Again, the «nuclear zero»

Again, the

Russian-American dialogue on START at some point will continue, he says long interests of both sides
Sergei Oznobischev

Publish articles about world Burenka Basil and Leo Lysenko «Legends of nuclear disarmament.» Before going into details, it is worth recalling those configurations that have occurred in the external world and in ourselves. I believe that most experts remember how Russian Alliance has always considered himself «a haven of peace.» I am sure that the creators of articles in the «MIC» well aware of the fact that the postwar structure of the world revolved around an axis not only nuclear, and ideological confrontation between the USSR and the USA. And the Communist Party ideologues were convinced that a future war that will unleash the imperialists, bury under capitalism as a system.

But — phenomenon here — «Moscow Russian» constantly with all possible tribunes called for nuclear disarmament and the complete elimination of nuclear weapons. And in fact constantly conducted bilateral and multilateral negotiations on arms reduction and elimination.

When this is happening even when the United States got involved in the «imperialist war.» So, historical agreement — START-1 (Contract on Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty) and ABM Contract (Contract of the Anti-Ballistic Missile) in 1972 were signed in Moscow at the height of the Vietnam war, unleashed by Washington.

Nuclear war no one is going to hold

Why Russian management went on arms reductions? It is understood that this process is a candidate escalation of the arms race, which Russian inefficient economy even in the criteria of global confrontation, indeed ongoing in all regions of the world, just do not survive. One hundred percent cause an arms race «back to normal» failed, and the continuing confrontation continued to devour large funds, which ultimately had intended to undermine the country’s economy and the destruction of Russian Union.

» Russian control is not dreaded agreements on arms control and nuclear weapons deepest cuts «
Why the USSR was not afraid to make cuts START? Russian control is not dreaded agreements on arms control and nuclear weapons deepest cuts as reasonably relied on experts, these agreements are developing, and hence was confident that an agreement concluded by the system are accompanied by a painstaking process of checks and subject to rigorous control reductions at all steps. If it appeared concern about the new systems, the successful implementation of agreements already concluded, unchanging continuity process cuts maintain adequate cooperation and trust, creating the necessary base to discuss new problems and new agreements.

That still changed at the moment? Nuclear war no one is going to hold, and destruction of, which as a «this plan» West ranting many Russian so called political scientists — very unprofitable and pointless project, available exclusively in their own fevered minds. But once again slipping from the arms race (the quality and arhidorogoy rather than quantitative) and slide into the deepest economic crisis by putting under risk internal stability in Russia, we can fully. If, of course, come down from the path and subsequent reductions in yield to own exaggerated confidence trick … But confidence is strengthened negotiation and implementation of the agreements and not waiver from them. But apparently we are so frightened by us ourselves anti-Americanism and anti-Westernism heated that refuse to accept the truth, even such ordinary working in decades.

In «Legends of nuclear disarmament» creators criticize calls for nuclear disarmament, believing that this idea can not be realized in the foreseeable future. But the statement that «nuclear zero» can not be implemented in the current and foreseeable military-political situation, long has become common place and needs no confirmation of such trained professionals, as the creators of this article.

However, common slogans and calls for complete nuclear disarmament have been and can remain in the arsenals of PR actions favorites democratic countries, including Russia. And they appeared for a long time to form an international group Global Zero, which is criticized in the article «Legends of nuclear disarmament.» This organization from the outset own education announced as the main goal of eliminating all nuclear weapons in the world by 2030. But I do not know any of the approximately 10-ka other organizations related to the strengthening of the nuclear non-proliferation and the forthcoming reduction of nuclear arsenals that would support the position of Global Zero. Well and in the organization itself has long been not hear calls to eliminate all nuclear weapons by 2030. Now there it is only about reducing its supplies.

And this is fundamentally the difference between the elimination of nuclear weapons and its reduction to reasonable limits, which did not want to see the creators of the film, constantly connecting these concepts. Here, for example, they categorically say: «Any proposals and initiatives concerning the need and the necessity to reduce the potential of nuclear confrontation between the U.S. and Russia in modern conditions are unacceptable.» Despite the introduction of a new concept for something (potential nuclear confrontation between the U.S. and Russia), we can guess that it is the reduction of nuclear weapons. But as evidence of the creators refer to some article, which, as they say, «impressively proved that the total elimination of nuclear weapons is more consistent with U.S. strategic interests.» So all the same, gentlemen, what you says — on the Elimination or Reduction?

If you open a discussion outside the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START), the evidence inadmissible proposals Barack Obama to reduce them in Russia and the U.S. on the third part of the capital compared with START Contract (up to 1,000-1,100 warheads) are skilled creators do not lead. But here, it would seem, they are the cards based on the belief of both deterrence capabilities and prices. Can be completely at 1000 warheads in START sides disappears sense application disarming strike, and the potential response is increasing. Especially since the fascinating problem of costs.

Dialogue with the U.S. will save traditional media

The creators of articles in the «MIC» should keep in mind that the results of the data exchange on October 1, 2013 the number of deployed carrier Russia amounted to 473 units, which is 19 units less than it was in March this year. Number of warheads on deployed carriers decreased by 80 and 1,400 pieces. In the U.S., the number of deployed delivery vehicles increased from 792 to 809 and the number of warheads on deployed carriers increased by 34 units — until 1688. Besides that, the brand new treaty by carriers deployed in both countries in 2018 should not exceed 700 units, and the number of warheads on deployed carriers — less than 1550 pieces. In other words, we are ahead of huge supplies and fulfill the terms of this contract. And even more so it was possible to understand the revelation of the former Minister of Defense, said the level of the new contract, moving from the bottom, we will reach the number of warheads by 2018, and Object — 2028-th.

So maybe advisable to preserve the large traditional means and not to leave the idea of ​​dialogue with the United States regarding the characteristics of these cuts? Naturally, the action around Crimea complicate this puzzle, but in any case, future times do not promise an easy life.

The fact that the subsequent management of the White House (especially in the wake of «postkrymskogo syndrome») will be, regardless of party affiliation, to adhere to a rigid band towards Russia and talks with her.

Republicans, for example, has long criticized the U.S. administration for the START treaty with us. They say that these contracts are profitable only Russia since the U.S. forced to reduce instrument that in Russia reduced natural method without any contracts. And in any case, with respect to the last two decades is indeed so. We Contract START-1 performed a few years earlier due to aging missile. Wrong because the creators of the article is that the U.S. can not upset the balance of strategic nuclear forces due to contractual restrictions. If they want to upset the balance that could completely now remain at the level of the Contract START-1 (6,000 warheads), and we would be without contracts came to today’s 1,400 warheads.

May appear a natural question: Why, then, the United States, knowing our situation, we offer a subsequent contract? Apparently, the first order for the treaty monitoring system is to ensure transparency of state parties to START and avoid unpredictable steps in this field.

Significant place in the aforementioned article take arguments about the dangers of inappropriate as a possible aspect to determine the required level of START, but in the end the creators come to a pretty obvious and well-known assertion that this aspect is completely unsuitable for the goal because of its subjectivity. You can only support their conclusion that one should not exaggerate the U.S. missile defense system, «… as a direct military threat, as well as the ability of newly deployed U.S. missile defense systems in terms of inflated estimates of the probability of interception means of nuclear retaliation. Especially since it is not necessary to respond to any panic, often fabulous details «sverhvydayuschegosya» abilities of those or other developments not yet published on the stage of successful flight tests. » In other words, in the case of a nuclear exchange is hypothetical missile not protect the area of ​​the country from hundreds of nuclear warheads.

Americans have long considered unacceptable afford even one nuclear explosion in a major city. Good to see and we also took unacceptable harm.

Plenty of space in the commented article takes attitude to the creators of the concept of nuclear deterrence. They note: «One can often hear that nuclear deterrence in the criteria of globalization and increasing interdependence of the world becomes an anachronism. This position found a reflection in the article, Henry Kissinger, Sam Nunn and other creators placed first in the U.S. in 2008 and found a new awareness and support supporters of nuclear disarmament in Russia. » Totally could be noted that among these supporters have such well-known in the country and the world, people like Yevgeny Primakov, Igor Ivanov, Yevgeny Velikhov and Misha Moiseev — creators of the article «From nuclear deterrence to common security,» posted in October 2010.

In this famous article, namely, emphasizes: «A world without nuclear weapons — it does not today’s world minus nuclear weapon. Requires an international system built in almost all other principles and institutions. A world free of nuclear weapons, should not become free world for the wars with the use of other weapons of mass destruction, ordinary armed forces, the newest non-nuclear armaments and systems based on new physical principles. » And further: «to nuclear deterrence did not prevent the interaction of the major players on the world stage, you need a method to lower levels of armaments contracts based on the principle of low-sufficiency, strengthen strategic stability in the context of equal and indivisible security for all, eliminate the possibility of a nuclear first strike or missile launch due to a technical malfunction and incorrect assessment purposes other hand, lack of time or the decision of political management. New Contract START meets these goals, but almost everyone in this area remains to be done. «

Anti-Americanism — daily bread professionals

So Makar, authoritative experts at our country have long been explained what a world without nuclear weapons, and prove again the same theorem does not make sense. As well as not meaningful and continuing confusion «reduction of nuclear weapons» and «zero nuclear potential of Russia» not having anything in common among themselves. There are also severe and differences between nuclear deterrence in general and mutual nuclear deterrence Russia and the U.S..

Anti-Americanism in our country now so necessary that turned into bread for most professionals, political scientists and politicians. It imposes, unfortunately, an indelible imprint on the quality of analysis of the U.S. proposals in the field of security, the level of trust between Moscow and Washington.

The creators of the article «Legends of nuclear disarmament» dubbed the U.S. proposal to reduce by a third of the arsenals START and save on costs «verbal husks U.S. disarmament initiatives» And beware of the management of the country from any positive reaction to them. Strictly specified and the expert community, «some professionals think this husk manna. An example of this — Vladimir Dvorkin article «The Transformation of strategic stability» number 8 in the journal «The global economy and international affairs» for 2013. Artfully terms facts, concepts and knowledge, this is really a highly spec carefully draws the little angel wings South American, apparently suffering from a misunderstanding of the Russian bear his good purposes. Calling for the mutual exchange of some technologies, Dworkin argues that mutual nuclear deterrence with 2-most massive nuclear countries should break up. «

It is a pity that so highly creators, unfortunately, joined the chorus of those who talks about the dangers of the American general and prefers not to go into details. Just Maj. Gen. retired Dvorkin, who led the last great military institute profile knows what technologies can be exchanged. Specifically, he was the creator of the presidents adopted 2-form of proposals to Moscow with U.S. Clearinghouse on missile launches. And if in the coming lacked the political will to end the already initiated the creation of such a center, then the exchange of information technologies and techniques have long been held. And now it can be implemented.

The creators also wrote: «In the same article Dworkin tries and can not explain the meaning of targeting Moscow 80 warheads American strategic nuclear forces (he estimates, would be enough and seven or eight). It is just beyond the threshold of common sense, but a very excellent psychology explains the South American angels, his unparalleled love for technology exchange. One of the «partners» USSR in 1941, built on the site of Moscow to arrange the lake — the same capable of making these 80 warheads. «

Here it is very necessary to try «not to see» how Dworkin mocks in his article «The Transformation of strategic stability» above the level of training of four-star general Prof. Cartwright, the report of which these 80 warheads to Moscow and figured. A presentation about Dworkin nuclear deterrence can be found at least in the implementation criteria Russian nuclear weapons in the past 2-Russian Federation military doctrine, as he was the creator of these criteria.

In conclusion, we can say the creators of the article «Legends of nuclear disarmament», states: «Only the creation and deployment of new Russian ICBMs and not zeroing Russian nuclear potential will serve to preserve strategic stability» that brightest performances against «zero nuclear potential of Russia» of which no one dreams, like fighting with a shadow, while from their own, constantly frightens all that is done and said overseas.

Naturally, the action around Crimea slow dialogue with the United States in several areas of security, arms reduction and limitation. But even in these criteria Russian President in a telephone conversation with the U.S. president «stressed the importance of the main Russian-American relations to ensure stability and security in the world.» Fully confident that bilateral dialogue on strategic offensive arms at some point will be continued for one reason only — it meets the interests of both long sides.

Sergei Oznobischev,
Director of the Institute for Strategic Assessments

 

Like this post? Please share to your friends: