Big nuclear deception. How the USSR lost in arms reduction
- View original
- July 31st, 2016
On July 31, 1991, Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachev and US President George W. Bush signed the Treaty on the Reduction and Limitation of Strategic Offensive Arms (START-1). Despite the considerable efforts that have been made by countries in this direction, the problem of mutual nuclear threat has not yet been resolved and is unlikely to be solved in the near future. According to Russian military experts, that is the fault of the US actions that are pushing the world towards a new arms race.
On the brink of war
The nuclear race between the USSR and the USA became a true attribute of the Cold War, which began in the late 50s. World powers fiercely competed in military power, not sparing on her neither the means nor human resources. It’s a paradox, but perhaps it was the super efforts in this race that didn’t allow any of the countries to unambiguously surpass the “potential adversary” in armaments, which means they maintained parity. But in the end, both superpowers were armed, even beyond measure. At some point, we are talking about strategic arms reduction - but also on a parity basis.
For the first time, negotiations to limit nuclear reserves were held in Helsinki in 1969. This period includes the signing by the leaders of the SALT-1 treaty. He limited the number of ballistic missiles and launchers of both sides at the level at which they were at that time, and also provided for the adoption of strictly new ballistic missiles for use in weapons in which the obsolete land-based missiles had been previously written off. The second contract - SALT-2 (essentially continuing the first one) - was signed 10 years later. He imposed a restriction on the deployment of nuclear weapons in space (orbital missiles R-36orb) and although it was not ratified by the US Senate, however, experts say, it was carried out by both parties.
The next stage of negotiations on the need to reduce strategic armaments took place in 1982, but it did not lead to anything. Negotiations were repeatedly suspended and resumed.
In October 1986, at the Soviet-American summit in Reykjavik, the USSR put forward a proposal for a 50% reduction in strategic forces and agreed not to take into account the strategic weapons available to the US allies in NATO. However, the proposals of the Soviet Union were linked to the obligation not to leave the ABM Treaty signed in 1972. Perhaps, therefore, these proposals were unanswered.
In September 1989, the USSR decided not to link the issue of missile defense with the conclusion of an agreement on strategic arms reduction, and also not to include sea-based cruise missiles in the scope of the new treaty. It took about two years to finalize the text. After the collapse of the USSR, Russia, Belarus, Kazakhstan and Ukraine recognized themselves as successors of the treaty, on whose territory nuclear weapons were deployed. By signing the Lisbon Protocol in May 1992, Belarus, Kazakhstan and Ukraine pledged to eliminate or transfer the nuclear weapon under the control of Russia. Soon, as non-nuclear states, they joined the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT).
The Treaty on the Reduction and Limitation of Strategic Offensive Arms (START-1) was signed on July 31, 1991 in Moscow by the presidents of the USSR and the USA, Mikhail Gorbachev and George Bush Sr.. He forbade the development and deployment of air-launched ballistic missiles, heavy ballistic missiles, submarines of ballistic and cruise missiles, means of high-speed reloading of launchers, increasing the number of charges on existing missiles, re-equipping "conventional" means of delivering nuclear weapons. True, the document entered into force only on December 5, 1994, becoming the first (ratified) arms control treaty, which ensured a real reduction of deployed strategic weapons and established a strict verification regime for its implementation.
How much was and how much has become
The system for monitoring the implementation of the START I Treaty included the conduct of mutual checks at home sites, notification of production, testing, movement, deployment and destruction of START. At the time of signing the START-1, according to data for September 1990, the USSR had 2500 “strategic” carriers, on which 10,271 warheads were deployed. The United States had 2,246 carriers with 10,563 warheads.
In December 2001, Russia and the United States announced the fulfillment of commitments: Russia had 1136 carriers and 5,518 warheads, the United States had 1237 and 5948, respectively. Moscow, January 3, 1993. In many ways, he relied on the START-1 treaty base, but suggested a sharp reduction in the number of land-based missiles with multiple warheads. However, the document did not enter into force, because the United States did not complete the ratification process, in 2002 after leaving the ABM Treaty of 1972, with which START II was linked.
Proposals for the development of START-3 began to be discussed in March 1997 during consultations between the presidents of the Russian Federation and the United States, Boris Yeltsin and Bill Clinton, in Helsinki. This treaty planned to establish "ceilings" at the level of 2,000-2,500 strategic nuclear warheads, and it was also intended to impart a perpetual character to the treaty. However, at that time the document was not signed. The initiative to re-launch the new negotiation process in June 2006 was made by Russian President Vladimir Putin.
But the development of the document began in April 2009 immediately after the meeting of Presidents Dmitry Medvedev and Barack Obama in London within the framework of the G20 summit. The negotiations began in May 2009, and ended 11 months later with the signing of the treaty by the presidents of Russia and the USA on April 8, 2010 in Prague (START-3, the Prague Treaty). Its official name is the Treaty between the United States and the Russian Federation on Measures for Further Reduction and Limitation of Strategic Offensive Arms. In February 2011, it entered into force and will be valid for 10 years.
During the development of the document, 3,897 nuclear warheads and 809 deployed carriers and launchers were in service with Russia, 5,916 nuclear warheads and 1,188 carriers and launchers were in service with the United States. As of June 2011, when Russia and the United States exchanged data for the first time according to START-3, Russia had 1,537 warheads, 521 deployed carriers, and, together with undeveloped, 865 units. The United States has 1,800 warheads, 882 deployed carriers, with a total number of 1,124. Thus, Russia already did not violate the contractual threshold for deployed carriers of 700 units and lagged behind the United States in all respects.
“Nuclear weapons were superfluous in Soviet times. In the same way as it was redundant with the Americans. Therefore, it was necessary to shrink objectively. But we just really got carried away with it. We first began to reduce nuclear forces, then agreed to liquidate the Warsaw Pact without any intelligible compensation from the West. After that, the well-known events connected with the collapse of the USSR occurred, ”Igor Korotchenko explained to AiF.ru.
Not quantity, but quality
At the moment, experts say that parity has been restored.
“It was made a long time ago. But the quality remained for the United States, which has about two thirds of the missiles with nuclear warheads located on submarines that are constantly in motion. And we have them all on stationary launchers, which are easier to hit. Therefore, the Americans came up with the concept of a lightning strike and are building an additional missile defense system today, and in fact it is a surveillance system, fire support, and the line itself. Plus, they set the ship's line in the area of the TV Channel and strengthened the continental industrial area of New York, ”explained Komoyedov, AiF.ru.
According to him, the United States today wants to intimidate Russia and dictate its terms to it, but “these emotions and ambitions should be hidden somewhere” and instead begin to negotiate.
In 2014, for the first time since the beginning of the XXI century, Russia caught up with the United States both in the number of deployed and undeveloped carriers, and in the number of warheads (including in connection with the adoption of the new 955 nuclear-powered submarines equipped with Bulava missiles with several warheads; in addition, the intercontinental ballistic missiles Topol-M with one warhead were replaced by the Yars missiles with three warheads). So, as of September 1, 2014, there were 794 deployed carriers for the United States, and only 528 for Russia. At the same time, the number of warheads on deployed carriers from the USA is 1642, from Russia - 1643, and the number of deployed and undeveloped installations from the USA - 912, from Russia - 911.
According to the US Department of State data on the implementation of START-3 from January 1, 2016, there are 762 deployed carriers of nuclear warheads in service with the United States, 526 with Russia. The number of warheads on deployed carriers is 1538 for the United States and 1648 for Russia and non-deployed launchers of ICBMs, SLBMs and TB in the USA - 898, in Russia - 877.
According to Korotchenko, parity is primarily based on the implementation of existing restrictions under the START-3 Treaty, which is a strategic further step in the reduction of nuclear weapons.
“Today, Russian strategic nuclear forces are being updated, primarily due to the arrival of new RS 24 Yars solid-fuel intercontinental ballistic missiles of mine and mobile bases, which will form the basis of the group of strategic rocket forces for a period of 30 years. A decision has also been made to begin the development of a combat railway missile complex, plus a new force for an intercontinental ballistic missile on liquid fuel is being developed. These are the main areas related to maintaining parity in the part concerning the Strategic Missile Forces (Strategic Missile Forces). As for our naval nuclear forces, the Borey-class submarine missile cruisers with the Bulava sea-based intercontinental ballistic missiles are being mass-produced and transferred to the fleet.
But as for the proposals that sound from the United States on the further reduction of nuclear weapons or on nuclear zero in general, Russia, the expert believes, will not respond to these proposals.
“For the US, the role of nuclear weapons is decreasing every year, thanks to the fact that they develop conventional high-precision strike weapons that achieve the same effect as when using nuclear weapons.Russia, however, has placed a bet on nuclear forces as the basis of our military power and maintaining balance in the world. Therefore, we will not abandon nuclear weapons, ”said the expert, emphasizing the inexpediency of further nuclear weapons reduction.
According to him, America is now pushing the world with all actions to resume the arms race, but it’s not worth it.
“We need to maintain a self-sufficient defense balance,” Korotchenko believes.
Немає коментарів:
Дописати коментар