Posted on 08/20/2008 8:25:40 PM PDT by Free ThinkerNY
What lies behind Moscow's willingness to crush Georgia with overwhelming force? Analysts have highlighted Russia's newfound economic confidence, its determination to undo its humiliation of the 1990s, and its grievances over Kosovo, U.S. missile-defense plans involving Poland and the Czech Republic, and the eastward expansion of NATO.
But there may be another major, overlooked element: Has a shift in the nuclear balance between the U.S. and Russia helped embolden the bear?
Under the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START), which went into force in 1994, both the U.S. and the USSR made radical cuts in their strategic nuclear arsenals -- that is, in weapons of intercontinental range. The 2002 Moscow Treaty pushed the numbers down even further, until each side's strategic nuclear umbrella was pocket-size.
Yet matters are very different at the tactical, or short-range, level. Here, the U.S., acting unilaterally and with virtually no fanfare, sharply cut back its stockpile of nonstrategic nuclear warheads. As far back as 1991, the U.S. began to retire all of its nuclear warheads for short-range ballistic missiles, artillery and antisubmarine warfare. According to the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, not one of these weapons exists today. The same authoritative publication estimates that the number of tactical warheads in the U.S. arsenal has dwindled from thousands to approximately 500.
Russia has also reduced the size of its tactical nuclear arsenal, but starting from much higher levels and at a slower pace, leaving it with an estimated 5,000 such devices -- 10 times the number of tactical weapons held by the U.S. Such a disparity would be one thing if we were contending with a stable, postcommunist regime moving in the direction of democracy and integration with the West. That was the Russia we anticipated when we began our nuclear build-down.
(Excerpt) Read more at online.wsj.com ...
I'd be willing to bet that the French have not reduced either their tactical nuclear arsenal, nor their force de frappé nearly as much as the US did under the Impeached One.
Don’t worry, be happy. Sarkozy will talk the Russians to death.
Exactly, and that’s why Poland apparently their next target. The US/EU/NATO has pretty much let Russia get away with Georgia from a military standpoint.
We have all heard that Obama is going to rid the world of nuclear weapons, OK?
A big to-do about NOTHING, OK....?!
> I hope standing up for the lunitic who runs Georgia is all worth it. Future analysts may point to this time and wonder what the USA was thinking.
Spelling checker is your friend.
I am afraid that future analysis will look at this time and at 1938/Checkoslovakia and wonder how the world leaders managed to learn no lessons.
So we have a tactical nuke gap?
Well, it's only been a week or so and I wouldn't want military action to have happened that quickly.
The US will gain huge favorability in the region if they can convince Russia to back down without using force. Will be very interesting (to say the least) to see how the next couple of weeks unfold.
Paging Dr Strangelove, STAT
If only it were just funny...
Yes, it will be quite interesting indeed. I’m not sure if Russia can be convinced to back down. They seem quite intent on absorbing Abkhazia and South Ossetia. I think it’s probably on their list to overthrow President Saakashvili, as well.
You may be right.
I do think some diplomatic maneuvering is necessary until military action is initiated. We shall see how it all unfolds.
Putin and his lackeys are talking trash like years of old.
Russia will never initiate nuclear warfare. IMHO, those in power have too much new energy based wealth to risk the consequences of a first strike.
Tactical nukes are of little to no strategic value (by definition), and if it comes around that anyone has occasion to use those, the world is pretty much over anyway.
This article doesnt seem very well thought out.
Im going to go ahead and say that it really isnt worth losing any US interests over Gdansk and Krakow, or Vilnius or Riga, and definitely not over Tbilisi.
No, that would have been for a mineshaft gap.
So we'll just ignore our treaty obligations in NATO?
The comparison doesnt wash. Much though sakashloonie would want it to.
I say WE should go in for regime change there. This guy isnt good at facing up to the bear- Hes good at losing half his country to the bear. Couldnt have managed it better if hed planned it! I dont think ANYONE imagines for even a second that if they launch an attack which kills Russian troops that itll go unanswered.
We need someone there that makes it easier for Georgia to join NATO, not harder! THEN Georgia can talk.
I think Slick Villi is a nutcase, whos made everyones job harder, and I think the folks at state and also DoD and the white house probably think so too. He needs to be exchanged pronto.
May sound harsh, but thats realpolitik.
Oh no, theyll get all the support they need, moral, military, and economic. I doubt that we’ll ignore our treaty obligations.
Still doesnt mean I think its worth losing US interests over any of those places. Theyre indefensible. But I guess theyll do, as a sort of a Hadrians wall, and thats probably what theyre there for.
I agree Ivan will not initiate a first strike. For the reasons you mention as well as what I haven’t seen mentioned much in these discussions, that somewhere in Russia , someone remembers our SLBM force. Much like a “Terminator” the Trident D5’s they carry can’t be reasoned with, they absolutely will hit their targets and there is nothing they can do to stop them if they initiate a first strike. From what I can gather the D5 ( although capable of carrying 12 MIRV’s it is treaty restricted to 4 or 5) is accurate enough to be considered a first strike weapon. Carried on twelve Ohio class boats this gives a theoretical number of over 1100 targets ( 24 missiles per boat and using 4 warheads per missile thats 96 warheads for each boat).
Somewhere some lowly officer in what passes for the “Capabilities” department must be saying to his or her superior... “ but what about their subs?”. Hopefully someone is listening.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.