My entry on the Russian defense minister claim about multipurpose submarines' carrying tactical nuclear weapons ended with a question mark - I doubted that they do carry them, but the evidence was not entirely conclusive. I think I can remove the question mark now and say that the evidence, while still somewhat inconclusive, strongly suggests that there are no nuclear weapons on Russian multipurpose submarines.
Unfortunately, the State Department balked at releasing the cruise missile declarations - they said that they would need Russia's consent to do so. But they confirmed that these declarations exist and the latest exchange took place in December 2005. I am quite positive that if these contained anything other than zeros we would have heard about it then. In addition to that, people who know the situation in the Russian Navy assured me that Russia strictly follows its 1991-1992 obligations (panicky claims by some experts notwithstanding).
What's interesting is that Russia seems to reserve the right to deploy nuclear SLCMs during a "threatening period". Which is not really a good policy - should we find ourselves in a period like that, the very fact of deploying nuclear weapon on ships would only make the tensions worse. Whatever value these cruise missiles are believed to have, it is not worth the increased risk.
The book
Comments
Pavel:
This makes sense. As per all my previous post, the policy really works towards both Russia and the United States best interest and favors Russia bilaterally. I think the statement of Russia only embarking tactical nuclear weapons in time of “special national need” is also consistent with the American position of maintaining its inventory of Tomahawk land-attack cruise missiles in naval arsenals and only available to the fleet in such emergences.
Frank Shuler
USA
I think you give Pavel Felghenhauer to much credit by calling him an "expert". Paid propagandist is a more accurate term.
DarthJesus:
I can assure you, Pavel Podvig doesn’t need any help from me defending his honor. (smile) I will make you a deal, however. You write a book like “Russian Strategic Nuclear Forces” and I’ll buy a copy. Take care, my friend.
Frank Shuler
USA
Well, but Felghenhauer analysis are “not serious” (being tooooooooo much generous!)
In reality I can’t understand why someone publish their silly articles.
I'm not sure what point you're trying to make Frank.
I think matter is resolved. Russian submarines do not carry tactical nuclear weapons. So, let's leave the matter and focus on other topics!
DarthJesus:
Please accept my apology. I thought your before mentioned comments were directed at Pavel Podvig and that drew my response. I see my error; sometimes I wish my brain was as fast as my keyboard. (smile)
Frank Shuler
USA
That's what I figured had happened. All is now well. But I would say that if I wrote a book called "Russian Strategic Nuclear Weapons", you probably wouldn't want to read it.
DarthJesus:
Trust me my friend. If you wrote such a book, I would pay. (grin) Thanks!
Frank Shuler
USA
I will thank information about class, number of units deployed, and operability of Russian SSN and SSGN. Information about the current doctrine and missions profile are also welcomed.
Thanks in advance.
DarthJesus/Kolokol:
It's really quite amazing that YOU imagine that YOUR remarks are not propaganda but claim that Pavel Felgenhauer's ARE.
Isn't it just POSSIBLE that you simply don't AGREE with what P.F. writes, or even more possible that you FEAR what he writes, and therefore you want to silence him? Do YOU write anything that is "better" than what he writes? If so, please show it to us.
Frankly, I find it rather odd that the author of this post admits that the evidence is "still somewhat inconclusive" and yet he MAKES a firm conclusion. That is totally irresponsible and unscientific.
Given the fact that Russia is ruled over by a proud KGB spy, is providing huge quantities of weapons to Venezuela, nuclear technology to Iran and financial support to Hamas, I'd say there's nothing at all "panicky" about publicizing the possiblity that it is violating nuclear arms treaties.
And P.F. is an extremely brave man publishing criticism of Russia that could easily get him arrested.
[...]
La Russophobe: Please, calm down.
As for "firm conclusions", the conclusion was as firm as the evidence warranted - the data strongly suggest that the submarines do not carry nuclear weapons. Theoretically they still might, but it is extremely unlikely.
Well, La Russophobe, the growing anti-Russian hysteria in the West certainly doesn’t affect evidences. As far as Felgenhauer's claims we refer, he have a remarkable record of failed predictions that have downed his credibility to near zero. I.e. he predicted, after 2000, three times a victorious Chechen counter-offensive, a enormous number of accidental ICBM explosions and so on.
PAVEL: I suggest you re-read the headline of your post. There's not a single shred of equivocation there. And for you to accuse P.F. of "panic" when you yourself admit he could still be right is totally inappropriate. If he IS right, your post undermines U.S. national security and risks American lives.
[...]
Well, it is a circumstantial case and I wish we had better evidence, but we all have to make conclusions based on what we have. I feel very confident that the submarines are not carrying nuclear weapons, even though I don't have a positive proof of that.
PAVEL: That's just great, you "feel very confident" even though you don't have positive proof, yet you accuse P.F. of "panic" because he allegedly made conclusions without positive proof. It's nice that you feel you've been born with ESP, and its fine for you to express your opinions, but for you to claim that your opinion, and it's nothing more than that, is "fact" whereas P.F. is wrong and "panicked" is totally irresponsible. Frankly, I think the notion of anyone "knowing" what is going on inside a closed society like Russia, run by a proud KGB spy with no free media, is quite insane. All you can ever do is guess.
You (and Felgengauer, for that matter) are certainly free to make your own conclusions. I don't see what's the problem here.
I can’t understand the western hysteria about the KGB man in the Kremlin. This “proud KGB spy” reconstructed the country over the enormous damage caused by an insane pro-western liberal puppet. May be this is that made sick some westerners that are unable to accept that Russian will not be managed by the west.
Russia strength must be enforced because Russian security is more important than outsiders security. Like it or not, any aggressive action against Russia deserve a proper response.
Third Lada class launched: "Sevastopol".
See RIA Novosti
Kolokoi, the first Project 677, Lada-class submarine was originally named the "Sankt Petersburg". Is this still correct? And, what was the second boat named? Thanks.
Frank Shuler
USA
The second Lada-class submarine, the "Kronshtadt", is the first in production series.
So, the lead boat was the "Sankt Petersburg" and is more of a prototype or trials submarine. "Kronshtadt" and the "Sevastopol" are series production vessels. Thanks, Kolokol.
Frank Shuler
USA
Yes; Frank. Your description is EXACT.
Regards