At a press-conference held in New York as part of the NPT review conference activities, Russian officials said that Russia is ready to reduce its nuclear forces to 1500 warheads. Although hardly a firm commitment, it is a good sign that deeper nuclear reductions are possible. A hardly surprising one, though.
The first time Russia officially committed itself to reducing its arsenal to 1500 nuclear warheads was the November 13, 2000 statement by president Putin (which left largely unnoticed because everybody was watching the Florida vote recount). In 2002, Russia agreed to the 1700-2200 ceiling in the Moscow Treaty, but only to avoid embarrassment of a too wide a spread in the treaty numbers - it wanted a lower number, but the United States said it won't go lower than 2200 in any event.
If we look at the current trends, 1500 warheads is what Russia can realistically have in about ten years - 150 land-based missiles with 600 warheads, six submarines with 400 or so warheads on their missiles, and about 500 nuclear cruise missiles carried by strategic bombers.
To go below these numbers would mean taking some fairly radical steps - scrapping more R-36M2/SS-18 missiles, scaling down the submarine force, or converting more bombers to conventional missions. But none of this is impossible and in the long run would certainly prove healthy for the strategic forces. Not to mention that it would make us a bit safer.
The book
Comments
Pavel,
I noticed in the AP story of May 17 about the 1500 level that the Russians presented a booklet outlining steps that Moscow has taken to reduce strategic and tactical weapons. Do you know how to obtain that booklet?
Stan Norris
The only thing that I found is a reference to Kislyak's statement, in which he said that from January 1, 2000 to January 1, 2005 Russia reduced its forces to 357 launchers and 1740 warheads. It's START I data (1338-981=357 and 6472-4732=1740).
He also said that Russia has reduced its tactical nuclear forces by a factor of four and reduced its overall nuclear arsenal by a factor of five compared to 1991.
I believe General Verkhovtsev, the #2 guy in the 12th GUMO, actually stated that Russia was ``ready to reduce to 1,500 warheads OR LESS.''
He also noted that Russia had reduced its tactical nukes by 75 percent. The AP report said that he couldn't provide specific numbers "because of legislative restrictions." Is this legislation specific to tactical nukes, or was he refering to the standard laws on state secrets? Is it published and available somewhere?
I, too, would like to see a copy of the booklet Russian passed around the UN (it appears to cover both strategic and tactical reduction measures).
Thanks. =>Chuck.
Yes, he did add "or less", but I wouldn't give too much weight to his words (although getting below 1500 is a possibility).
As for the booklet, you guys are much closer to New York than me. But I doubt the booklet has anything other than START data.
Pavel,
Do you have a web address where the article appeared? Maybe we can track the title of the booklet if the article provided it.
Regards,
Craig
Here is the AP Story:
The Russians presented a booklet outlining steps that Moscow has taken to cut its arsenal of nuclear warheads and intercontinental ballistic missiles, to eliminate intermediate- and short-range missiles, and to reduce tactical nuclear weapons.
It gave figures for all categories except tactical nuclear weapons, which Verhovtsev said had been reduced by 75 percent, though he couldn't provide numbers because of legislative restrictions.
The existing Moscow Treaty agreement, 1700-2200 operational nuclear weapons, is really meaningless. The Bulletin of Atomic Scientist estimates the strategic nuclear arsenal of the United States will still be abound 6000 weapons in 2012. These weapons will be scattered between different readiness classifications with only 2200 weapons kept in the “Operational Class”. Let’s pick a larger number, say, 3000 weapons. How is Russia to reach a treaty-approved inventory of 3000 warheads when affordability would suggest a more modest capability? My approach would to include ALL nuclear warheads in this total. After all, what really is a “tactical” warhead in today's geo-political world? The Cold War is over. No American or Russian president is going to allow the use of any nuclear weapon, no matter how large or small, without it being their personal decision. There is no longer a situation where a local military commander, on his own authority, would authorize the use of such a weapon. This approach has significant benefits for all, especially Russia. While she may struggle trying to maintain a 1700-weapon inventory, reducing her overall stockpile of nuclear weapons to 3000 units would be simple.
There would be no loss of national or international prestige in not being able to “afford” a larger inventory relative to America. Each nation would provide for its own defense with whatever mix of weapons within the 3000 limit it needed. For example, the United States might have the need to maintain more of what we today call “strategic” warheads, Trident or Minuteman warheads while Russia might (and would) decide to maintain more “tactical” weapons. Both nations maintain 3000 weapons and exist as co-equals in the International Nuclear Club.
By 2018, let’s take our nuclear inventories down to 3000 weapons. Thoughts?
Frank Shuler
USA
Well, 3000 is way too high. I would guess that if you count only those warheads that are "truly operational" (i.e. don't count the missiles that are not on alert, warheads in storage etc.), we are already below 3000.
In any event, the main problem with proposals like this is that they assume that there is some value in keeping some number of nuclear warheads. Well, there is no there there. Three thousand warheads in 2018 would be quite useless. Just as the ten or so thousand current ones are.
With the goal of absolute zero inventory, of course you are correct. However, political reality and history tell us differently. These terrible weapons will only be replaced with weapons of far greater power and scope in the future. Today, nuclear weapons aren’t “going” anywhere. If we can get Russia and the United States to agree to eliminate all nuclear weapons over a 3000 limit by 2018, who says such an agreement to reduce the inventory to 500 weapons by 2022 isn’t possible?
Frank Shuler
USA
I wouldn't be that pessimistic about political reality. Some time ago it was considered impossible to think about 1500 nuclear weapons. But right now people already talk about getting below 500. I'm sure it will happen much sooner than 2022.
The existing debate on nuclear weapons is mostly motivated by the aging nuclear weapon inventories on both sides. Both the United States and Russia have no interest in replacing existing weapons on a one-for-one basis and welcome “agreements” to limit the size and composition of the force. Both sides want to keep their newest, most powerful and responsive weapons and allow the older devices to fall victim to “reduction agreements”. The US supports weapons and improvements in delivery for its Trident submarine force and the B-2 bomber. Russia has the same kind of monetary and emotional investment in TOPOL-M (SS-27) ICBMs. Take the number of warheads down to a level agreed of, 3000 including all the supposed thousands of leftover Soviet tactical munitions, and the world is a safer place. 3000 today; 500 tomorrow. The real issue in any reduction strategy is how quickly can these weapons be truly disposed of? The United States still has Ground Launched Cruise Missile (GLCM) W-84 warheads left over from the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty of 1988 to destroy.
1988? I guess it takes time…
Frank Shuler
USA
For the Russian "booklet", try "National Report on the Implementation of the Non-Proliferation Treaty by the Russian Federation", available in PDF format at the Reaching Critical Will website.
Cheers,
Bill.