In his annual address to the Russian parliament today, President Putin said a few words about Russia's strategic forces. He underscored that he believes that it's nuclear weapons that make a country a "leading world power" and outlined what he presented as achievements of his administration - construction of new strategic submarines (he didn't mention the delays, of course) and deployment of Topol-M missiles.
Putin raised some concerns about possibility of a new arms race on a "new technological level" that might involve "destabilizing weapons". It's hard to tell what exactly did he have in mind, but he did mention space-based weapons in the next sentence (although I found the reference to the lack of guarantees against deployment of nuclear weeapons in space puzzling - the last time I checked the Outer Space Treaty was alive and well). Whatever are the concerns, the only suggested way of dealing with them was military modernization. Does not look particularly encouraging.
One more issue was mentioned by Mr. Putin - he warned about the dangers of the plan to convert some ICBMs to conventional roles. In his words,
A launch of a missile like this can provoke a disproportionate reaction from nuclear powers, including a full-scale retaliatory strike that would use strategic nuclear forces.Quite chilly, in fact. No doubt, the plan to have conventional ICBMs (not to mention SLBMs) is quite dangerous, but it would be nice to hear some ideas about what to do about dangers like these.
The book
Comments
This is quite bizarre - the sentence on dangers of conventional ICBMs in Putin's address (as well quite a few of others) was taken verbatim from a text "Main directions of the military reform", posted on a site of a certain Association of KGB Veterans.
Pavel, do you think the START I agreement due to expire in 2009 will be renewed? You would think such an agreement that has been so useful to both Russia and the United States would survive in some form or other. What are your thoughts on this?
Frank Shuler
USA
It's hard to tell. We will have new administrations in Washington and Moscow in 2009 (or so I hope). It is quite possible that they will realize that some parts of START are worth preserving. Just extending START for a few more years may, in fact, be the easiest option.
My thoughts exactly. It always seems easier for politicians to continue the status quo. However, I do believe there is an excellent chance, before the 2012 Moscow Treaty deadline arrives, for a farther nuclear arms limitation agreement. Both Russia and the United States have aging arsenals and need to reduce numbers. Continuing the START I treaty in some form is a good first step.
Frank Shuler
USA
Timely response
President Putin this Tuesday, in a speech to Russia's Diplomatic Corp, called for negotiations with the United States on a new weapons treaty to replace START I. I think a broad based treaty to reduce the absolute number of all nuclear weapons is a possibility. It's in both countries interest.
Frank Shuler
USA
Yes, it was good timing. I'm a bit skeptical about restarting START, but there are a few things that could be done. I'll talk to my colleagues in Moscow who have been looking into this issue and will try to post a summary.