Council for a Livable World

Political action to reduce nuclear threats

  • Elections
    • Senate Candidates
    • House Candidates
    • Political Analysis
    • Who We’ve Helped Elect
  • Legislation
    • Key National Security Legislation
    • National Security Legislative Calendar
    • Legislative Achievements
  • Take Action
    • Avoiding Oppenheimer’s Nuclear Nightmare in Our Current Reality
    • Issues
    • Join Our Email List
    • Become a Member
  • About
    • Staff
    • Press
    • Newsletter
    • Boards & Experts
    • Jobs & Internships
    • Financials and Annual Reports
    • Contact Us
  • Donate
  • Search
You are here: Home / Legislative Analysis / The Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty Preservation Act of 2017

March 15, 2017

The Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty Preservation Act of 2017

Introduced: February 16, 2017

Sponsors:

  • Senate version: Senators Tom Cotton (R-Arkansas), Ron Johnson (R-Wisconsin) and Marco Rubio (R-Florida)
  • House version: Congressmen Ted Poe (R-Texas) and Mike Rogers (R-Alabama)

Summary of the Proposed Legislation

In response to Russia’s alleged deployment of a ground-launched cruise missile in violation of the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty, Republican lawmakers introduced the Intermediate Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty Preservation Act of 2017 in the House (House Resolution 1182) and Senate (Senate Resolution 430). The proposed legislation includes a number of provisions intended to pressure Russia into compliance with the INF treaty, including:

  • Establishing a program of record for a dual-capable road-mobile ground launched cruise missile system within INF ranges, with the goal of testing the system within one year
  • Seeking additional missile defense assets in the European theater
  • Facilitating the acquisition and transfer of missile systems within INF ranges to allied countries
  • Limiting funds for the extension of the New Strategic Armament Reduction Treaty (New START) beyond its expiration in 2021
  • Limiting funds for the Open Skies Treaty
  • Conducting a policy review to determine whether Russia’s RS-26 ballistic missile is countable under New START and in violation of the INF Treaty.

Problems

Although the proposed legislation is called the INF Treaty Preservation Act, it is more likely to undermine the INF treaty than preserve it.

  • Developing and potentially testing a cruise missile within INF Treaty ranges would place the United States out of compliance with the agreement. This response would more likely jump-start an arms race than bring Russia into compliance.
  • The NATO ballistic missile defense system currently being implemented in Europe (the European Phased Adaptive Approach or EPAA) has already caused tensions between NATO and Russia, as well as within the alliance. Seeking additional missile defense assets in the European theater is likely to exacerbate the problem without increasing American or allied security.
  • Limiting funds for the extension of the New START treaty beyond 2021 would remove caps on Russia’s strategic launchers and deployed nuclear warheads, as well as important transparency measures that significantly improve our understanding of Russia’s nuclear arsenal.
  • Limiting funds for the Open Skies Treaty would further reduce trust and transparency between the two countries, and negatively impact American intelligence capabilities.
  • The bill reduces critical nuclear non-proliferation activities by $500 million dollars to offset the costs of its proposed programs.
  • While not a strict violation of the INF treaty, facilitating the acquisition and transfer of missile systems within INF ranges to allies would violate the spirit of the agreement, and could incentivize Russia to continue its violations. U.S. allies may also be reluctant to acquire such missile systems.
  • Boosting cruise missile defenses, as requested by the bill, would be challenging and costly, and the U.S. does not yet have a viable system that could defend against cruise missiles like Russia’s SSC-8, the missile alleged to be in violation of the INF Treaty.

 

Posted in: Legislative Analysis

Recent Posts

  • Council: Front and Center: August 20, 2023 August 21, 2023
  • Research Analyst July 26, 2023
  • Council: Front and Center: July 23, 2023 July 23, 2023
  • U.S. destroys last of massive chemical weapons stockpile July 7, 2023
  • Statement on the Passing of Daniel Ellsberg June 18, 2023
Council for a Livable World logo

820 1st Street NE, Suite LL-180
Washington, D.C. 20002
Phone: 202.543.4100

Elections

  • Meet The Candidates
  • Senate Candidates
  • House Candidates
  • Who We’ve Helped Elect

Legislation

  • Key National Security Legislation
  • National Security Legislative Calendar
  • Legislative Achievements

Take Action

  • Issues
  • Join Our Email List
  • Become a Member

About

  • History & Mission
  • Staff
  • Press
  • Newsletter
  • Boards & Experts
  • Jobs & Internships
  • Financials and Annual Reports
  • Contact Us
  • Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation
  • Twitter
  • YouTube
  • Instagram
  • Facebook

© 2023 Council for a Livable World
Privacy Policy