Tactical nuclear stumbling block

A few days back the ceremony of inauguration of re-elected U.S. President Barack Obama. This means that even at this point, control States has the ability to deal with severe political, economic and diplomatic affairs, not being distracted by the election of the problem. So Makarov, has most recently expect new proposals and expressions of official Washington by one or another dilemma. One of the most important issues of international relations is nuclear disarmament, or at least, control available supplies of such weapons. What could be the prospects of this business?

Tactical nuclear stumbling block

First, it should be noted that no nuclear power, including the United States, is not going to absolutely renounce nuclear weapons. Pruning can be, but the complete decommissioning of nuclear weapons out of the question. Moreover, the topic of dispute remain even volume and the rate of reduction of strategic weapons. Noteworthy that the part of American officials at times you can hear a certain extent encouraging expression. For example, Senator John Kerry, claiming the U.S. secretary of state, at a meeting of the Congress said that if they wanted the existing conditions do not allow completely abandon nuclear weapons and therefore can only work to reduce their number to a viable level. Taking into account the fact that the purpose of Kerry Secretary of State can be considered almost a fait accompli, these expressions are at the moment you can take some hint as to continued international cooperation in reducing nuclear arsenals.

At the same time, this is still a hint of the real and the acts of the American authorities can go completely the other way. The fact is that at this point all of the major international treaties concerning strategic nuclear weapons. They're all more or less clear, there are international restrictions and fees, designed to look after all criteria are met. But tactical nuclear weapons as before virtually not regulated. The only deterrent in this area remain voluntary initiatives nuclear powers. Because, according to the Washington, long time to make the control system for the tactical nuclear weapon, such as the one applied in the field of strategic weapons. A number of professionals believes that such agreements will be able to significantly advance the nuclear disarmament. At the same time, samples of control over tactical nuclear weapon potential enemy or political partner can make all the negotiations to a standstill.

First, control of tactical nuclear weapons is hampered by the fact that the earlier these things just does not occur. Because only one practicing all the required procedures can be time-consuming. In addition, the establishment of a monitoring mechanism for tactical nuclear weapons will certainly be confronted with severe problems. First, prevent the introduction of features such munitions. In most cases, nuclear charge can be used guns or tactical missiles, intended for non-nuclear munitions. In other words, the howitzer "MSTA" or missile complex "Iskander", depending on the tactical necessity, can shoot both nuclear warheads and conventional. So Makarov, for the control of tactical nuclear weapons would have to track down virtually all of its proper part of the armed forces: the parts, warehouses, etc. It is easy to guess that not a single nuclear power will not go to such conditions.

It is also worth noting that even in the provision of access to army bases control of tactical nuclear weapons continue to be very, very difficult. The fact is that, in contrast to strategic nuclear weapons, tactical rather difficult to distinguish from conventional. In addition, the deployment of similar weapons is not asking a lot of time. In practice, the speed setting on duty, such as tactical air-based nuclear missiles depends on the efficiency of warehouse and technical staff. In the end, after the suspension of the missile under the wing of a bomber pretty hard to understand what exactly it is part of the battle. As a result, for the reliable tracking of tactical nuclear weapons again, still have to go back to the idea of complete control over the bases and warehouses.

Similar methods for tracking quantities of tactical nuclear weapons could almost knock on the defense of any country. Fully say that in addition to actually count the shells or missiles with nuclear "stuffing" parties to a contract will be interested in artillery and missile launchers for them. Because of this, can be fully this development, which in the end no matter what mnogokalibernaya artillery or missile system will be considered as a potential object of attention. As a consequence, even at the stage of development criteria of the contract for the joint control of the instrument will start misunderstanding each other or even diplomatic scandals. So the likely creation and signing of agreements on tactical nuclear weapons at the present time it seems unlikely because of the mass of related disputes, which are unlikely to be solved not only in recent times, and in general.

Is noteworthy that in recent years the South American side in the talks on nuclear disarmament often tries to translate the conversation on the topic of similar arms tactical level. As you know, these tests may not lead to a Hassle-positive result for both parties. In this case, specifically in this area is experiencing one of the greatest tensions in Russian-American relations. The fact that Americans believe in a number of circumstances Russian tactical nuclear tool an important part of Russian military capabilities, it also behold the specific hazards associated with the European geopolitics. Because Congress often recalls the military, diplomats and the president about the need to start negotiations on vsepolnotsennyh this dilemma. Our homeland, in turn, sees South American concern and does not want to make any concessions in this area. In the end, all talks on complete nuclear disarmament run into the problem of tactical weapons and can not move on.

Perhaps in the future, after defining new criteria for the reduction of strategic nuclear weapons, the situation will change in the best possible way. But this will not interfere with a number of reasons. In-1's, in the way of reduction of nuclear arsenals are a missile defense system. As the creators of the Euro-Atlantic missile defense system does not want to give a guarantee of its being directed against Russia, the forthcoming reduction in the number of available and deployed charges are not entirely advisable. In-2, constant reduction in the number of strategic nuclear weapons increases the priority of tactical nuclear weapons, because in some kinds of cases they specifically are the main deterrent inventory regional scale.

It is easy to guess that because of all these reasons, the coming cuts in nuclear arsenals is a huge issue. However, even when certain of success all new talks all will be the least and the least successful, as the country will literally traded for each nuclear charge. In conjunction with an incomprehensible situation around the Euro-Atlantic missile defense system does not allow all hope for a successful final negotiations. In addition, no one can guarantee that the new talks Disarmament, which will be held in the last while, do not begin with a look at it several times to the issues discussed. And while it is impossible to assert with confidence that these issues even ever going to get out of the category of a fundamentally unsolvable.

It turns out that under the current situation forces and v
iews the problem of nuclear disarmament is in a rather difficult position. The already difficult talks only compounded by the fact a number of related issues that apparently no one wants to solve. In addition, is a typical exchange of pleasantries: U.S. willing to look for Russian tactical nuclear weapon, and our homeland, in turn, longs to get confirmation of the absence of evil plans pursued by the Euro-Atlantic missile defense system. Because of these 2-political moments all samples continue cooperation in nuclear disarmament until doomed to failure. Hardly any of the first states to agree to make concessions without receiving assurances response. Such acts may be, and look amazing, but given the importance of the things that go around the controversy, the kind of negotiations varies considerably.

Completely obvious that no one wants to lose, and longs only benefit. So do not be surprised if the results of the new international negotiations to be expressed an old arguments and presentation. At first, this would apply to the first "round" of negotiations. Perhaps the situation could change certain actions, such as entering into agreements on the reduction of nuclear weapons third States. But Britain, France, China, Pakistan or India are in no hurry to initiate negotiations on the signing of international treaties. If they do not want to take on the obligations related to the strategic nuclear weapon, what can we talk about the tactical. It should be noted, England have refused to tactical nuclear weapons, and its entire nuclear shield in current time rests only on the strategic ammunition. The rest of the country do not even think to walk in the footsteps of Britain and disarm at least in part. So all of the likely future agreements on tactical nuclear weapons depends only on the 2-states: the Russian Federation and the United States.

According to the materials of websites:

Like this post? Please share to your friends: