- Pavel, here's the 'up-to-a-point' news:

http://news.mail.ru/politics/1640472/print/

'The USA needs in modernization of the nuclear weapons'.

I don't think it is true that there was no arms race but the threat was exaggerated to get approvals for weapons research. Nowhere is it more true than Pentagon. The Pentagon and American Admn. were deeply involved in a campaign aganist Russia not only with the intention of military domination for which Russia were the only block but also to create a scare in Europeans' minds so there may not be any treaties of co-operation between Russia and Europe. If U.S. presently doesn't consider Russia's weapons development as threat, there would've been no need to attempt to surround Russia with ABM systems. Their explanation that these are meant for rogue nations can fool no one.

I found this to be one of the best articles on nuclear weapons in a VERY long time. Correct me if I'm wrong, but wouldn't his approach essentially end arms control? Why bother if we ignore what they do? That would lead the US to modernize/build whatever they see fit. Talk about the ultimate 'come as you are' party!

JF Cooper: Arms control during the cold war was one way of bringing the situation under control and to introduce a degree of predictability. It was not perfect and it was ultimately not very successful - the SALT II treaty failed to limit anything and codified what both sides were doing anyway. I would argue that when things got really bad in the early 1980s, the larger societies got involved in the process and eventually stopped the arms race insanity. But that was a complex process, which was also rather imperfect. I would say we are in trouble if we wait for another scare like the one in the 1980s to do something about nuclear weapons.

Actually the ordinary Americans are whose taxes are squandered right now. In fact Russian defence budget is in a remarkably constant level respect to the GDP: 2.8%. On the contrary, the American one is steadily growing and this year reached the 4%. That’s without the budget allocated to the failed adventures in Iraq and Afghanistan. If we sum them, the Americans are squandered in more then 5% of their GDP. Russia has a strong superavit and an enormous monetary reserve. On the contrary, USA only shows uncontrollable deficits. So, if Mr Perle want to increase their defence budget in response to the perceived and vastly propaganda exaggerated “Russian threat”, let’s them do it. There is no Russia who will suffer. It will be the stalled American economy.
In fact as Putin always said, the answer to the growing ABM infrastructure perimetring Russia will be asymmetrical and cost-effective. Russia can afford this. USA can afford to continue to build a nearly obsolete ABM system?
In fact, we should greet American threats. They would be self-shooting just during an economical depression.

Pavel:

Richard Perle’s Washington Post op-editorial sounds like a case of “historical revisionism” to me. I’m sure if we pulled some 1990’s work from Perle we would find him reaching far different conclusions. Still an interesting read.

I do agree with the prevailing thought that arms control as we have defined it during the Soviet (Russian) and American era has ended. I disagree as to the why. The world’s nuclear arsenal is no longer centered on Russia and America; other nations have nuclear weapons and many more may acquire them in the next few years. True “Arms Control” is now much more of a global issue than bi-lateral between Russia and the US as before. It’s a changing world.

Frank Shuler
USA

Kolokol:

The way arms are funded in Russia and the United States are very different. For example, in the United States most, if not all, defense contractors are publicly traded companies that provide weapons, products, and services to the Pentagon at a profit that is then in theory shared with their investors (stockholders). A US defense budget that takes up only 4% of GNP is historically only average in American history; during the Viet Nam war the defense budget in relation to GNP was around 6.5%. The US defense budget in a strange way is like a “public works program” for the middle class. The latest US Navy carrier, the USS George H.W. Bush, getting ready for introduction in the fleet cost 4.6 billion dollars. Literally every Congressional District in the country had a business or corporation that benefited directly with contracts for equipment or parts for this aircraft carrier. Even in a US state 2000 miles from the ocean, there was some factory that made a part or component for this carrier. Building a nuclear aircraft carrier in American is truly a “national business”. To be honest, most of the money "spend" on the Iraq Was has stayed here in America. The US Congress passed a bill authorizing $20 billion for Iraqi reconstruction and we’re still trying to give that money away four years later.

Frank Shuler
USA

Frank I mean “for the ordinary Russians whose taxes will be squandered” is just Perle’s wishful thinking, right now. May be he wishes this and then voices this. The hard reality is that Russia’s defence budget is very low based on historical trends. In fact it migth triple the Topol-m production and the budget will be practically as solid as now. On the contrary, the current Russian problem right now is the excess of money because of high oil and gas values. So in the end, we must take Perle’s words like an expression of his own desires and may be like a signal of neocons frustration because of Russia doesn’t behave like he dreamed Russia is supposed to behave.

Kolokol:

My friend, I couldn’t agree more on your conclusions regarding Richard Perle and his “wishful thinking”. Russia is going to need some banking reforms to open up the Russian economy to investment; both inside Russia and from without. Also, with such reforms Russia can better participate in the world markets to utilize your cash and build equities for the future. It’s a good problem to have.

Frank Shuler
USA

> To be honest, most of the money "spend" on the Iraq Was has stayed here in America.

- Here the critics of such 'military Keynesianism':

http://atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/JA24Ak04.html

Frank:

You're not supposed to compare military expenditure to GNP ratio, this gives a false perception of reality.

Russian:

Military Keynesianism? But, that was back in the day of the “gold standard” when money was, well, really “money”.

KSI:

What should be the “true” perception of reality when trying to compare defense budgets across economies?

Frank Shuler
USA

Defense budget should be compared on a per soldier basis. This gives you an idea of how well equipped and trained the armies are. For example the Chinese defense budget is almost the same size as the Russian one, but the Chinese military is more then twice as large.

Feanor:

Very flawed logic. You are assuming equals in the equation. If Russia pays a soldier $500 dollars a month and China pays a soldier $250 a month, is the Russian soldier twice as valuable? Twice as effective? Twice as trained? If North Korea spends 40% of its GNP on a military of 1.4 million and the United States spends 4.5% of its GNP on its 1.4 million soldiers, are the military capabilities of the two countries equal? Does the United States have the best educational system in the entire world because we spend the most money per student on the planet? Finland would disagree…

Frank Shuler
USA

No, but in terms of equipment the ratio of spendings per soldier gives a good understanding of the capabilities of the army. The paychecks of the troops are actually a minor part of the defense budget compared to weapon procurement, maintenance, and supply costs.

I think you misunderstood my point. I'm saying not to compare the percentage of spending per solider. I'm saying to compare the actual defense budget in dollars per soldier. The DPRK spends a tiny fraction of what the US does on it's military both overall and per soldier. You comparison of the education system is something entirely different. The education system depends far less on equipment then the military and certainly doesn't require nearly as many supplies.

Frank:

Defence government spending is adjusted to revenue/expenditure ratio.

The defense budget of Russia is about $40 billion where as that of U.S. is $450 billion. Still one sees the U.S. admn. and Pentagon keep up a highly exaggerated perception of Russian defense spending. The U.S. never talked about people's suffering in other nations except for its own benefit. The U.S. wants total control and domination of all economic decisions in its favor with the help of implied military threats on other nations. If Russia is spending on new defence equipment it is forced to do so to maintain its independence. The relentless pursuit of new weapons technology by U.S. is directed solely with the purpose of dictating to everyone in the world. It sounds so hollow when U.S. journalists and writers talk about the woes of Russian public due to Russia's defense budget when it is the U.S. which is responsible for this. Is any of the writers asking what is the purpose of these highly advanced weapons research in U.S.?

The propaganda machinery of U.S. and its media have completely lost their credibility except for the American public who are anyway not interested in what happens in other countries as long as they are safe and sound. The govt. ensures that.

KA Sharma,

You are stating that Russia's defense budget is directly related to the actions of the United States. I have to disagree with that. Russia, to be colloquial, is in a tough neighborhood. They are surrounded by nuclear-armed neighbors: China to the south/east, Iran to the south, Europe to its west, and the US east/west.

If we accept your ascertation that Russia merely responds to US aggressive policies, it would be logical to assume that if the US drastically cuts its defense spending, Russia would follow suit. Considering it external and internal threats (e.g. Chechnya) I do not believe this would happen.

States always act in their own interests...I make no morale judgments on that. This is the way it has always been, is now, and most likely will always be. The fact that the US tries to make the international system act for its benefit should be no surprise. Would France, Russia, England, Iran, or any other state for that matter, act differently? No, they wouldn't.

If we want nations to rid themselves of nuclear weapons, then they must be convinced that it is in their best interests. To say that one nation alone is responsible for another nations misfortunes is naive. Is the US to blame for Russian democratic/economic failures in the '90's? Or how about the woeful condition of their military? Russia is trying to 're-brand' itself into a world power once again and the actions of the United States will have little or no effect on their determination.

Feanor:
KSI:

It seems to me the use of GNP to reflect the burden of a defense budget on a country is as good of indicator as any. I think it illustrates how much money a government is spending on its defense in relationship to other national priorities. That is of cause assuming the GNP numbers are accurate and meaningful in comparison. I have no argument with your conclusions or suggestions. I just think there really isn’t any meaningful way to compare the numbers. Personally, I look forward to the days when the US defense budget falls back into the 3.5% GNP range which is “more normal” for America.

Frank Shuler
USA

Frank:

GNP measurement doesn't reflect the economic burden on the country, to be more specific on the governments budget. US revenue/GNP ratio is low, compare US budget revenue and expenditure with Germany or France, then compare defence spending.

I simply gave what is, to me, the most rational way to compare defense spendings in terms of actually strengthening the military.

Now as for the reason, Russia would be spending the money it is right now, whether or not the US was pursuing military dominance. The Russian military is a complete mess, and without increases in funding and larger weapon orders, it's doomed.

KSI:

Your comments raise an even more interesting conclusion regarding the “economic burden” of a defense budget. For the United States, much spending in our annual budget goes for fixed expenses, such as retirement programs and health care. Debt reduction also has a significant percentage of the annual budget. Such is the same in, say, France or Germany. Defense spending actually is “discretional spending” in the sense it is not mandated by pre-existing laws. For example, budgets for the federal retirement program are funded by law regardless. Defense spending is an option. The larger the defense spending, the less discretional funds are available for social spending. In that sense, socially, the US defense budget is a burden on the economy. Just my thoughts.

Frank Shuler
USA

Feanor:

I understand your thought process. It should be logical to look at defense spending in relation to a nation’s troop level and draw a simple conclusion as to whether that nation spending increases the capability of its military. If Russia spends $100,000 on each soldier and China only spends $25,000 on each, does this mean Russia has a more capable military? Probably the Sultan of Brunei spends more money per-soldier in support of its military than any nation on earth. In that regard, Brunei has an extremely capable army but I’m not sure what that really proves.

Interesting conversation.

Frank Shuler
USA

Although your entry don't mention this, Perle's op-ed cites Albert Wohlstetter's 1976 essay, "Racing Forward? Or Ambling Back?," one in a series of works in which Wohlstetter quantitatively analyzed changes in the US-SU strategic nuclear competition over time, and ended up critiquing the (still) common conception of strategic competition as a "spiraling arms race" driven by an action-reaction dynamic that inexorably leads to an exponential build-up of nuclear arms and/or military budgets. In turn, Wohlstetter's analyses attempted to offer a more nuanced understanding of peacetime strategic competition or strategic rivalry.

Earlier this week I posted on Albert Wohlstetter Dot Com PDFs not only of the 1976 Wohlstetter essay that Perle cites, but also of "Legends of the Strategic Arms Race," an expanded, September 1974 version of Wohlstetter's analysis that includes (I believe) most, if not all, of the data from which the late strategist made his key inferences. You may be interested to read these analyses, which are available here:

http://tinyurl.com/2myg4a

Wohlstetter was moved to analyze the nature of US-SU strategic competition in response to believers of "spiraling arms races," who tended also to be proponents of "automatic deterrence" or "minimum deterrence" doctrines (as conceptualized by Pierre Gallois and P. M. S. Blackett) and of countervalue population targeting, and who thus used these concepts to argue against qualitative improvements to the US nuclear arsenal (e.g., lower circular error probables [CEPs], lower explosive yields, improved and more survivable command-and-control); and for a nuclear posture that, in the event of any attack by nuclear-armed rivals, assured that the US would escalate to megaton, city-busting nuclear destruction. For the arms controllers, the underlying hope was that if the US and SU kept numerically small, but explosively indiscriminate nuclear arsenals, the horror of this posture would make not only all forms of nuclear war less probable, but also movement towards total nuclear disarmament -- and eventual world peace -- more likely.

Wohlstetter was deeply skeptical of the likelihood of total nuclear disarmament, and he was horrified by, and fiercely opposed to, doctrines of countervalue population targeting. That said, he absolutely shared the arms controllers' goal of making nuclear war less likely.

Tom Schelling, Mort Halperin and Donald Brennan famously outlined (as I recall) three goals that all bilateral arms control agreements should aim to achieve: to (1) lower the probability of war; (2) decrease the consequences of war; and (3) do these things at a reasonable cost. Wohlstetter differed from the conventional wisdom of arms controllers in that he thought the US (or the SU) also had the option of achieving these political goals independently, and even more reliably, through its own technological innovation.

To take a key example, in the early 1970s, around the time Soviet COL. N. A. Lomov published his edited volume of the USSR's view of the revolution in military affairs, Wohlstetter became a key participant in the Long Range Research and Development Planning Program (LRRDPP), a project initiated by Advanced Research Projects Agency director Stephen Lukasik and Defense Nuclear Agency representative (and former MAC-V science adviser) Fred Wikner to identify emerging or emergent technologies that could create for America's National Command Authority (NCA) alternative response options to nuclear and large-scale conventional aggression that did not rely on massive and indiscriminate nuclear retaliation envisioned by early Single Integrated Operational Plans (SIOPs).

One of many key improvements that Wohlstetter and his LRRDPP colleagues pushed for was lower CEPs. Because a ten-fold increase in a munition's delivery precision improves the probability of destroying a point target with a single shot (a.k.a. "single-shot kill probability") in a manner roughly equivalent to a thousand-fold increase of the same munition's explosive yield, they foresaw that dramatic improvements in delivery precision could lead America's NCA someday to rely almost exclusively on non-nuclear options -- in contrast to the nuclear options of SIOPs -- to deter and, if necessary, respond to most forms of military aggression. On this point, they were correct.

Indeed, it is worth remembering that, in the end, the sorts of qualitative improvements initiated by Wohlstetter and his LRRDPP colleagues helped in no small way to pave the way for the sort of "Toward a Nuclear-Free World" arguments that you yourself have endorsed. But the arms controllers of Wohlstetter's day, citing the dangers of "spiraling arms races," opposed such improvements in favor of bilateral treaties to codify the indiscriminate destructiveness of the US-SU arsenal.

JF Cooper -

Your conclusion that U.S. is not responsible for Russia's actions is not correct. The 'Starwars' program initiated by Reagan Admn. was directed solely against Russia. The development of Topol M is the direct consequence of Starwars program to maintain Russia's ability to penetrate missile defenses. The present installation of ABM systems all around Russia is directly related to Russia's development of Topol M and not against so-called rogue states whoever they may be. To pretend that these advances are unrelated is being naive. Much of Russia's economy would've recovered by now without these threats. These advances in weapons have made the world a far more dangerous place.

The U.S. and no other country is going about with a relentless pursuit of domination of the world economy
through military threat while speaking eloquent on democracy. Russia has no other option but to defend itself to maintain its independence in decision making.

K.A.Sharma:

I won’t begin to speak for JF Cooper but I did want to add to the discussion that I feel many of your concerns are certainly “real” from Russia’s perspective. However, I do think the whole issue of nuclear arms is bigger and more complex today than in the old historical context of American-Soviet (Russian) days. The world today is more diverse than was the time when nuclear arms centered only on Moscow and Washington. For example, Hans M. Kristensen has just posted an article written about the rising Chinese arsenal of nuclear weapons and its implications. Beijing has increased its inventory of weapons by a third since only 2006 as new ICBMs, nuclear cruise missiles and SLBMs are being added. One could argue the Chinese nuclear weapons are only “defensive” but prudence demands American take this potential future threat seriously. We could build additional offensive weapons, new ICBMs or add back warheads to our existing systems, but have elected to build defensive counter measures to such a threat in the form of ABM systems. As the effectiveness of such systems grow in the future, never perfect, but developing into a capable battlefield weapon, our inventory of offensive weapons can be safely reduced. That is at least the theory. Granted, the ABM system in question, the Ground Based Interceptors (GBI) installed in Alaska and scheduled for Poland could be used to intercept a Russian ICBM just as well as a Chinese. This I understand and make no apology for.

Frank Shuler
USA

Interceptors in Poland could not possibly intercept Russian nuclear missiles, as the path a Russian nuclear launch would take would be over the North Pole. Realistically only launches against Europe from Russia could be intercepted by this deployment.

Feanor:

Nor would the Polish ABM site be of much use against a Chinese launch. I was just drawing attention that the main USA Alaska GBI system is the same as anticipated for Poland. There seems to be so much misinformation on the American systems; their capabilities and missions. I think most readers of “Russian Strategic Nuclear Forces” think there are hundreds of interceptors in place now with thousands to come.

Frank Shuler
USA

Well updating the facilities from housing 10 interceptors to housing 100 interceptors is only a matter of months.

Robert Zarate: Thank you for the interesting comment and for the link to Wohlstetter’s article. It’s a very interesting reading. In fact, it supports my point – neither side was interested in what the other was doing. Strategic programs on both sides had their own logic and inertia.

But it is wrong to say that there was no “arms race” in a sense that there was no action-reaction mechanism at all. I do not think Wohlstetter made a convincing case here. The Soviet buildup of the late 1960s was a direct response to the U.S. programs of the early 1960s. While Wohlstetter was right that there was no response to that Soviet buildup from the U.S. at the time of his writing, but we know now that that response came later – in the late 1970s. He just mistook a “momentary pause” in the U.S. buildup for a sign of U.S. programs “grinding to a halt” (p. 191).

I’m not sure I’m convinced by his argument that “qualitative” changes “increase stability of the force” (p. 216) either. This is simply not the case. There is no way ICBMs are more stable than bombers or that MIRVed missiles are more stable than single-warhead ones. Not to mention the fact that the launch on warning posture that was a direct (and largely inevitable) result of the “qualitative changes” proved to be prone to accidents.

Finally, I don’t think that the three goals of arms control that you mention are all that there is there. Arms control creates predictability; it helps create common understandings and, ideally, establishes institutions that allow keeping the military programs in check. For example, the actual benefit of the ABM treaty was not in preventing deployment of missile defense – it was well understood by the time the treaty was signed that effective missile defense is impossible anyway (otherwise it wouldn’t have been signed). The treaty just codified this understanding, so both sides could rely on the other not building defenses. It helped, even if for a while.

> I think most readers of "Russian Strategic Nuclear Forces" think there are hundreds of interceptors in place now with thousands to come.

- Frank, here some info about real quantities of interceptors:

'February 16, 2008. The Pentagon has a 1-billion dollar contract with Raytheon Missile Systems on delivery of 102 SM-3 interceptors. 75 SM-3s will be a part of Aegis anti-missile system, developed by Lockheed Martin; 27 others will be sold to Japan in the frameworks of military and technical cooperation between Tokyo and Washington'.

And don't forget to add GBIs and SM-3s already installed.

- The price of one SM-3 is approx. 10 million dollars, one GBI costs 100 million dollars.

- From varios estimations, US spent from 600 billion to 1.5 trillion dollars only to war at Iraq... In fact, 600 billion dollars, - it's 60,000 SM-3s or 6,000 GBIs...

In other words, - 100+ interceptors now may easily grow to 1000+ tomorrow.

Russian:

And 10,000 the day later...

Frank Shuler
USA

Russian:

You don't fully understand how our defense budget works. The 600 billion that is used on the war in Iraq was a special request appropriation through our Congress. It isn't normally money that we have to spend on defense. So, in other words, there will not be massive amounts of cash to throw around on the interceptors as you are implying.

Anti-missiles can also be used equally as missiles for attack. There is no guarantee that ABM systems are only defensive and these missiles deployed in large nos. around Russia can only multiply by several times the offensive potential of US against Russia.

> You don't fully understand how our defense budget works. The 600 billion that is used on the war in Iraq was a special request appropriation through our Congress. It isn't normally money that we have to spend on defense. So, in other words, there will not be massive amounts of cash to throw around on the interceptors as you are implying.

- Rich, the procedure and manner in what these money was funded, - do not matter at all.

The only thing that matter: if US has already spent these money just on the one political caprice of neocons, - so US may allow to itself to spent such a giant sums, isn't it?

- Presently, US spendings on the war in Iraq is near 10 billion dollars per month (in 2003, the sum was 5 billion USDs per month).

Now let's imagine for a second, that the following (let's say - democratic) US administration, will decide to leave Iraq, and NMD will be the next 'political caprice' of the next US administration...

- Is it possible for US to spend, let's say, - 1 or 2 billion dollars per month on the NMD, - from the sum of 9 - 10 billion dollars, 'saved monthly on Iraq'?

I think the answer is positive.

KA Sharma and Russian,

1)Why would the US bother spending billions of dollars on missiles capable of shooting down other missiles and then use them for attack? The technology for each is radically different (especially the radar, tracking, and software). If the US wanted to build more offensive capability (i.e. more missiles), it would do just that. The US defense system is much too transparent and leaky to keep dual offense-defense missiles a secret. It seems the US government cannot keep anything secret!

2)I think both of you give too much credit to the intelligence and intentions of the US legislative process. Even if the US pulls out of Iraq and is no longer spending billions of dollars a month on operations, Congressional leaders are more likely to spend the savings on home projects (such as useless roads) then they are on more military hardware. Do not forget, the Congress, President, and Judiciary are all separate in the American system and they are often at odds. I would not expect any significant increase in any program this next two years…especially with a new administration taking office in January 2009.

No...it is not possible. Do you follow American Politics? The amount of money being spent on military purposes and the war in Iraq is a very controversial topic and less support is created every day.

While if NMD comes to the forefront of the goals a lot of money will be spent, but not at the levels you are imagining.

Spending money on a war and spending money of product production are two different things. The U.S. government would not approve of such appropriations. So the procedure and manner in which the money is funded is the most important thing. The leaders at the top may want to spend 1 billion a month, but they will never get the money. Your arguement is moot and unrealistic.

Missile defense strikes again. Negotiations about setting up a radar in Turkey. Now I am worried.

http://newsru.com/world/13mar2008/turk_pro.html

I do not agree that US will not continue to deploy ABM systems after the change of Admn. It is beyond the scope of Govt. what in the 'national interest' the CIA or Pentagon will decide to do. Also the President has absolute powers to overturn any Congressional decisions in the national interst of US. By all signs the US is engaged in systematically setting up ABM systems around Russia to gain the ability to dicatate to Russia, the middle east and Asian countries.

The old-trend already predicted some years ago start to become a reality. Note that the radar will look north. Empty words and promises can’t cover this trend anymore.
Let’s face the reality. I think the development of a short ICBM a.k.a Pioneer-M will be unavoidable.

Feanor:

Rumor is the US is interested in some kind of lease arrangement with Azerbaijan for a radar site; perhaps at the Gabala site when Russia vacates after their lease expires in 2010. AW&ST reported the mobile X-Band radar system (AN/TPY-2) used with the THAAD system as the likely system to be installed. I think this rumor falls under speculation and not fact. However, it is a rumor not without merit.

Frank Shuler
USA

"The defense budget of Russia is about $40 billion where as that of U.S. is $450 billion. Still one sees the U.S. admn. and Pentagon keep up a highly exaggerated perception of Russian defense spending. The U.S. never talked about people's suffering in other nations except for its own benefit. The U.S. wants total control and domination of all economic decisions in its favor with the help of implied military threats on other nations. If Russia is spending on new defence equipment it is forced to do so to maintain its independence. The relentless pursuit of new weapons technology by U.S. is directed solely with the purpose of dictating to everyone in the world. It sounds so hollow when U.S. journalists and writers talk about the woes of Russian public due to Russia's defense budget when it is the U.S. which is responsible for this. Is any of the writers asking what is the purpose of these highly advanced weapons research in U.S.?

The propaganda machinery of U.S. and its media have completely lost their credibility except for the American public who are anyway not interested in what happens in other countries as long as they are safe and sound. The govt. ensures that."

[K.A.Sharma] [March 6, 2008] [#]

- I for one totally agree with this opinion. Especially with the one regarding the American public.

"They are surrounded by nuclear-armed neighbors: China to the south/east, Iran to the south, Europe to its west, and the US east/west." - JF Cooper

- Who said that Iran has to be mentioned? Do you have hard and undenible facts that Iran IS a nclear-armed neighbor??
Here we go again with asumptions like the ones that brought the second Iraki-war about???
I'm still amazed at the US double-moral policy. I don't even want to begin mentioning the so called "conspiracy" theories that the US goverment wants to keep them just that: conspiracy theories, while the truth is bighter then the Sun.

"To say that one nation alone is responsible for another nations misfortunes is naive. Is the US to blame for Russian democratic/economic failures in the '90's?" - JF Cooper

- Is it really?
After 18 years I still have problems believing that the anti-communist wave that crashed over Eastern-Europe in '89-'90 ending 45 years of Communism was...accidental, a coincidence; that it was a result of over four decades of communist shortcomings and atrocities. For me it's pretty obvious that all that, was a plan ready in place waiting for only the ideal chance/moment to be put in motion. That that moment showed itself to bear names like Gorbatjov or Perestroika, now that maybe -and I'm saying maybe- was coincidence.

Or just an Iskander complex with increased range. The design already exists, it's just not mass produced because of the medium range missiles treaty.

K.A.Sharma:

The American defense budget is actually much higher than the 450 billion dollars you stated. The US Department of Energy, the department that oversees the US nuclear arsenal, US Department of Homeland Security associated with internal security, and the Central Intelligence Agency perhaps double this number. The actual size of the US defense budget is undetermined; so much of the dollars are in “black” programs not reported publicly through our US Congress.

Frank Shuler
USA

Decentralization of Russia is US geopolitical imperative, Mr. Z. Brzezinski wrote in his book The Grand Chessboard in 1993. It seems to me that in this day and age US also wants Russia to dream in color of an "American dream" as well. US want to export real deal (American) democracy to the savage Russians, bring freedom and salvation, and balkanize Eurasia. Also, tear Russia into separate regions to access vast natural resources and turn Russians into docile, domesticated USDA approved cattle.
I must I agree with Condoleezza Rice that new Cold War is a "hyperbolic nonsense", but given a current situation, all out nuclear exchange is more likely.
But like Bush said "It’s all about stratigery"

A.Goncharov:

Whether Russia holds together as a nation in the next thirty years or so will be decided by Russians. No amount of nuclear weapons will unite a country if the society of that country wants change. In these events, the United States has little influence. Russia has a unique, historical opportunity. Its oil & energy industry can provide an unprecedented economy that can benefit each of its citizens beyond yesterday’s imagination. Russia has an opportunity to build a society based on prosperity and achievement. How this opportunity is used will determine Russia’s future.

Frank Shuler
USA

971,

Iran may or may not have a nuclear weapon. If the American NIE is to be believed, Iran does not possess one. However, that is beside the point. Iran’s problem is fissile material. Once that have enough, they could rapidly produce a weapon if they chose. Even Russia’s government believes that they are producing the fissile material.

Is it really a surprise that there was a communist backlash in 1989? Did the West have a part? Of course they did. It was the Cold War and both sides actively worked against each other. What Russia had going against it was a forced occupation of Eastern Europe and parts of the Soviet Union for 50 years. The United States never had to revert to violent suppression to stay in Europe as Russia did in Hungary and Czechoslovakia.

The Russian decline at the end of the 20th century was a result of their failed policies and an unworkable government ideology. Communism has proved to be one of the greatest governmental failures in human existence. There is not one true communist nation to date…China, Cuba, and Vietnam can hardly be called communist anymore. I believe Russia should focus its ire within and not without. In truth, most Americans I know do not care at all about Russia, let alone possess a desire to keep her weak. Maybe that is the problem; the West does not think about Russia at all?

But the United States had to revert to violent suppression to stay in Latin America. And why do you say Cuba can't be called communist? In my humble opinion (and I am a communist) it's the last communist country on earth, and a fairly successful one at that.

And you say most Americans don't care. That's true, I've lived here long enough to notice. But most Americans don't make any important decisions in regards to policy, so nobody cares what they think. What matters are the opinions of those in power. Do you claim to know what they think?

First Russia accepts and recognizes its violent behaviour in Hungary and Czechoslovakia. USA, rather than blame Russia should behave en a similar way apologizing by its violent behaviour in Latin-America. We all remember the US-financing of death-squads in Central America, puppet governments and the support to Pinochet and the bloody Argentinean Junta. I can’t remember an American apologize for such crimes.
Russia right now is focussing in its own self-development, and it will good that claims about that “Americans I know do not care at all about Russia” to become reality. After all Russia is now fully capable to crash ONG designed to meddling in internal affairs and to make obsolete any ABM system deployed around the Russian perimeter. So, if USA wants to squander its weakened budget pursuing “nuclear dominance” against Russia and financing guys like Kasparov, well, go ahead. Spend your money and weaken yourself.

Feanor and Kolokol,

The United States in not without its sins. You left out the war in Vietnam, Abu Gharib, and the genocide of the American Indians in the 19th century. Every culture, East and West, has committed atrocities at one time or another.
I don't claim to know what those in power think, but I know that in the United States, it changes once every four to eight years. I predict that Russia and America will see closer ties regardless of what presidential candidate comes to power. All of them will likely distance themselves as far as they can from Bush's policies.
I understand Russia's fear of a US missile defense program, but you are absolutely right to say that Russia can overcome any missile defense program. From the US perspective, that's ok....their goal is to defend against Iranian or North Korean missiles, not Russian. Why not put them where they can be the most effective which is as far forward from the US as possible?

Great discussion gentlemen!

Feanor:

I think most American’s don’t care about Russia in the sense we no longer fear Russia as was the case in the old Soviet days. Our national leaders are cautious about the future of Russo-American relations but optimistic. That optimism filters down to the American people. The United States is a perplexing country to understand. It defies most conventional wisdom.

Don’t lay all the “violent suppression” in Latin America at our feet. There is enough blame to go around. Have you ever noticed when a leftist government rises in Latin America and property is nationalized, foreign assets are seized, and trade is restricted that tensions with the United States rise. But, it’s only when local land reform starts that the “reactive right” rises in armed conflict and coups and civil wars are the result. Land reform in Latin America strikes at the very foundation of established social institutions; wealth redistribution in Latin America has never been decided at the ballot box, only with a gun. The US usually supports the status quo.

By the way, you must never have traveled to Cuba. Spend a week there, enjoy Havana but spend some time in the countryside. You will see few successes.

Frank Shuler
USA