Brody's and Chow's opinion piece condemning the INF treaty is an earnest but ultimately self-defeating attack upon the first real arms-reduction agreement in history. Several points deserve a rebuttal.
- Brody and Chow complain that the treaty is "intrinsically unverifiable" without offering a shred of evidence to support their argument. Even stranger, then, is their call for allowing conventionally armed cruise missiles while banning those armed with nuclear warheads. That proposal is intrinsically and dangerously unverifiable since the two versions are identical in appearance.
- Stockpiling ground-launched cruise missiles while pretending they are sea-launched cruise missiles is foolish for the simple reason that for such missiles to be useful they need ground-support equipment and trained personnel to operate them. Cruise missiles might be surreptitiously stockpiled but it would be nearly impossible for either the U.S. or the Soviet Union to train with or deploy them without the other knowing.
- Since U.S. and NATO aircraft will remain somewhat vulnerable in spite of the agreement, a simple response would be to place more of these systems on Quick Reaction Alert, for example the 70 aircraft on the two aircraft carriers cruising the Mediterranean.