Facing the Missile Challenge: Us Strategy and the Future of the Inf Treaty

Kearn, David W (2012). Facing the Missile Challenge: Us Strategy and the Future of the Inf Treaty (Report). Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation, The.

• Has attachment: File:BHQBX3WM.pdf

Abstract: This study examines the question of whether the Intermediate Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty continues to serve the security interests of the United States more than two decades after the Treaty’s signing. Weapon systems that the Treaty explicitly prohibits, land-based intermediaterange (500 to 5,500 km) ballistic and cruise missiles—whether conventionally or nuclear-armed—have emerged as central assets in the arsenals of a number of critical regional powers. These missiles present significant threats to U.S. forces abroad and allies, begging the question: Does the United States require similar capabilities, currently proscribed under the INF Treaty, to effectively respond to these challenges? If the answer is “yes,” then the constraints of the INF Treaty may, in fact, undermine U.S. national security interests. Conversely, given the extensive conventional military capabilities of the United States, there may be programs that can better address the threats of regional INF missiles forces in more cost-effective and operationally flexible ways

"...Moreover, while the Chinese missile buildup has placed U.S. forward bases such as Kadena and Kunsan at risk, it is highly unlikely that either country would seek or accept new U.S. INF missiles on their territory, limiting an initial U.S. deployment to Guam or other holdings in Micronesia. While South Korea hosts significant U.S. military capabilities, these are clearly dedicated to the deterrence and defense against a North Korean threat, and Seoul does not view China in the same way that Washington does..."

Extra details:

MAG: 3080104506
CorpusID: 230318019
OpenAlex: W3080104506