Cold War redux : global security architecture being dismantled

The abandonment of the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty between the United States and Russia is being seen as an inflexion point in the arms race.

Signed in 1987, the treaty banned not nuclear weapons but nuclear arms delivery systems. Before this pact, Soviet nuclear-tipped missiles could hit all Nato capitals in Europe within minutes. Equally, US missiles based in Western Europe would strike Moscow within six minutes or so. A Soviet counterstrike against Washington, however, would take 30 minutes to reach its target. Moscow feared a pre-emptive attack by the West that could destroy its leadership. So the Soviets agreed to remove their intermediate-range missiles and the US agreed to do the same.Thus about 2,700 missiles from Europe and Asia were decommissioned by June 1991 and everyone breathed easier for a while.

Now, both sides blame each other for the treaty's demise. Both sides have said that they will start making new missiles with ranges of 1,000 to 5,000 kilometres. Whatever the reality about each other's claims and counter claims, it is clear that Washington has felt it was at a disadvantage when it came to dealing with China's coastal defences.

China was not party to the INF treaty and in the 1990s built up its own missile arsenal. Beijing developed a range of short-, medium-, and intermediate-range missiles, all of which can carry nuclear arms. These missiles have proved useful in intimidating Taiwan and its neighbours to the south - and pose a threat to US aircraft carriers.

The Cold War era global security architecture is being dismantled piece by piece. It could well be argued that the most important brick in that edifice was the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) treaty which was abrogated in 2002 by the US. The treaty limited ABM systems used in defending against missile-delivered nuclear weapons and kept the superpowers from attempting surprise attacks on each other. But the Bush administration claimed it needed to develop an Anti-Missile System to protect its allies from Iranian and North Korean missiles. There was scant evidence that either of these two countries had any intention to strike Nato countries or US allies in Asia or even the means to do so. Indeed, Russian President Vladimir Putin, speaking after showing off his nation's new missile weaponry last year, said that a renewed arms race began with the end of the ABM treaty. The Chinese are unhappy that, with the INF treaty termination, the US will site new intermediate missiles in its Pacific bases that can bring its booming coastal cities within target range within minutes.

So what's next on the horizon? Some experts feel that the New START (Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty) will be next to go. Signed in 2010 between the US and Russia, it limits the deployed forces of both nations to 1,550 nuclear warheads over 700 delivery systems, including inter-continental ballistic missiles, submarine-launched ballistic missiles, and bombers. The treaty expires in 2021, but Trump administration officials say it may have already outlived its usefulness.

All three major military powers are in a race to develop hypersonic weapons.These missiles combine speed - at many times the speed of sound - with agility. For now, there is no effective defence against such weapons. And it's reported that India, France, Japan and even Australia are also trying to build up their own hypersonic missile systems. Cold War Redux may prove even more nerve racking than the first time round.