谁先眨眼？
2022-12-18 05:53阅读：
'
Who will blink first?' Is nuclear war between Russia and
the US possible?
Some believe the stand off between Moscow and Washington could
eventually see atomic weapons used
Lidia Misnik
Discussions about strengthening nuclear arms control have been
ongoing for decades, but have recently receded into the background,
with leading powers now hurling direct threats at each other.
Despite the obvious catastrophic consequences of a nuclear war, in
which world leaders have repeatedly noted there would be no
winners, Moscow and Washington continue to warn that they are ready
to use their arsenals in extreme circumstances.
Experts have expressed hope that these statements are nothing more
than attempts at blackmail. However, sooner or la
ter, this kind of talk could lead to a critical situation similar
to the height of the Cuban Missile Crisis, when the Soviet Union
and United States held atomic pistols to each other’s heads.
To make matters worse, the entire system of international
agreements on disarmament has practically collapsed, leaving little
hope for improvement in the near future.
Putin’s appeals did not help
In the first year of his presidency, back in 2000, Vladimir Putin
proposed that Russia and the US radically reduce nuclear warhead
levels – to 1,500 units. He noted that it would be realistic to
accomplish this by 2008, and that it should have been possible to
shrink the arsenals of both countries even further in the
future.
Russia, according to Putin, did not see any obstacles to more
reductions in strategic offensive weapons.
“But the main thing now is for Russia and the United States to
start moving together or in parallel to radically lower ceilings on
nuclear warheads without delay,” the president said.
Putin’s proposal was never heeded and twenty two years have passed.
According to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute
(SIPRI), as of the beginning of 2022, the US had the world’s
largest arsenal of nuclear weapons on alert – 1,774 'deployed'
warheads placed on missiles or located on bases of operational
forces. The US boasts a fully-fledged nuclear triad that includes
air, land, and sea components.
Russia has only 1,588 deployed warheads but has a larger total
inventory than Washington - 5,977 to 5,428, according to the
Federation of American Scientists (FAS).
Other nuclear states certainly have far fewer warheads at their
disposal. France, according to the SIPRI, has 290 warheads (10
deployed), and the UK has 225 as of 2022 (60 deployed).
Little is known about the Chinese nuclear arsenal though it is
believed that at the beginning of this year, it numbered over 350
warheads. A report by the Federation of American Scientists
concludes that Beijing's stockpile is increasing.
Be that as it may, the main tension in the nuclear club today is
between the US and Russia. Many consider the situation to be
volatile, especially considering the increasingly combative
statements coming from Moscow and Washington.
The situation heats up
In light of the conflict in Ukraine, public concern about the
possibility of a global nuclear conflict is on the rise. This was
first actively discussed on February 27, when Putin ordered the
Russian deterrent forces to be put on special combat alert. The
Strategic Deterrence Forces are the basis of the Russian Armed
Forces' combat power, intended to deter aggression against Russia
and its allies, as well as defeat an aggressor, including in a war
with the use of nuclear weapons.
It is important to note that Moscow has repeatedly stated that the
country’s nuclear doctrine does not imply preventive strikes,
confirmed by the president himself. That is, nuclear weapons would
only be used if an aggressor launches a nuclear attack on Russian
territory, or if the very existence of the state was under threat
due to a conventional assault.
Analysts have repeatedly returned to the question of whether a real
nuclear confrontation between Russia and other states armed with
atomic bombs is possible. In August, then-British Foreign Minister
and PM candidate Liz Truss said she would use nuclear weapons if
necessary. Prior to that, US Secretary of State Antony Blinken said
that Washington would consider using its nuclear arsenal only in
emergency circumstances, such as to protect the vital interests of
the US, its allies, and partners.
Talk of a possible nuclear conflict re-emerged on September 21,
when Putin said that Russia would use all means at its disposal if
faced with a threat to its territorial integrity. He pointed to the
fact that Washington is directly pushing Kiev to expand the
hostilities to Russian territory. Putin also noted that Western
countries openly state that Russia should be defeated on the
battlefield by all means, and deprived of economic, political,
cultural, and in general, any, sovereignty.
According to the president, western powers are using nuclear
blackmail, pointing to statements by high-ranking representatives
of leading NATO states about the possibility and permissibility of
using weapons of mass destruction against Russia.
“I want to remind those who permit themselves to make such
statements concerning Russia: Our country also has various weapons
of destruction at its disposal, and in certain components, more
modern than those of NATO countries. If the territorial integrity
of our country is threatened, we will certainly use all the means
at our disposal to protect Russia and our people. This is not a
bluff,” Putin said.
Following that, US National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan said in
an interview with CBS that Washington would respond to Moscow on
the possible use of nuclear weapons. He noted that the White House
had warned Russia about the catastrophic consequences of using such
weapons.
On October 7, Ukrainian President Vladimir Zelensky called on NATO
to launch pre-emptive strikes on Russian territory, a statement
that clearly did little to improve the situation. However, the very
next day, he denied that he meant the use of nuclear weapons. As
the Ukrainian leader explained, he was talking about new sanctions
by Western countries to prevent nuclear war.
Later, Zelensky repeatedly expressed his belief that Putin would
not use nuclear weapons in the Ukraine conflict.
Putin himself said on October 27 that Russia has no need to launch
a nuclear strike on Ukraine, since there is no political or
military sense in doing so. He once again pointed to Russia’s
nuclear doctrine, which describes the cases in which nuclear
weapons may be used.
Is the use of nuclear weapons possible?
Political analysts consider the actual use of nuclear weapons by
the US or Russia unlikely or even practically impossible.
Konstantin Blokhin, a leading researcher at the Center for Security
Studies of the Russian Academy of Sciences, dismissed statements
about the possibility of a nuclear strike on Russia as instruments
of informational and psychological pressure - blackmail by the US
against Russia. Its main purpose, he contends, is to send Russia a
clear signal that if it does not stop its special military
operation, a third world war – this time nuclear – will
begin.
But if this war happens, it will be the last in the history of
mankind, civilization will roll back to the Stone Age.
“The United States has got something to lose. Everyone has got
something to lose. They will not start any war, and definitely not
because of Ukraine. Ukraine is an instrument of deterrence, a
hotbed of tension at our borders, nothing more. This is all a
bluff,” Blokhin told RT.
He drew a parallel with the Star Wars program, which was developed
under former US President Ronald Reagan and provided for the
creation of an extensive defense system that integrated laser-armed
satellites, air and ground-based anti-ballistic missile systems,
and electromagnetic railguns. Its main goal was to intercept
intercontinental ballistic missiles launched by the USSR or other
potential adversaries.
Washington hoped that the realization that the vast majority of
warheads launched towards the US would be destroyed would force the
USSR to accept the fact that a nuclear confrontation would be
hopeless.
“In those times, things were very much the same as now. But back
then, we believed it. And now, the goal is to scare us so that
Russia will stop its actions. Therefore, we should consider this
calmly. No one will start a nuclear war because of Ukraine,”
Blokhin said.
He also compared what is happening today to the Cuban Missile
Crisis, but noted that in the 1960s, the confrontation was more
acute.
“Ukraine is a faraway country for the United States, while Cuba is
close. It was Khrushchev’s revolver pointed at Kennedy’s head. And
humanity was on the verge. Today, there is no question of any
parallel,” he said.
According to Vladimir Vasiliev, a senior researcher at the
Institute for US and Canadian Studies at the Russian Academy of
Sciences, it would be premature and rash to openly raise the issue
of using nuclear weapons. The main question is the likelihood of
using nuclear weapons along the lines of the Cuban Missile
Crisis.
According to Vasiliev, America’s hopes that Russia’s military
operation would play out in favor of Kiev and the collective West,
and that the billions of dollars in aid sent to Ukraine would lead
to a strategic defeat for Russia, have not been justified.
“In this respect, the question of a relative calm or even paralysis
arises. Perhaps the West expects that in the near future, it will
be able to escalate tensions, and that this may eventually spin out
of control. And when that happens, the threat of using nuclear
weapons would be the last resort,” he told RT, adding that the West
will resort to this threat if it considers Russia’s winter campaign
in Ukraine successful.
Vasiliev noted that it is difficult to say exactly how the West
will be provoked into this, but perhaps the issue of putting the
world on the brink of a nuclear conflict and moving the conflict
into a certain qualitative phase, forcing Russia to retreat, is
being discussed now.
He pointed out that since February 24, when the military assault
began, there has been no cardinal shift in the conflict. Now,
however, the scope for supplying Ukraine with military equipment is
dwindling, the infrastructure of the Ukrainian economy is being
destroyed, and the conflict is becoming hybrid, so “an attempt by
the West to grab a nuclear pistol is very likely.
“The West can put the world on the brink of a global conflict, to
see who blinks first, and use this fact to create elements of a
strategic turning point in the course of the special military
operation in Ukraine. Perhaps the West is really considering such
plans today due to rather complicated economic considerations,”
Vasiliev said.
No disarmament in sight
In light of current events, many are going back to Putin’s speech
at the Munich Security Conference in 2007, where he raised the
topic of disarmament, a subject still relevant today.
“No one feels safe! Because no one can hide behind international
law as behind a stone wall. Such a policy is, of course, a catalyst
for an arms race... The potential danger of destabilizing
international relations is linked to the obvious stagnation in the
field of disarmament,” the Russian president said in Munich.
Over 15 years have passed but Putin’s statement has, if anything,
only become more relevant. Since then, much has transpired: the
Open Skies Treaty and the INF Treaty on the elimination of
intermediate-range and shorter-range missiles have been terminated,
and in general, as many experts believe, the entire system of
international agreements on disarmament is collapsing.
After the termination of the INF Treaty, only one bilateral arms
control treaty between the US and Russia remains – the Treaty on
Measures for the Further Reduction and Limitation of Strategic
Offensive Arms (New START), which is in effect until 2026.
“Its execution is still frozen because there is no trust between
the United States and Russia, there is no transparency,
consultations. I think there will be no disarmament in our
lifetime. New START will be extended, but no new document will be
signed,” Blokhin said.
Vasiliev isn’t any more optimistic and also believes that there are
no prospects for nuclear disarmament. He noted that the system of
international agreements is complex, but today the whole mechanism
has been destroyed, and countries have no incentive to deal with
the problem unilaterally.
“As a rule, they are unilaterally engaged in the modernization of
their nuclear forces. From the point of view of the possibility of
a nuclear conflict, today there is no point in talking about
disarmament,” he said.
