Pavel

Who do you think would make the decision to remove nuclear weapons from the Air Force as per your suggestion?

Frank Shuler
USA

What are Russian security requirements for the 21st Century ? Does it need forces to intervene abroad ? Does it require an update of its nuclear forces ? What is the Kremlin really after ?

What Moscow wants is to maintain the residue of Soviet power, and in large part, that was manifest in the Soviet nuclear arsenal. If that can be modernized, and adapted to nuclear warfare in this century, then Russia believes that it can enhance its diminished relevance.

Frank: I think Gates is in a position to initiate the process. Of course, I know that he wouldn't or if he would the proposal would be killed very quickly. But that's exactly my point.

Karl: What is "nuclear warfare in this century"? My point is that there is no such thing.

Pavel:

You keep talking about removing nukes from the AF...are you talking about both the US and Russia or just the USAF?

I completely agree that the USAF really doesn't need them anymore but to take away the mission that defined the force from the beginning will be a tough fight.

The USAF is outdated and unnecessary. With the invention of stellar inertial navigation, it pretty much took the AF out of the picture. There is nothing that the Navy and ICBM force cannot do that the AF can.

Nuclear deterrent is an absolutely vital part of the 21st century, and the more it continues to erode (meanwhile ABM systems are perfected) the more likely the future of another global war that involves tactical and strategic usage of the (by then much smaller) nuclear arsenals.

Russia is an illegitimate political entity, so it must be contained, deterred and then rolled back. Since it possesses nuclear weapons, it is necessary for the US to maintain its nuclear deterrent as part of the process.

I fail to see how NOT maintaining a credible nuclear deterrent while Russia fields new will create a MORE stable environment.

I would say that, unfortunately, limited nuclear warfare in this century is more likely than during the XX century because of the aggressive military alliance that is sneaking around the world in name of “freedom and democracy” for appropriating or controlling strategic raw resources.

Rich: I don't see what Russia would lose by removing nuclear weapons from its bombers.

Pavel

[...Instead of making necessary but hard decisions about the role of nuclear weapons (I would suggest removing nuclear weapons from the Air Force as a good start) he is pretending that if only everybody tries harder things would be as simple and orderly as they used to be during the Cold War....]

Are you advocating the removal of nuclear arms from the US Air Force or only the manned bomber force?

Frank Shuler
USA

- Pavel, your proposal about removal of nuclear weapons from the 'Air wing' of American strategic triad looks very unrealistic.

US foreign politics was always militarist and reactionary, and there are no signs of change to the good...

> Russia is an illegitimate political entity, so it must be contained, deterred and then rolled back.

- Anonymous, your reactionism looks silly again. Why Russia, - may be it's US is 'illegitimate political entity'?

We must always remember here about tragedy of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and we must always remember that Russian nuclear weapons was NEVER used against both combatants and peaceful people.

- I bet you never even count the wars US initiated and took part since 1945... Count at your free time, - and you'll be really impressed.

> I fail to see how NOT maintaining a credible nuclear deterrent while Russia fields new will create a MORE stable environment.

- But, as you may see, - so called 'fielding a new [Russian strategic weapons]' do not add to the Russia's strategic potential; contrary to it, - in fact, such a 'fielding' scrap the Russia's strategic potentials, as new weapons replace older ones with lower than 1 : 1 ratio.

Examples:

- New SS-27 Topol-M with single 550-kt warhead replace the older SS-25 Topol with single 550-kt warhead, with lower than 1 : 1 ratio now;

- New RS-24 with less-than-2-tonnes throwweight (and probably 3 'middle-class' warheads or 6 'light-class' warheads) will surely replace the older SS-19 Stilletos with more-than-4-tonnes throweight and 6 'middle-class' warheads;

- The fleet of 8 or 9 Boreys (probably, 16 SLBMs on each) will replace the existing fleet of 12 Delta-class SSBNs, 16 SLBMs on each.

And so on.

I think US should be quite happy with such a 'fielding'... But it seems some reactionaries still not.

Should we consider such a situation as brightest example of the 'American imperialist greed'?

"Russia is an illegitimate political entity"

Define "legitimate political entity".

Frank: The manned bomber force would be a good start, although ICBMs should certainly go at some point as well.

Russian, Feanor: I don't think it would make much sense to argue with an anonymous reader about whether Russia is a legitimate entity or not. I posted this comment just to show the range of opinions out there.

Pavel

I realize this is only an intellectual exercise and not a practical one but...

There are three types of nuclear weapons in the American arsenal. There are nuclear weapons designed never to be used, the Minuteman III fleet. There are weapons that might be used but only in a counter-strike to a general nuclear attack on the United States, Trident D5. And there are nuclear weapons that may very well be used in the future in a limited, preemptive nuclear strike on a non-peer adversary, the bombers (specifically the B-2 bombers). Ending the nuclear mission for the bomber fleet would be a most significant change in American military policy. With that decision, the United States would be de-facto giving up the “right” of preemptive use of nuclear weapons in defense of the US. America would be saying to the world, the US would only use nuclear weapons if attacked and devastated by such weapons ourselves. With that implied declaration, the US would lose any deterrent value of its nuclear arsenal in maintaining a response to such a limited, non-peer adversary. Have we reached that maturity as a political nation whereby we could say, if the United States is struck by a nuclear weapon in the hands of a non-governmental enemy, such as al-Qaeda, our response would be only conventional? Or, would the public cry for blood be so great that ICBMs would launch against any nation we decided had aided such an attack? Once missiles are in the air where would it stop?

One could argue whether the preemptive use of a B-61 bomb delivered by a B-2A bomber deters al-Qaeda, or anyone else for that matter, but what I fear might be lost is the proportional response to any such attack. Perhaps that “proportional response” itself is deterrence enough and justifies the manned bomber fleet.

Frank Shuler
USA

the United States would be de-facto giving up the “right” of preemptive use of nuclear weapons in defense of the US

What's wrong with that? I don't see how this would mean losing "any deterrent value" of U.S. arsenal. Deterrence is about (inevitable) retaliation, not about preemption. Clearly, nuclear weapons don't have any value, deterrent or otherwise, against threats like Al Qaeda.

Pavel

Deterrence is not about (inevitable) retaliation in the least. It is about the “threat” of such retaliation and the consequences of such actions. Perhaps the “threat of retaliation” against a non-governmental organization, such as al-Qaeda, has a certain deterrent effect against the organization itself and the host country that such an attack might spring from (?). I think so. The same could be said against a national government, such as North Korea. The American weapon system that best prosecutes that “threat of retaliation” is the B-2A bomber and a nuclear bomb.

Just my opinion.

Frank Shuler
USA

Pavel,

First point: You make a valid argument about nuclear weapons having little or no value against Al Qaeda. But they still have great value in deterring other nation states and it is arguable that they aid non-proliferation through extended deterrence.

Just because they would not help against transnational threats does not mean that the US, or Russia for that matter, should get rid of them. To use an American colloquialism: Don't throw out the baby with the bathwater.

Second point: ANY reduction in US nuclear forces should be made in conjunction with the P5 and at a bare minumum Russia as well. Russia still has thousands of tactical warheads and is making new strategic warheads and delivery systems. Where is the Russian push to de-arm?

Frank: Again, the point is that deterrence is not about preemption. And to the extent nuclear weapons are "useful" for retaliation, a ballistic missile is as good as a bomber for delivering it.

JF Cooper: I'm not sure that nuclear weapons "have great value in deterring nation states" today. And certainly they do not aid non-proliferation. Quite the contrary.

On Russia and others, I agree - they should get rid of their nuclear weapons as well.

Pavel

Respectfully disagree on the role of the bomber in such a mission. If I’m the Commander –in-Chief I want a human hand on the mission until the very last moment. I would want to exercise as much command & control on the situation as possible, for as long as possible, and a missile launch doesn’t provide that luxury. There is also the technical issue of accuracy. Of course, the accuracy of the American Minuteman or Trident system is well documented. However in a war situation, launching a 37 year-old Minuteman III ICBM from Wyoming against a small hamlet in the deep mountains along the Afghanistan-Pakistan border is always going to be problematic. I’d hate to have a component failure and strike New Delhi by mistake. And why use a W-78 350 kt or a 450 kt W-87 warhead for such a strike?

I think the bomber (B-2A) plays a very distinct role in American military planning, far greater than is usually acknowledged.

Frank Shuler
USA

The B-2A huh? What all........ 20 of them? :)

No really. There's 20. That's it. Each one costs well over a billion dollars. Can you imagine the fiasco of losing one to hostile action?

Pavel:

"Frank: The manned bomber force would be a good start, although ICBMs should certainly go at some point as well."

I presume you feel Russia should get rid of her bombers and ICBMs as well?

Feanor

Only sixteen of the B-2A bombers are combat coded and the replacement cost is estimated at a billion and half dollars each. Those sixteen aircraft could destroy 256 cities in one sortie.

As for losing a B-2 in combat, it’s important to understand the B-3 is under development as we speak for introduction in the 2018 time frame. Actually, the B-2 is “old news” to the Pentagon.

Frank Shuler
USA

Scott: Yes, of course Russia should get rid of its nuclear weapons too.

Pavel:

The problem I see with getting rid of nukes is that once they're gone war between the larger powers becomes more likely. Why would you see that as a good thing? Am I missing something here? If so, what?

Scott: What kind of "war between major powers" would be more likely? What would be a scenario?

> Each one costs well over a billion dollars.

- In fact, - 1.3 billion dollars, after the last modernisation program...

The most expensive plane in history of world's aviation. Very sensitive tool that requires a special hangar with thermal stabilization as even natural change of ambient temperatures may damage seriously such an 'oversophisticated' construction in a rather short time, due to the wildly different coefficients of thermal expansion of specific materials implemented in it.

> ... it’s important to understand the B-3 is under development as we speak for introduction in the 2018 time frame.

- You probably mean so called 'NGB' (Next Generation Bomber) program; as Aviation Week reports, start of this program was revealed recently by experts on the base of some 'anomalies' in Pentagon's budget:

http://www.vz.ru/society/2008/5/29/172625.print.html

- Well, I can remember all this 'Pentagon budget anomalies' since the middle of 1980s, when Soviet press reports spitefully that Pentagon bought again (for example) 'an aircraft toilets at price like these utilitarian devices was made of pure platinum'... ;-)

> What would be a scenario?

- Pavel, a 'new cold war' is the most likely scenario. Somewhere in 2011 - 2013 timeframe, if no compromise on strategic balance will be found.

- Dmitry Medvedev's point of view:

http://grani.ru/Politics/World/US/RF/p.137725.html

Frank all I've heard is that the US has a competition in place to produce a bomber. No designation, and certainly not a 2018 induction date. Can you cite some info?

A likely scenario? Western hordes trying to dominate Russian raw resources.

Kolokol: I could only repeat what I said some time ago - watching Russian TV (and/or Nashi propaganda) is not healthy.

Russian
Feanor

As previously alluded to, Northrop Grumman has a “black” development contract to provide a prototype of the new B-3 bomber that should be flying shortly. A consortium led by Boeing and Lockheed-Martin will bid against Northrop Grumman for a production contract and the aircraft is schedule to be delivered in 2018. This program has been in the works for some time; as the US Air Force has repeatedly resisted Congressional prodding to restart the existing B-2 line over the last eight years. General thought here is this new aircraft will be procured in both a crew and unmanned version and will resemble an up-sized version of the US Navy’s X-47B UCAV that NG is building.

Apparently, all the budget dollars the USAF was putting into their version of the X-47-class UCAV was a ruse for the bomber development.

The NGB idea is for 2038.

Frank Shuler
USA

Also is not healthy to repeat slogans from the western propaganda machine about "freedom & democracy". You can see the real effect of the western "freedom & democracy" in Kosovo, Afganistan and Irak. And remember who financed partially the Chchen terrorism. Let's live in the real world.

Kolokol: I don't remember anyone mentioning freedom and democracy in this thread, so I'm not sure I understand your point. Anyway, I don't think this discussion is worth continuing here.

> I could only repeat what I said some time ago - watching Russian TV (and/or Nashi propaganda) is not healthy.

- Pavel, I honestly must said you seriously overestimate the Nashist's influence on Russian political life. For example, - I can't remember at least one big political action of 'Nashists' in last half of a year. По правде говоря, "нашисты" откровенно "не тянут" даже на китайских хунвейбинов, - не говоря уже о большевиках... ;-)

In short: nobody listen to the Nashist's propaganda here, and virtually all people has their own points of view.

- 'Russian TV' has rather small influence on political life, too (by the way, - what 'Russian TV'? Which of 17 channels of aerial TV available here at Kazan free-of-charge, and which of 67 - 80 channels of cable TV, available at Kazan at price of 4 - 6 dollars per month? I will not take into consideration the satellite TV available here at price lower then $150 per 'minimal' hardware kit).

Well, you should to know that widely-spreaded ironic nickname of TV-set here in Russia is 'debilator' ("дебилятор")... ;-)

Do you seriously think we have a time here to sit and watch 67 channels?

I don't remember anyone except you talking about Nashi propaganda. Let's live in the real world: Kosovo, Iraq, ...

Agreed. End of discussion.

Pavel:

"Scott: What kind of "war between major powers" would be more likely? What would be a scenario?"

Take your pick. Anything that would normally be stifled by the major powers not wanting to escelate things to the nuclear level would now be fair game.

Let's take the Taiwan/China scenario. With nukes the US the US would likely just help Taiwan repel an invasion. Without them (China not having them either)things like ship yards and chain of command might end up being tempting targets (with little risk of Chinese attacks in kind).

Or how about Russia claiming the North Pole (I guess the moon belongs to the US now since we put a flag their eh?). If Russia thinks sticking a flag there makes it their's they have a BIG surprise coming. With both side having nukes the eventual solution will likely involve negotiated agreements and no blood shed. If nobody had them it would be more likely to end up in blood shed as countries attempted to assert control.

Think of a bar fight where everybody has guns and everybody knows it. People might sit there and stew but they're not going to pull out a gun and start shooting. Take away everybody's guns and everybody starts swinging.

I think eliminating bomber based nuclear weapons, and for that matter, any nuclear weapon that can be used in a pre-emptive way would be the neccessary first step to a much safer world. Nuclear weapons do have a role in the post cold war world, and that role is deterrence by means of MAD. Otherwise, these weapons could be eliminated completely if the genie could be put back in the bottle. However, I don't see any realistic way to do that. Besides, nuclear deterrence has the added advantage of preventing large scale conventional wars. ICBM's and SLBM's are all that are required.

It seems to me that bomber force would be a much better deterrent than ICBMs. Once launched ICBMs cannot be recalled or retargeted which makes them very unstable and you need to be very sure that you are under attack before launching. Bombers, on the other hand, can be launched as soon as there is a blip on the radar and then easily turned back when you realize it's just a pack of Canada geese.

> Or how about Russia claiming the North Pole (I guess the moon belongs to the US now since we put a flag their eh?).

- Following your brilliant logic, we all should have a WW3 started many years ago... As too much countries 'claimed their sovereign rights' on Everest by sticking their national flags on it's top. (smile)

- Your post is typical for Western 'understanding' of Russia's efforts; most people in the US and on the West prefer to see in Russia's efforts only things they WANT to see. In the example above, - you've seen the 'imperial ambitions' and 'territorial claims' in the purely scientific action.

But, you should to take into consideration the circumstance that deep-water 'diving on the North Pole' was performed in the first time of the history of human civilization, so 'showing a flag' was a 'honorary right' of pathfinders and pioneers; so, Russia's flag on the North Pole will stay in the same row with Norway flag on the South Pole and US flag at the Moon.

As to Western cries similar to 'Russia claiming the North Pole', - gentlemen, relax please. At the end of May, 2008, five circumpolar states (Russia, Canada, Denmark, Norway and USA) signed the international agreement about diplomatic adjustment of all 'circumpolar territorial claims' within the frameworks of UN Convention on Maritime Law.

You may read about it here:

http://timer-ua.com/news_print.php?news=391

So, as we all can see, - sticking a Russian Flag on the North Pole was an effective 'trigger' for the peaceful diplomatic process... :-)

> Otherwise, these weapons could be eliminated completely if the genie could be put back in the bottle. However, I don't see any realistic way to do that. Besides, nuclear deterrence has the added advantage of preventing large scale conventional wars.

- Completely agreed with you.

John Grams:

What kind of weapon CAN'T be used in a pre-emptive way? (Bombers, ICBMs, SLBMs, etc. can ALL be used in a pre-emptive strike.)

Scott Ferrin
Jon Grams

It’s not just having nuclear weapons but the real, believable threat of their use that creates deterrence. All the nuclear weapons in the British arsenal in 1982 did not prevent Argentina from seizing the Falkland Islands and beginning war. The British nuclear arms were not a deterrent because Buenos Aires knew there was no circumstance whereby they would ever be used. Twenty-five years later we learn Royal Navy carriers actually went to the South Atlantic in 1982 secretly armed with nuclear depth charges. Perhaps there were circumstances by which these weapons would have been used; the loss of a British carrier to a submarine’s torpedo for example. Would the use of nuclear depth charges have altered the war? No. However, if the Argentinean military had know of London’s resolve to use such weapons in defense of their fleet, might it have altered their initial desire to push to war over the las Malvinas? Maybe. Perhaps that hesitation alone would have prevented the conflict and the loss of 907 lives.

Frank Shuler
USA

> The NGB idea is for 2038.

- You probably mean 2018:

2018 - NGB "Block 10" enters service.

Russian

I stand corrected. Thanks!

Frank Shuler
USA

Russian:

Thanks for proving my point. Had not the major concerned parties had nukes history suggests the North Pole issue might not have been resolved as peacefully. As for leaping to conclusions it was Putin and his lackies that were going on about how it (the North Pole belonging to Russia) was going to be such a boon for Russia. Blame him.

> Thanks for proving my point.

- What 'point', by the way?

> Blame him.

- I'd prefer to blame here the Western reactionism as well as poor and wrong understanding of Russian intentions.

Russian:

The point being that with both sides having nukes things like the North Pole issue are more likely to get settled without bloodshed. When the other side has nukes a lot more thinking gets done because the consequences of war are so much greater. Don't understand why so many seem to feel that's a BAD thing.

I must agree with Scott. The key is to reduce the stockpiles to the minimum level to assure this "dead end" scenario. Going beyond that point the likelihood of a nuclear exchange rises because some side may be tempted to "win" a nuclear exchange.

Scott Ferrin

I do agree the presence of nuclear weapons forces a whole new degree of reasoning on countries in conflict. The best example I can relate over the last ten years or so would be the last disagreement between India and Pakistan over Kashmir. Not only did both sides have nuclear weapons but there was the too real fear that they would be used. Neither side really understood where the “point-of-no-return” was nor what would be the line crossed that would “force” the other side into a nuclear exchange. I remember one Indian general on CNN confidently stating if India lost 200 million people and finally ended the Pakistan threat; it would be worth the price. Chilling. That being said, I do think the argument over Kashmir would have erupted into war with significant fighting and casualties. Did nuclear weapons prevent such a conflict? I tend to think so.

Frank Shuler
USA

What kind of weapon CAN'T be used in a pre-emptive way? (Bombers, ICBMs, SLBMs, etc. can ALL be used in a pre-emptive strike.)

[Anonymous

I should have specified: since pre-emptive (in this day) implies "surgical" or "bunker-busting" strikes rather than strikes on major population centers, I meant that high-yield multimegaton range thermonuclear weapons (5 megatons and up)cannot be realistically used pre-emptively. But yes, the current arsenal with weapons of 1-2 megatons or less could technically be used pre-emptively, which is why I believe weapons of that size should be eliminated, with future arsenals composed of fewer numbers of very high yield weapons to ensure that deterrence is their only possible use.

> The point being that with both sides having nukes things like the North Pole issue are more likely to get settled without bloodshed.

- May agree with your main point, but not with conditions that lead you to such a conclusion. All irony in this situation is in the fact that there was NO any 'North Pole issue' (like you and many people on the West still think).

There was only a message, an invitation from Russia to other circumpolar states - an invitation to have a meeting and create a diplomatic framework to resolve the 'North Pole issues' possible in future. Now we know that this invitation gets success.

> When the other side has nukes a lot more thinking gets done because the consequences of war are so much greater. Don't understand why so many seem to feel that's a BAD thing.

- I think that answer is the proper balance of major powers. Too much weapons your country has will surely provocate the potential adversaries on having more weapons, too, - and thus will lead to the weapon race in a 'chain reaction' mechanism: every time your country adds to it's arsenals, your adversaries will try to do the same.

So, the proper amounts of weapons as well as mechanisms of international control are real issues, not weapons itself.

By the way, - according to the last SIPRI report, world's military expenditures increased by 45 % in the last 10 years... I wonder why if 'Cold War is over'?

I think real cold war is not over yet. If that was the case then military expenditure would not increase. The US is increasing it's military expenditure at similar pace that it was in cold war (so called-up to 1991) time. Distrust among the US, NATO and Russia is still very much there. NATO is expanding at rapid pace towards Russian border. I hoped NATO would be disband after the collapse of USSR and the end of communism. But it is a matter of regret that NATO is still marching and creating new military conflict in the world particularly in Europe. I think the US is still suffering from fear of unknown enemy. When American shouldn't bother military threat from any country even Russia, they are building military to deal with Iran! (What a joke!) This shows how fearful the US is! Israel is enough to counter Iran. I think the US is using the threat of Iran and North Korea as an excuse to build its military might and dominate the world. They shouldn't do that. America can easily dominate the world with its economic might! No country will ever dare to attack America. So they should burry this fear factor and start working for a peaceful world. I think if the US takes initiatives of peace, other countries will definitely follow. I really don't want to see a new Iraq, Afghanistan, Palestine etc. The threat of terrorism should be dealt collectively by all the peace loving countries.

Anonymous:

"By the way, - according to the last SIPRI report, world's military expenditures increased by 45 % in the last 10 years... I wonder why if 'Cold War is over'?"

By 45% in dollars or as a percentage of GNP? Also consider that things cost a LOT more today. For the price of one F-22 today you could have bought a half dozen F-15s in 1985 for example. And how much is being spent on things like C4I today compared to during the Cold War? I'd much rather Russia spent $billion on computers than more nukes. Consider that despite the US's large defense budget NONE if it is being spent on new nuclear bombs, ICBMs, SSBNs, or new warheads. In fact the only nuclear delivery system of any kind in production in the US is the Trident D-5 and it's production is just about done.