A quarter-century after the end of the Cold War, the United States and Russia still possess thousands of nuclear weapons. Even so, some administration officials and members of Congress are pushing wasteful and dangerous plans to expand the numbers and capabilities of those weapons, threatening a web of arms control agreements that have ensured the stability of Russian and American arsenals that contain fully 90 percent of the world’s 15,000 nuclear weapons.

Congress is considering whether the United States should develop a new ground-launched cruise missile and withdraw from the 1987 Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty banning missiles with a range of up to about 3,000 miles, which give leaders little time to react. Signed by President Ronald Reagan and the Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev, the treaty ended a major threat to Europe.

The treaty worked well until Russia’s president, Vladimir Putin, angry at America’s deployment of missile defenses in Europe, declared in 2007 that it no longer served Russia’s interests and proceeded over the next decade to develop a new cruise missile. In 2014, the Obama administration said such a missile was tested in violation of the treaty, but failed to persuade Moscow to come back into compliance. Earlier this year, the Pentagon said Russia secretly deployed the missile, an even more serious violation.

To match Russia, some lawmakers have added funding for such missiles to the defense bills now working their way through Congress, even though Gen. Paul Selva, vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told Congress recently that missiles on American aircraft and ships can counter the new Russian weapons if needed. The House bill, approved 344 to 81 on July 14, also states that if the president finds Russia in violation of the treaty 15 months after the defense bill becomes law, the United States will not longer be bound by the treaty. The Senate has yet to act on its version of the bill.

The I.N.F. Treaty violation is complicated by the 2016 election hacking and other tensions. But America and its NATO allies can respond to it without a costly and unnecessary new missile that allies are likely to oppose. Continue reading.