I guess there are two ways of looking at this. First, arms control between Russia and the United States is over. The Moscow 2012 "treaty" is simply a working paper that says both countries can have only up to 2200 operational warheads on station in 2012. What constitutes an operational warhead is up to the host country to define. What is a strategic weapon and what's tactical is also up to interpretation. How many "active or inactive reserve" warheads in inventory aren't exactly defined. This isn't arms control. The second point is that the United States no longer feels threatened by Russia or her military ambitions. We don't spend a great deal of time arguing with the French as to the makeup or numbers of their nuclear arsenal. Perhaps that is the future of Russo-American politics.

For those so concerned by the encroachment of NATO, I'll wager within ten years after Ukraine joins NATO-EU, Russia will be a member. Changing times...

Frank Shuler
USA

I agree with Frank. There is no "arms-race" if no one makes a big deal about it...the average American usually doesn't know or care that there are thousands of nuclear missiles aimed at his country. If both the US and the Russian governments came out and said, "We wish for peace" instead of saying, "We may be in a new arms-race," then neither the media nor the common American nor any Congressional panel for defense would care to spend billions of dollars for developing new weapons when the budget is shot to hell anyway. The whole point of what I'm saying is that if we merely pretend that we're not enemies, our respective governments won't spend that extra $10 billion on special weaponry...a good example is the "Starfire" ASAT laser technology currently under develop by the US...a Congressional panel decided to cut the budget for the entire project because they thought it would provoke other countries, even though almost the entire technology has been developed except for the creation of lasers powerful enough to knock out satellites...but if that Congressional panel thought they were in an arms race with Russia, whether a real race or not, they might have hesitated on cutting that budget...by the way, an article for the Starfire project is at this link: http://www.missilethreat.com/news/200605031011.html

Pavel, I do not want to offend you, but you are becoming a proponent of rather quaint Russian views. US nuclear weapons are in Europe because the Europeans want them there. The main reason why the Europeans do not want to be rid of these weapons is the presence of Russian tactical nuclear weapons. Russian tactical weapons continue to be the primary destabilising factor, just as Soviet weapons were in the past.
These weapons provide no added security for Russia in terms of deterring NATO while being detrimental to bilateral realtions. I am convinced that if Russia was to propose the mutual dismantlement of tactical arsenals, the USA would agree. The only problem is irrational Russian insecurity.

I'm not sure I understand the logic - Europe is right when it believes that Russian tactical weapons threaten it, but Russia is wrong in thinking the same about the U.S. weapons in Europe? What would make Europe's views less "quaint" than Russia's? Why the Europeans are less irrational than Russians?

In reality, of course, both sides are irrational - neither needs nuclear weapons. It is mainly the issue of how do you start negotiations. If the U.S. and Europe want to do something about Russian weapons, they know what to do. This does not mean that Russia's concerns are legitimate. But neither are Europe's.

Pavel

That's my point on nuclear weapons in general and "tactical" weapons in Europe specifically. There is no military need for such weapons in NATO. Who would these weapons be used against? In what situation? What circumstances? There is no logic; only politics. Russia is not blameless here. I would be willing to bet one us dollar, Russia has tactical nuclear weapons at Kaliningrad. Perhaps that alone justifies NATO's "nuclear commitment".

Frank Shuler
USA

I agree - nuclear weapons are pretty much useless and the ones in Europe are even more so. And Russia certainly deserves its share of the blame.

I'm not sure about nuclear weapons in Kaliningrad, but if there are some there, they are most likely in some kind of a central storage facility.

I disagree with Frank about parity in nuclear conditions and the no necessity of Russian to have tatical nuclear weapons
I think the opposite of that.
First the USA allways have had advantage in survivable missiles, time of warning, detection sensors, satellites, control of the seas, and
USSR had Europe as a hostage in a nuclear exchange and later the mutual assured destruction.
As USA is advancing in nuclear missile defence, first strike decapitation (with stealth cruise missiles and bombers) and as NATO want to make siege of Russia in its borders, the most important asymmetrical thing that Russia still has is to keep Europe hostage in nuclear war.
If ever North Korea can defend itself from USA by keeping Sout Korea hostage.
The russian deterrence of Tatical nuclear missiles and bombs is a real good deterrence and the real only one whem related to NATO expansion and colour revolution provocations.

Alopes, frankly I never suggested Russia part with tactical nuclear weapons only that American tactical weapons in NATO is a strategy long irrelevant. It's gotten to the point; the distinction between tactical and strategic weapons is also irrelevant. Does it really make a difference if a strategic B-83 bomb is dropped on your head or a tactical B-61? Why is holding Europe "hostage" so important to Russian national security?

I have long advocated the need for Russia and the United States to agree to a cap on all nuclear weapons, strategic and tactical. Pick an arbitrary number, say 2500 warheads, and reduce both Russia and America absolutely to that number. Based on its needs, let each country decide the mix of delivery systems. That is the best way to have nuclear parity between our two countries and the most transparent.

Korea is another subject. North Korea isn't holding South Korea hostage. Possessing nuclear weapons is the best way to ensure the continuance of the political regime in Pyongyang. Reunification is coming. Have you ever noticed how the political goals of South Korea and the United States during the 5 Power Talks are so different? The South knows a future reunified Korea will still have powerful "enemies". A reunified Korea with nuclear weapons would be a major player on the world stage. There seems to be little fear of the North in Seoul. For the United States, these negotiations are about removing nuclear weapons from what we fear is a destabilized government. For South Korea, it's all about reunification. If there is a "hostage" here, it's Japan. Holding Japan "hostage" to these events is an American goal. Welcome to world politics!

Frank Shuler
USA

Frank, i am sorry. I have read wrong.
But i agree that tatical nuclear weapons is irrelevant to USA since the USA warheads in cruise missiles in its submarines are both strategic and tatical in the same time so for USA don't make any difference.
But it is different to Russia.
Russia don't dominate the seas.
I doubt Russia submarine fleet can survive enough in an exchange to be useful.
With the USA and Nato capabilities of doing a decapitation strike be that with Eletromagnetic Warheads or Nuclear Warheads launched of Submarines and of Stealth Bombers the best thing to avert that possibility is Tatical nuclear weapons in every fighter bomber, every bomber, every cruise missile, and every tatical superficie missile.
I am not sayng that a Nuclear War will happen but i am sayng that the only way for Russia keeping parity with NATO and USA is to have Tatical Nukes.
Even now that USA still don't have Total Missile Defence they (NATO) don't respect Russia as an equal partner. In every opportunity they attack Russia independence and attack Russia interests as if Russia was an enemy of the West.
It is important to keep Europe Hostage because NATO want to impose their rules in Russia. They want a weak Russia and are promoting "revolutions" in states against Russia.
They say that openly that Russia is an imperium.
I Sorry to brought Politics to that Blog but Nuclear and Politics are Brothers in my view of Politics.

The Truth of the matter is that earlier or later Russia will lose mutual assured destruction because of both Stealth, Conventional Weapons technology and the lack of enough money to compete with NATO.
When NMD and TMD is deployed NATO will treat Russia as USA Treat China,
as a powerful contry that in spite of that can suffer intervention of the West as happens in Taiwan conflict.
President Putin is aware of that and say openly that if Russia loses its Strategic deterrence (which tatical nukes also are) it will suffer from foreing intervention.
I respect the wise knowledge of Real politics of President Putin of Russia.
If was not for Putin russia today centainly would have been disintegrated.

Alopes, I do agree completely that in the not too distant future both Russia and the United States will lose Mutual Assured Destruction (MAD) as older weapons are removed from each countries arsenal due to obsolescence. As the numbers fall, the ability of either country to "totally" destroy the other wanes. Being able to threaten Western Europe with tactical nuclear weapons just doesn't mean the same thing as was the case in, say, 1985. Times have changed. However, Russia will always have the ability to hold America hostage in any dispute. And what possible dispute between our two countries could ever be worth the destruction of 20 American cities? The loss of St. Petersburg's? The answer is none.

NATO is far less a military organization today than a political one. Never confused the interest of NATO and the interest of the United States as being one in the same. The United States wants Russia to have a powerful central government that is based on the rule of law. With such law, comes American economic investment and participation of 230 million Russians in the world economy. It is with great interest we watch the future Russian Presidential Elections and the changes of political power in Russia. The United States and Russia are natural allies and I expect that relationship to only grow over time.

Frank Shuler
USA

I think the overall discussion of tactical vs. strategic nuclear weapons is irrelevant on any part ... a triad of and/or a cluster of 3 to 5 major nuclear powers or alliances produces parity and a balance over hegemony by any one major G8 member. They could be part of NATO or CTSO ... hegemony by any power is a negative and we must all accept this in order to reach a geo-political balance among great powers. This produces the national and regional respect that all parties desire.