Washington insists on the right to use nuclear weapons first
Christopher Ford, assistant Secretary of state for international security and nonproliferation, Ph. D. in international relations, spoke on November 12 at an online Conference on nuclear weapons and international law in the modern era organized by the new York bar Association. A transcript of his speech was distributed on Friday by the press service of the US state Department. In his speech, the scientist described the positions taken by the United States, Russia and China on nuclear issues.
FLUFFY AMERICA
Naturally, first of all, the diplomat appreciated the position of the United States. He noted that among the countries that possess nuclear weapons, Washington offers the most acceptable model of transparency and clarity in the nuclear arena. America's approach to the development of nuclear arsenals is in clear contradiction with those countries that insist that there is no legal or moral basis for the possession of nuclear weapons.
Ford recalled that the international court of justice leaves open the question of the possibility of the legitimate use of nuclear weapons, referring to the fact that they can only be used in extreme circumstances to ensure self-defense, when the very survival of the state is at stake. "It is noteworthy, and it is not accidental, that the us nuclear doctrine has long declared that the use of nuclear weapons can really make sense only in extreme circumstances. Declaratory US policy is rooted in collective defence, from the most terrible threats, and in connection with the protection of the vital interests not only of the United States, but also by our many allies and partners, there are numerous democracies of the North Atlantic and Pacific regions that rely on US," said Ford, and added that "extended" nuclear deterrence is necessary for their own safety and perhaps even for their continued existence as independent and sovereign States.
The United States also recognizes the application of International humanitarian law (IHL, IHL) to any potential use of nuclear weapons. Both American doctrine and the political leadership dealing with nuclear issues, Ford stressed, have long made this clear to the rest of the world. In addition, military and civilian lawyers of the Ministry of defense are actively involved in nuclear planning and operational issues, which ensure that the instructions of the leadership of the relevant departments strictly comply with the laws of war. All us military personnel are also bound by the uniform military code, according to which they are required to refuse to follow the orders of their commanders, which are a direct violation of military law.
Washington has established numerous doctrinal and procedural safeguards, including analytical reviews and legal advice, in all its military operations. US nuclear weapons policy is no exception to this General rule. In the broader context of the use of nuclear forces, the main purpose of which is to deter the aggression of potential adversaries, the United States takes strong moral and legal positions that ensure a cautious and multifaceted approach to the formulation and implementation of nuclear weapons policy.
AN AGGRESSIVE RUSSIA
However, if there are no questions about America's nuclear positions, Ford stressed, then there are certain reasons for concern for American politicians and administrators about Russia's policy in this area. Moscow, of course, claims that its doctrine is in accordance with international law and that its nuclear weapons exist and are developed only to ensure national security and deter aggressors. The Kremlin also says that it will use its nuclear Arsenal only in extreme cases, when there is a real threat to the very existence of the Russian state. "We can only hope that this is the case," the diplomat said.
But, according to him, statements by Russian politicians and the military suggest that they can respond with total use of nuclear weapons if they detect at least one ballistic missile approaching the borders of Russia, regardless of whether it will carry conventional or nuclear warheads, whether its target is a city, a military facility or a completely empty area of desert or forest. This is further compounded by the fact that Russia has a huge Arsenal of ballistic missiles capable of carrying both conventional and nuclear warheads, and it is not at all obvious that the threat of a nuclear or any other strike will not be followed by an immediate response, and any missile attack will always comply with the principles of necessity and will be proportionate to the rules of conduct and resolution of armed conflicts.
Another concern of America is that Russia is developing nuclear-powered underwater drones "Poseidon", which, according to official statements of the military, will carry multi-megaton nuclear warheads, and in the event of hostilities, they will be launched from submarines and other ways across the ocean, causing huge waves, as a result, will flood coastal cities in the United States, there will be chaos of radioactive tsunamis.
For the first time, Russian President Vladimir Putin announced the creation of the Poseidon Autonomous underwater vehicle in his annual Address to the Federal Assembly on March 1, 2018, in response to the deployment of US missile DEFENSE systems. Then he said that these drones can be equipped with both conventional and nuclear weapons and will be able to destroy enemy infrastructure, aircraft carrier groups and other military facilities. It was noted that these devices will have an almost unlimited range of navigation.
And at the beginning of February last year, Vladimir Putin announced the end of a key stage of testing the strategic uninhabited underwater vehicle Poseidon. "A few days ago, you reported to me about the completion of a key stage of testing the Poseidon unmanned multi-purpose and strategic range underwater combat weapon," he said to defense Minister Sergei Shoigu during a meeting with the heads of the foreign Ministry and the defense Ministry. The President also expressed a desire to get acquainted with "how the work is going" on this project during the upcoming series of meetings on the implementation of the state defense order in Sochi.
Russia's strategic concept for the use of nuclear weapons, Ford said, raises serious questions about the extent to which it can be used in accordance with applicable international legal norms and principles.
He also touched upon issues that may arise in connection with the so-called "Perimeter"system. This system, called the "Dead hand" in the West, according to some media, was built in Russia in the 1980s. Its existence and the fact that it is still in service, in 2011, confirmed the commander of the strategic Missile forces (RVSN) of the Russian Federation Sergey Karakaev. This system is designed to deliver a retaliatory strike and is capable of automatically launching all of Russia's remaining nuclear weapons after an attack when the command and control centers of the nuclear forces have lost contact with the General staff in a nuclear conflict.
"Can Russia defend such a system as anything more than a vindictive and barbaric mirror image of apocalyptic retribution? At a meeting this morning, California Governor Jerry brown noted that the essential concept of the rule of law is based on a shared and agreed understanding of values and principles. I do not dispute this, but in this light, it is particularly disturbing that Russian experts and officials in other areas, particularly in cyberspace, have recently begun to openly question the applicability of IHL principles to the complexities of modern armed conflict. Russian experts suggested that it would be useless to even try to apply this right where it is difficult to distinguish between civilian and military actors. But what does this dangerous concept mean in the context of nuclear weapons for a country that builds and maintains nuclear tools such as Poseidon and Perimeter? Doesn't this raise real questions about whether the Russians will bother to follow any legal principles when conducting nuclear operations?» - concluded his reasoning about Russia assistant Secretary of state.
UNPREDICTABLE CHINA
Regarding Beijing, Ford said that it is also impossible to be more optimistic about China's nuclear policy, "despite the sanctimonious moralism of Beijing's virtue", which signals the alleged policy of "minimal deterrence" and non-use of nuclear weapons by the first. One of the reasons for America's concern is simply that the PRC is extremely opaque in its Declaration of its nuclear position and doctrine and is rapidly increasing its nuclear capabilities, the size and diversity of its nuclear Arsenal, as well as rejecting all calls to engage in an arms control dialogue with the United States and Russia.
Beijing bases much of its alleged nuclear policy on claims that it will not be the first to use nuclear weapons. However, only a few countries take all these statements seriously. China's nuclear policy does not exclude the possibility of initiating destabilizing actions with the use of nuclear weapons against another nuclear power in a crisis, and there is reason to believe that the PRC may radically reconsider it. Even if Chinese officials actually mean what they claim to mean in peacetime, there is no reason to believe that Beijing will refrain from using such weapons if it is defeated in a conventional conflict.
"As for his alleged policy of 'minimal deterrence', in Chinese usage this expression has a strikingly vague meaning and, therefore, is in no way reassuring. After all, the current build-up of China's nuclear capabilities is taking place in a strategic context in which the nuclear threats to Beijing from Moscow and Washington have plummeted. In total, Russia and America have reduced their nuclear arsenals by more than 60,000 warheads since the end of the cold war," Ford said.
He also noted that a country advocating "no first use" and "minimal deterrence" "would be happy under such circumstances to significantly reduce the nuclear threat to limit or even reduce its own Arsenal accordingly." However, China, despite a significant reduction in the nuclear forces deployed against it, is also intensively expanding its nuclear Arsenal. All this, according to the diplomat, "should deeply concern the disarmament community, which should join" the United States, take a tougher position on Beijing's nuclear doctrine and demand much greater clarity and transparency from it.
Concluding his speech, Ford said that if all interested parties really want to create a "safer, more reasonable and sustainable peaceful world – a world in which no one else has to worry" about the nuclear threat and survival, then "it is necessary to take security issues seriously and look at nuclear positions and policies in real detail in more detail than is usually done in such cases."
Vladimir Ivanov
Columnist for the Independent military review»
