Sunday, April 3, 2016

NUCLEAR MODERNIZATION, DISARMAMENT’S DILEMMA

In an insightful article published in Foreign Affairs March/April 2006, two American political science professors, Keir A. Lieber and Daryl G. Press have written matter-of-factly:

“Today, for the first time in almost 50 years, the United States stands on the verge of attaining nuclear primacy. It will probably soon be possible for the United States to destroy the long-range nuclear arsenals of Russia or China (or both) with a first strike.

“This dramatic shift in the balance of power stems from a series of improvements in the United States’ nuclear systems (in early 1990s shortly after the end of the Cold War), the precipitous decline of Russia’s arsenal (during the Yeltsin era of 1991-1999 with its total neglect of the Russian nuclear forces amidst rampant corruption, economic collapse, and political crisis), and the glacial pace of modernization of China’s nuclear forces.

“Unless Washington’s policies (for maintaining total military superiority and world dominance) change or Moscow and Beijing take steps to increase the size and readiness of their forces, Russia and China – and the rest of the world – will live in the shadows of U.S. nuclear primacy for many years to come…”

It may be recalled that the Soviet Union achieved nuclear parity with the US in 1975, slightly over a decade after the October 1962 Cuban missile crisis. Although the US had overwhelming nuclear superiority in 1962, the hugely outnumbered Soviet missiles had enough nuclear explosives to destroy the US in a free-for-all.

While the US had regained its first-strike capability/nuclear primacy(the Holy Grail)  by the time that the piece by Lieber and Press had gone to press early 2006, Moscow had woke up to the great American nuclear threat following Yeltsin’s resignation in favour of his hand-picked successor Vladimir Putin at the end of 1999. Defense Minister Igor Sergeyev (1997-2001) had turned his mind to the Strategic Rocket Forces and provided adequate funding for Russia’s nuclear arms from the late 1990s.

 With the recent deployment of the new Yars RS-24 ICBMs each with three nuclear warheads and the commissioning of two new Borei-class nuclear submarines (SSBNs) each carrying 16 Bulava missiles, each of which armed with six warheads, Vladimir Putin’s Russia has reclaimed its nuclear parity with the US in early autumn of 2014.

The Chinese “tortoise” has since also confirmed its confident arrival at the level of second-strike/deterrent capability against the US with the successful launching in late 2013 of the JL-2 SLBM with at least a dozen missiles with three warheads each, for the Type 094 Class submarines (SSBNs) developed in 2010.

“Our JL-2 SLBMs have become the fourth type of Chinese nuclear missiles that threaten the continental US, after our DF-31A, DF-5A and DF-5B ICBMs,” Global Times proudly reported in an article on the Chinese underwater nuclear deterrent (New Straits Times November 4, 2013).

According to Hans Kristensen of the Federation of American Scientists (FAS), China has had a nuclear deterrence and second-strike capability since 1981 when the silo-based DF-5 ICBM became operational. The road-mobile DF-31A ICBM entered service in 2008. Even before the entry of the JL-2, China already had about 40 ICBMs to target the continental US.

“A conflict between China and United States will definitely be a disaster for the two countries and the world,” President Xi Jinping said in Beijing on 9 July 2014, as reported by Bloomberg News.


Nevertheless, the US Department of Defense remains fully committed to its “Joint Vision 2020” for full-spectrum dominance, its blueprint for global and total military superiority (publicly released 30 May 2000). 
,
“After President Barack Obama took office with a strong commitment of the United States to reducing its numbers and role of nuclear weapons, and to taking concrete steps toward a world without nuclear weapons (for which he was awarded the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize), the Obama administration  may eventually be remembered for its commitment to modernizing the US nuclear arsenal.


 “Partly building on programs from the Bush administration (2001-2009), the Obama administration  has drawn up plans for modernizing all aspects of the entire nuclear enterprise, including development of new nuclear delivery systems, and life extension and modernization of all its enduring nuclear warhead types and nuclear weapons production facilities,” Hans Kristensen and Robert Norris of the Federation of American Scientists (FAS) posted online 20 June 2014, and published in Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists July/August 2014.

“Moreover, rather than constraining the role of nuclear weapons, the Obama administration’s 2013 nuclear weapons employment strategy reaffirmed the existing posture of a nuclear triad of forces (ICBMs, SSBNs and strategic bombers) on high alert…”

On Russia’s nuclear modernization, the two distinguished nuclear statisticians/historians have briefly reported:

 “Within the next decade, all Soviet-era nuclear weapons systems will be phased out and replaced with new ones – albeit at a lower level. On land, development of three missiles is under way, the SS-27 ICBM, the R8-24 (possibly another SS-27 modification), and the “heavy” ICBM known as the Samat. At sea, construction of eight Borei class ballistic missile submarines (SSBNs) is scheduled and equipped with the SS-N-32 (Bulava) SLBM…” (With 10 warheads like its much-dreaded predecessor the SS-18 (Satan) ICBM, the Samat is expected to enter service shortly after 2020.)

 In nuclear weapons we trust, is the American way of maintaining and securing its supreme national defense and security interests. This abiding faith in nuclear might is also espoused by the other eight nuclear-armed
States, particularly and passionately so Russia.

“We’re now at the precipice, maybe I should say the brink, of a new nuclear arms race,” William Perry, 19th US Secretary of Defense (1994-1997), said in Washington, DC, on 3 December 2015.

Kristensen and Norris have stressed that “the nuclear nations have undertaken ambitious nuclear weapons programs that threaten to prolong the nuclear era indefinitely…”          

No comments:

Post a Comment