Do Russian Nukes Still Threaten the US?

opinionet ^ | 05/18/2002 | David T. Pyne

[robotech]

    Home Page • Commentary • Opinion • Feedback

OpinioNet Contributed Commentary

OpinioNet Contributed Commentary - David T. Pyne

May 18, 2002

David T. Pyne

Do Russian Nukes Still Threaten the US?

---

May 18, 2002

[Note: This is Part II of a three part series on the Bush-Putin Nuclear Reduction Treaty]

As the recently released 2001 US Nuclear Posture Review has as one of its principle tenets for the Bush Administration¡¯s vast politically motivated reductions of the US strategic nuclear arsenal that Russia and its huge nuclear arsenal are no longer a threat and that the US nuclear arsenal need no longer match or deter Russia¡¯s strategic nuclear forces, it is important to take a closer look at the validity of that assumption. In examining the potential threat of nuclear attack from Russia, one must look first to capabilities and then to intentions. The 1995 US Nuclear Posture Review warned of the possibility of a quick shift in the intentions of the top Russian leadership stating, ¡°A significant shift in the Russian government into the hands of arch-conservatives could restore the strategic nuclear threat to the United States literally overnight.¡± President Vladimir Putin, a former director of the renamed KGB widely considered by Russia experts to be a Russian hard-liner, became Acting President in December 1999 and subsequently President of the Russian Federation an event that may well have ¡°restored¡± the Russian strategic nuclear threat to the United States.

Even if Putin¡¯s intentions were favorable to the United States as is now widely perceived, the Russian capability to stage a successful nuclear first strike against the United States which would destroy the bulk of our strategic nuclear deterrent and gravely weaken our capability to retaliate remains unchanged. Bush has declared his intention to rely not upon nuclear weapons to deter war and keep the nuclear peace as past US Presidents have done for nearly 60 years. Instead, Bush has stated that henceforth he will rely upon the good graces of the President of the Russian Federation to keep his promise to disarm to a similarly low level of deployed strategic nuclear weapons. Bush¡¯s trust in Russia to keep its promises flies in the face of a study done by the first Bush Administration in 1992 that concluded that Russia has violated every arms control treaty it has ever entered into including the START I Treaty. How soon the Bush Administration has forgotten President Reagan¡¯s time-honored slogan of ¡°peace through strength!¡±

Many well-meaning Americans believe that the US can afford to rid itself of several thousand ¡°excess¡± nukes since the Cold War is over and Russia is now our ¡°ally¡± in the war against terrorism. How well-balanced are the US and Russian nuclear arsenals today? Former Senator Sam Nunn and former Senate Majority Leader, Howard Baker, have written several articles citing estimates that Russia possesses a nuclear arsenal totaling approximately 40,000 warheads. In contrast, the US arsenal consists of no more than 10,000 to 11,000 total warheads, down from 30,000 in 1991. Equally disturbing is that according to sworn testimony by former Secretary of Defense, Secretary of Energy and Director of the Central Intelligence Agency, James Schlesinger to Congress in fall 1997, Russia continues to produce ¡°thousands¡± of miniaturized nuclear warheads a year despite the fact that the US closed its nuclear production plants almost a decade ago.

According to the Center for Security Policy and other think-tanks, US intelligence has never been able to ascertain the true size of the Russian strategic nuclear force and has issued estimates, which have consistently underestimated the size of the Russian nuclear force. US intelligence assumes as a matter of course that Russia will not deploy MIRV¡¯d warheads on its strategic missiles in excess of the START nuclear arms control treaties signed by the US and Russia in the early 1990s even though it has the technical capacity to deploy many times as many warheads on its missiles as are permitted by treaty and as are counted by US intelligence which always assumes Russian treaty compliance. In view of these facts, it seems dangerously naive to stop using the threat posed by the large Russian nuclear arsenal to determine the size of the US strategic nuclear deterrent and trust the Russians into believing that they have downloaded these additional warheads from their missiles when they have such a vast abundance of nuclear warheads in reserve.

A recent CIA study released last December, entitled ¡°Foreign Missile Developments and the Ballistic Missile Threat through 2015¡± reiterated the conclusion of past CIA reports in citing the Russian and Communist Chinese nuclear arsenals as the two greatest threats to this country. A much downsized US strategic nuclear arsenal would be more vulnerable than ever to a disabling Russian nuclear first strike and would leave us even more likely to Russian nuclear blackmail. Furthermore, the Bush Administration has repeatedly stated that the missile defense system they envision for the United States would be woefully insufficient to deter or defend against a Russian nuclear attack is not intended to defend the US against the Russian or Chinese nuclear threat, but rather against rogue state missile threats which are only now beginning to emerge.

Next up: Part III?Bush¡¯s Planned Signature of the Nuclear Arms Reduction Treaty will Herald the Beginning of the End for the US as a Superpower.

David T. Pyne

---

Read other commentaries by David T. Pyne.

About David T. Pyne

Copyright © 2002 by David T. Pyne
All Rights Reserved.

-Published with permission

---

OpinioNet.com is a production of: Webster-Design
© 1997-2002 by OpinioNet(tm), All Rights Reserved

[robotech]

More Nuclear weapons deployed and ready to use by the USA is a good thing, not a bad thing.

[Phantom Lord]

From what I understand, when the US and Russia signed an agreement that they would no longer "target" their missles on eachothers cities it was a giant scam and 100% symbolic. But not for the reason you might think.

I saw reports that the Russian nuclear missles launching and guidance systems prevented them from being aimed at anything BUT their cold war targets. In other words, it was IMPOSSIBLE for the Russians ICBMS to be targeted at anything other than their originally programed target.

Ours on the other hand can be aimed at anything we please within their range.

That is the threat Russias missles pose to the US.

[TrappedInLiberalHell]

Nukes don't threaten countries...people do.

[SoCo]

I heard in school that missiles on both sides can be reprogrammed back to their original targets in no time. For whatever that's worth.

[buffyt]

Nukes don't kill people, people kill people.

And unrelated
"Guns cause crime like flies cause garbage"

News Flash - This Just In:
France Surrenders!

[Phantom Lord]

From the report I spoke about in post #2, US missles can be programmed to hit a cold war target in under 10 seconds. Russias are programmed ONLY to hit cold war targets. They have no other targeting capability.

That was a good 3 or 4 years ago that i saw the report. It could be different now.

[rightwing2]

Russia possesses a nuclear arsenal totaling approximately 40,000 warheads. In contrast, the US arsenal consists of no more than 10,000 to 11,000 total warheads, down from 30,000 in 1991

Actually, the nuclear imbalance between the US and Russia is even worse than the author states. According to the NPR, the current US arsenal consists of only 8000 total nukes and will fall to around 3700 total warheads by 2012 when Bush's nuke cuts are completed. In other words, Russia currently has a five to one quantitative advantage over the US in nukes and could conceivably have as much as a ten to one advantage a decade from now if does not honor its obligations under the treaty. Of course, since the Bush Administration in their infinite wisdom saw fit not to put in any verification provisions, we won't know if the Russians reduce their nuclear arsenal anyway. Bush wanted unilateral US disarmament cuts. The Russians wanted it all in the form of a treaty. This treaty is the worst of both worlds. Not only will Bush's gutting of the US nuclear deterrent likely be unilateral and unmatched by the Russians, but it will also be legally binding and enforceable on us so we won't be able to get out of it without great difficulty. We need to call our Senators and urge them to vote this treaty down once it is submitted to the US Senate. Otherwise, US national security will be irreparably undermined.

[rightwing2]

Per your request. Here is installment #2. Installment #3 should be posted on this site within the next few days or so.

[Tailgunner Joe]

Part 1: Bush's Nuclear Deterrent Disarmament Plan Opposed by Pentagon

[cynicom]

The very last thing Russia would want is to destroy the US using its nuclear arsenal.

[rightwing2]

The very last thing Russia would want is to destroy the US using its nuclear arsenal.

I agree. It doesn't have to because President Bush is all too willing to unilaterally dismantle the US strategic nuclear deterrent to a level so low that deterrence of Russian nuclear attack, a policy now abandoned under the 2001 Nuclear Posture Review, will no longer be feasible. Russia would much rather take it over by stealthier means most notably via nuclear blackmail threats, which it will soon be able to do very effectively once the Bush nuclear disarmament measures are complete a decade from now.

[anguish]

Do Russian Nukes Still Threaten the US?

Short answer: Yes, if the US decides to invade or just nuke Russia.

[RetiredArmy]

Do bears do big do-do in the woods? There is your answer.

[buffyt]

About the only foreign leaders I trust = Bibi Netanyahu and Margaret Thatcher = neither one still in power. I am not so sure about Putin. Russia doesn't have a great track record over the long haul. And I have been to the former East Germany - and antiAmerican sentiments are high there over some issues. When you talk to the man in the street, there are a lot of things they are not happy about when it comes to the US. I imagine Russia is the same.

[RetiredArmy]

Putin is ex-KGB. Does that tell you anything about him? He didn't just find Jesus you know.