“The reward of a thing well done is to have done it.” – Ralph Waldo Emerson
*The Cold War was not a quiet standoff — it was a thunderous, nerve-wracking, world-spanning duel between two nuclear giants: the United States and the Soviet Union. The stakes were existential; the weapons were apocalyptic. Across the Iron Curtain, an invisible clock ticked, counting down to the moment one mistake, one misunderstanding, one flash of aggression could set off nuclear war.
This is the story of the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty, a hard-won diplomatic breakthrough born not from friendship, but from fear. It emerged in an era when missiles could cross continents in minutes, transforming Europe into a chessboard of targets. For a fleeting moment, the INF Treaty offered the world a glimpse of what cooperation between rivals could achieve. But as history teaches, even the mightiest trees of peace can be uprooted by shifting winds of power.
The Long Road to Arms Control: Wrestling the Nuclear Genie
The horror of Hiroshima and Nagasaki marked the birth of the nuclear age. These were not ordinary bombs — they were civilization-ending devices, their mushroom clouds signalling to the world that human survival itself now hung in the balance.
In 1957, the international community took its first, tentative step toward taming the nuclear threat by creating the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). Its mission was to balance the promise of nuclear energy with the peril of nuclear weapons, ensuring that the atom served humanity, not destroyed it.
But the 1960s brought new alarms. Nuclear tests had poisoned the skies, lands, and oceans. After the near catastrophe of the Cuban Missile Crisis, where the world stood on the brink of all-out nuclear war, the U.S., the Soviet Union, and the U.K. signed the Limited Test Ban Treaty (1963), banning atmospheric and underwater nuclear tests. It was a small, but meaningful, step toward sanity.
Still, nuclear proliferation marched on. The Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) of 1968 sought to halt the spread of nuclear arms, asking non-nuclear states to abstain and nuclear powers to pursue disarmament. While critics accused the nuclear states of failing to deliver on their promises, the NPT became the backbone of global nuclear governance.
By the 1970s, the sheer scale of U.S. and Soviet arsenals forced both superpowers to confront the unsustainable madness of the arms race. SALT I (1972) produced two key agreements: the Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty, preventing the creation of defensive shields that could make a first strike tempting, and an interim freeze on offensive missile numbers. SALT II (1979) went even further — but the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan shattered trust, and the U.S. Senate refused to ratify it. Despite this, both nations informally adhered to its limits for a time.
Crisis in Europe: The SS-20 Challenge and NATO’s Gamble
In the late 1970s, the Soviet Union introduced a game-changer: the SS-20 Saber. This mobile, intermediate-range ballistic missile carried three independently targetable nuclear warheads and could strike Western Europe with devastating speed and precision. It was more accurate, more mobile, and more survivable than earlier models — and it tilted the military balance in Europe sharply.
NATO faced an agonizing choice. Abandon Europe to vulnerability? Or escalate its own nuclear posture?
In December 1979, NATO unveiled its Dual-Track Decision — a delicate dance of deterrence and diplomacy. The alliance would negotiate with the Soviet Union to limit intermediate-range nuclear forces, but it also prepared to deploy 108 Pershing II ballistic missiles and 464 ground-launched cruise missiles (GLCMs) in Europe if talks failed. It was a bold bid to pressure Moscow without surrendering the strategic high ground.
Enter U.S. President Ronald Reagan, who in 1981 proposed the Zero Option: the U.S. would cancel its European deployments if the Soviets dismantled all SS-20s. To Reagan, it was “a simple proposal — one might say, disarmingly simple.” But to the Soviets, it seemed one-sided, ignoring the British and French nuclear arsenals. Talks stalled. Tensions rose. By 1983, the Soviets walked away from negotiations, and Europe braced for a new wave of missile deployments.
Reagan, Gorbachev, and the Fragile Breakthrough
Then came a spark of hope. In 1985, Mikhail Gorbachev rose to power in the Soviet Union. A reformer, Gorbachev understood that the arms race was draining Soviet strength and crippling its economy.
At the Geneva Summit (1985), Reagan and Gorbachev declared jointly, “A nuclear war cannot be won and must never be fought.” The Reykjavík Summit (1986) came agonizingly close to a sweeping agreement but ultimately fell short.
Finally, at the Washington Summit (1987), history turned. On December 8, 1987, Reagan and Gorbachev signed the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty, eliminating all ground-launched ballistic and cruise missiles with ranges between 500 and 5,500 kilometres.
Reagan exulted at the ceremony: “The numbers alone demonstrate the value of this agreement. On the Soviet side, over 1,500 deployed warheads will be removed… On our side, our entire complement of Pershing II and ground-launched cruise missiles… will all be destroyed.”
Gorbachev echoed the sentiment: “This is the first-ever agreement eliminating nuclear weapons… It offers a big chance at last to get onto the road leading away from the threat of catastrophe… We can be proud of planting this sapling, which may one day grow into a mighty tree of peace.”
By June 1, 1991, a total of 2,692 missiles had been destroyed under rigorous inspections, marking one of the most successful arms control achievements of the era.
Inside the INF Treaty: A New Gold Standard for Arms Control
The INF Treaty was revolutionary. It didn’t just limit weapons; it eliminated entire categories.
Covered weapons included:
- Intermediate-range missiles (1,000–5,500 km)
- Shorter-range missiles (500–1,000 km)
For the U.S., that meant Pershing II and BGM-109G cruise missiles. For the Soviets, it included SS-20s, SS-4s, SS-5s, and SSC-X-4 cruise missiles.
Verification was ground-breaking. On-site inspections, baseline counts, short-notice visits, and continuous monitoring at production sites were baked into the treaty. For the first time, American inspectors monitored the Soviet factory at Votkinsk, and Soviet inspectors monitored the U.S. site at Magna, Utah.
The timeline was strict: half the missiles destroyed within 29 months, all gone by June 1991. Missiles were dismantled, destroyed, or launched to destruction under inspectors’ watchful eyes.
The Cracks Appear: Accusations and Collapse
But treaties are only as strong as the trust behind them.
Russia accused the U.S. of breaching the treaty by deploying Aegis Ashore systems in Romania and Poland, arguing they could fire banned cruise missiles.
Meanwhile, the U.S. charged Russia with secretly developing the 9M729 (SSC-8) cruise missile, which allegedly exceeded the range limits. By 2017, the U.S. declared Russia in “material breach,” and in 2019, President Donald Trump announced:
“We will not remain constrained by its terms while Russia misrepresents its actions… We stand ready to engage with Russia on arms control negotiations that meet these criteria… This would be a fantastic thing for Russia and the United States, and would also be great for the world.”
Russia followed suit. Putin declared Russia’s suspension, lamenting:
“The unilateral withdrawal by the United States… creates major complications for world affairs and brings about serious risks for everyone… This scenario could signal a new start for an unfettered arms race.”
The Global Ripples: A Return to Dangerous Times
With the treaty’s collapse, the world returned to an era of strategic instability.
The U.S. quickly tested previously banned missiles. Russia began developing new intermediate-range systems. China, never bound by the treaty, continued expanding its missile forces, reshaping Asia’s security dynamics.
Perhaps most troubling, the fall of the INF Treaty undermined confidence in arms control itself, threatening the survival of the New START treaty — the last major agreement capping U.S. and Russian strategic arsenals.
Legacy and Lessons: The Cost of Lost Diplomacy
The INF Treaty was a beacon of what was possible — proof that bitter rivals could find common ground and roll back nuclear dangers. It was not just a diplomatic triumph; it was a humanitarian one, cutting the risk of annihilation, however briefly.
But its demise reminds us that arms control is fragile. Treaties are not self-sustaining; they depend on the political will and mutual trust of their signatories. Without sustained commitment, even the most promising agreements can unravel.
As the world faces a new century of rising great powers, emerging technologies, and unpredictable conflicts, leaders must choose: repeat the arms race of the past or chart new paths toward cooperative security. The stakes could not be higher.
Because, as history warns, the absence of rules is not freedom — it is chaos.
Interested to know more about the historic events that led to our current global turmoil, please check out my book: “Global Hegemony A Strategic Illusion”.
Why This Book Matters Now
With the world once again teetering on the edge of geopolitical rupture, this book is a must-read for scholars, diplomats, strategists—and every citizen who dares to ask, “How did we get here?”
This is your invitation to step behind the veil of power and witness how the illusion was built.
Copyright © 2025 by Bahaa Arnouk. All rights reserved. This article or any portion thereof may not be reproduced or used in any manner whatsoever without the express written permission of the author.
This blog should NOT be read as either an investment, political, legal or a business advice, and it only represents the author’s views (Bahaa Arnouk) and does not represent any other body or organization perspectives, and the author has no liability for any reliance or reference made to it by any third party.
#INFTreaty; #Intermediate-rangenuclearmissiles; #ColdWar; #U.S.-Russiaarmscontrol; #SS-20Saber; #PershingII; #GLCMs; #ZeroOption; #ReaganandGorbachev; #Nucleardisarmament; #Verificationregime; #Treatyviolations; #NATO-Russiatensions; #Armsrace; #NewSTARTtreaty; #Strategicstability; #Nucleardiplomacy; #Globalsecurity;