Entry details

Chirol
Author

Chirol

Date

June 10th, 2009

Tags

, , , ,

Comments

4 Comments so far.
Add yours.

Arms Control Notes

With arms control talks underway between the US and Russia, a Russia general noted

Russia must keep at least 1,500 nuclear warheads after talks with the United States on a new arms treaty, Interfax news agency quoted the commander of Russia’s Strategic Nuclear Forces as saying Wednesday. If Moscow’s final position reflects Colonel-General Nikolai Solovtsov’s view, it would mean Russia is not willing to cut its stockpiles by more than a few hundred strategic warheads – far less than some arms control bodies had hoped.

One of the most critical things to pay attention to in news like this is whether they are discussing strategic or tactical nuclear weapons. The article does not make it clear but from what I know, I suspect he means strategic weapons, i.e. larger yield and long range ones. It would therefore not include the thousands of smaller tactical warheads Russia has and which it has refused to reduce or give up. Thus, be wary of any ‘progress’ or agreement that does not specifically mention both types.

Given Russia’s size and the threats it faces on its many borders, tactical weapons are of great use and importance to Moscow, whereas they are not for the United States which finds itself in a very different geographic and security situation. The real danger here is that the current administration, which seems intent on disarming the United States while EVERY other country is increasing its arsenal, will agree to cuts in our forces that do NOT include Russia’s tactical weapons being dismantled. Therefore, while you would read news articles on Russia’s and America’s numbers being about the same, they’d only be counting strategic forces and thus not actually revealing the much weaker and vulnerable position the US would have put itself in.

Comments to this entry

Ralph Hitchens
June 10, 2009
9:23 pm
I don't think the Russian military leadership has changed much since the late Soviet era, and they clearly have a problem seeing the non-utility of nuclear weapons in today's world. They really had a problem understanding "mutually assured destruction" back in the day, a concept on which the Politburo fortunately had a much better grasp. Another factor in play is Russia's substantial lag in precision weapons delivery technology; the US can do quite a lot with conventional means, which makes our deterrent posture considerably less reliant on nuclear weapons. Both factor into the General Staff's desire to retain more nuclear warheads than we believe necessary for deterrent purposes.
Chirol
June 11, 2009
4:16 pm
Ralph: You make a very good point about conventional weapons and the huge difference between the US and Russian capability. I should have noted that myself. Thanks!
Munro Ferguson
June 11, 2009
11:43 pm
This post and the commentary jarred a memory loose:
If I recall correctly wasn't there a potential contingency under SecDef Rumsfeld to load ICBM's w/conventional warheads allowing delivery of non-nuke intercontinental precision strikes?
Thomas
June 12, 2009
2:13 pm
It's also important to note that weapons with a yield of 12 kTn, approximately that of Hiroshima, are considered tactical nukes by today's standards. A tactical nuke can still destroy a small city so to ignore or dismiss such weapons is pretty foolish.