Russia's Nuclear Threat Is More Than Words

wsj.com ^ | August 20, 2008 | GABRIEL SCHOENFELD

[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.

[television is just wrong]

of course it is, you can’t not afford to not take iseriously.

[Antoninus]

May sound harsh, but thats realpolitik.

You defenders of fascist Russia are going to look mighty stupid when all this plays out. What they've done is already an atrocity. I don't for a second think they're finished yet.

[verity]

"Russia won't do it, but Al Qaida will, when Russia secretly let's them have a warhead or two."

IMHO, I do not believe that Russia would trust Muslims with a nuke. Islamic terrorists in Chechnya are a dangerous bunch.

[Fichori]

Well, well, well....

Look who’s back.

Last I heard someone called in a moderator air strike and you got zotted.

[dennisw]

Wonderful insanity!
If I remember right George Bush Sr. went wacko peacenik and started reducing nuclear arsenals. Then traitor Bill Clinton rolled into town with loony peacenik Madelaine Albright who despised the idea of a “unipolar world” where only the USA was a superpower

Clinton also made Los Alamos into an “open campus” with foreign scientists roaming around. Russian & Chinese included

[dennisw]

May sound harsh, but thats realpolitik.

I'm just soooo impressed you know the word realpolitik
Amusing to see how many Freepers are sticking up for Russian enemies of America and Russian enemies of Freedom
You hate a free Poland and a free Georgia

Maybe the US should invade Cuba and Venezuela. Plenty of oil in Venezuela