb affair in 1978 exacerbated European concern, rekindling doubts about the American commitment to Europe and the credibility of the American nuclear guarantee.
Finding it difficult to address these underlying doubts directly, West Europeans and Americans focused on confronting the expansion of the Soviet nuclear threat to Europe and the deficiencies in the U.S. nuclear arsenal in Europe. In 1979 NATO decided to modernize its nuclear capabilities by deploying 572 Pershing 2 and ground-launched cruise missiles, and simultaneously to begin negotiations to reduce the Soviet SS-20 threat.
This is a premium article
You must be a Foreign Affairs subscriber to continue reading. If you are already a print subscriber, click here to activate your online access.
Log In
Buy PDF
Buy a premium PDF reprint of this article.Related
Negotiations between the United States and the Soviet Union on nuclear arms control are at an impasse. Following the deployment in Europe of the first U.S. Pershing II and cruise missiles in the fall of 1983, the Soviet Union walked out of the negotiations on intermediate-range forces (INF) and refused to agree to a resumption date for the negotiations on strategic nuclear forces (START). Whether and under what conditions the negotiations will resume is uncertain.
Calls for a more pragmatic judgment of the technological implications of military trends. Reviews significance of strategic defence, ICBMs and counterforce, targeting, basing, SLBMs and cruise missiles. Recommends "specific bilateral agreements and judicious unilateral choices in force modernization".
Gives an account of problems encountered by START negotiators in 1988, as minor issues about particular types of weapons turned into major issues. Notes that these problems will persist post-Regan and concludes that "before a new administration can pick up where the old one leaves off in START" it should (1) impose some order in the chaos of US thinking about ICBMs (2) decide whether there is a militarily-sound mission for nuclear-armed SLCMs (3) develop a realistic plan for strategic defense R&D.

Sign-up for free weekly updates from ForeignAffairs.com.