It's a testament to how much of imbecile Mikhail Gorbachev was...
Not at all... in the 1980s most IRBMs were armed with nukes and the short flight time would be measured in minutes and seconds.
This meant that Soviet retaliation capabilities had to be able to act in a few minutes otherwise an IRBM might destroy Moscow before a launch decision had been made leaving all of the Soviet weapons unlaunched as all the wests weapons were sent to the Soviet Union.
Such a situation with such a hair trigger for a full retaliation was very dangerous so removing all such weapons made the world much safer.
the Soviets had S-300P and S-300V which would have shot down the shorter range stuff but longer range missiles would have been a problem.
These days however there are two important factors.
First the accuracy of Russian guidance means conventional warheads can be as effective as nuclear warheads, and second Russian SAMs are entering service that can shoot down most IRBMs anyway and without the ABM treaty limiting radar location and direction Russia can set up a national ABM defence system of its own that will likely be quite effective and become more so over time.
If this treaty does "burn", do you think Russia will reveal the "true range" of the Iskander? I sure hope so!
Without the INF treaty the range of Iskander can be greatly increased very rapidly and with little effort.
Either way hoping both the INF and MTCR Treaties burn.
The MTCR treaty only effects exported weapons... and even then the US has violated this on several occasions selling long range weapons to allies.
I don't know Mike, to me the START treaty still holds some signifacance, but if the U.S keep pushing there luck like this then all treaties go out the fricking window, there's no point in restraining yourself when the enemy is at the flipping gates!!
START is useful, but if the US continues with its global ABM system then START becomes limiting for Russia... so...
In short, less nukes mean less Broken Arrows.
ICBMs are not related to broken arrows...
And new IRBMs would not need nuclear warheads as guidance accuracy and performance means conventional warheads are sufficient.
In my opinion, countries should be able to have as many nukes and ABM systems as they like.
The problem with ABM systems is that some countries might think they make them safe... they do not.
Having lots of ICBMs makes the world safer because of MAD. Having lots of ABMs makes the world less safe because the country with lots of ABM systems might think MAD no longer applies because it has ABMs and protect itself. Whether that is true or not it makes full scale nuclear war more likely rather than less likely... which is a bad thing IMHO.