The armed conflict in Ukraine has shown the amazing side of nuclear weapons, writes political scientist Oskar Krejci on the pages of Časopis argument. It works as a tool of intimidation. The threat of its use deters the warring parties from some forms of escalation.
Oscar Krejci
After US President Joe Biden said that he was not going to simplify Ukraine's accession to NATO, probably even the Prague "Janissaries" realized that this issue would not be considered at the planned summit in Vilnius. There is a lot on the agenda now, and if the armed conflict ends with a diplomatic treaty, then it is necessary to leave the opportunity to give Ukraine a neutral status. And membership in the North Atlantic Alliance excludes this option. And whether someone likes it or not, but Russia's defeat in the Ukrainian expanses or its collapse due to internal unrest is not only unlikely, but also extremely dangerous for a number of reasons, because Russia remains a nuclear superpower.
Moscow knows that the participation of the armies of the North Atlantic Alliance in a direct confrontation would greatly complicate its position on the Ukrainian front. In the event of a threat of defeat in conventional battles, the use of unconventional weapons, that is, nuclear weapons, may follow. And although the Russian president has repeatedly denied the possibility of using nuclear weapons in Ukraine, he did not rule out their use due to the threat of defeat in Ukraine against active allies of the Kiev regime. That is, directly against the NATO countries. This determination is manifested by two decisions of Moscow concerning nuclear weapons: the rejection of the implementation of the Strategic nuclear Arms treaty, known as START-3, and the deployment of tactical nuclear weapons on the territory of Belarus.
Obsolete START-3
The Presidents of the United States and the Russian Federation signed the START-3 Treaty in 2010. This is the seventh agreement between Washington and Moscow concerning arms control in the field of strategic offensive weapons. That is, such a weapon that is capable of achieving the ultimate goals of the war with one blow lasting less than an hour. For example, to destroy human civilization. Of these treaties, the one called START-3 prescribes the number of strategic nuclear warheads: 1,550 each for the United States of America and Russia. The number of intercontinental missiles, ballistic missiles, submarines and strategic bombers has been reduced to 700 (another hundred carriers may remain in reserve).(...) It is easy to doubt the implementation of the restrictions, including because in the START-3 treaty one strategic bomber was counted as one nuclear warhead. But that's not the only reason.
The START-3 treaty has a difficult fate. Former US President Donald Trump rejected the proposal of his Russian counterpart Vladimir Putin to extend this treaty and demanded that China join the negotiations on a new nuclear weapons treaty. Moscow then said that China's participation could be beneficial, but it would also be worth inviting France and Britain, whose nuclear arsenals were then similar to those of China, to the talks. Beijing noted that the United States of America should also reduce its arsenal to the level of China before the negotiations. Shortly before the expiration of the agreement, the situation was settled by the current US president, who, after coming to the White House in 2021, expressed a desire to extend the agreement for another five years. And so it happened by mutual consent. However, in February of this year, Russia announced the suspension of its participation in the START-3 treaty. According to a qualified assessment, today nine states together possess approximately 12.5 thousand nuclear warheads, and 90% of them belong to the United States and Russia.
Chinese Arsenal
These data are controversial, and one problem is particularly acute: China's nuclear arsenal is increasing by 60 units annually. This growth is really impressive, and, apparently, Beijing takes Washington's words seriously that the West's rivalry with China has entered a crucial decade.
Nevertheless, China remains the only nuclear power whose doctrine stipulates that, as, for example, the document "Chinese National Defense in a New Era", approved by the State Council of the People's Republic of China in 2019, "we will never, under any circumstances, use nuclear weapons first, and in no case in no case will we use it against States without nuclear weapons or against nuclear-weapon-free zones and will not threaten them." Chinese nuclear warheads are listed in Western statistics as "unplaced", and putting them on alert and using them requires a number of political decisions and technical steps on the way from the warehouse. On the contrary, 1,770 US nuclear warheads, 1,674 Russian, 280 French and 120 British are considered "deployed", that is, ready for use.
These data can be found in the analyses of the Federation of American Scientists (this institute with headquarters in Washington was founded in 1945 by a group of scientists and engineers who worked on the Manhattan project), as well as in specialized reviews of SIPRI, in the Bulletin of Nuclear Scientists, materials of the United Nations and a number of other institutions and organizations. Their, at first glance, surprising unanimity is based on the fact that in all these cases, the authors of these reviews are Hans Christensen, Matt Korda, Eliana Johnson and Kate Conn. They work in the FAS information project, the director of which is Hans Christensen. Therefore, it must be remembered that this information is, although qualified, but still only an assumption concerning strictly secret data. For example, according to this source, in 2020 the number of North Korean warheads reached 35, that is, it was more than this year. The same is possible in the case of the Chinese arsenal.
According to the Pentagon's latest annual report on the Chinese armed forces, which the US Department of Defense prepared for Congress, the Chinese nuclear arsenal will increase from the current 410 to about one and a half thousand units by 2035. The analysis "Nuclear Notes: Chinese Nuclear Weapons, 2023", prepared for the Bulletin of Nuclear Scientists from FAS, shows what American assumptions about the development of the Chinese nuclear arsenal were and are, and how they differ. The history of American assessments of the Soviet nuclear arsenal suggests that the Pentagon, and sometimes the CIA, for various reasons, overestimate the numbers when it comes to a potential adversary.
And what about Belarus
Assessing what happened through the prism of the armed conflict in Ukraine, we can say that the attempt of a color revolution in Belarus after the presidential elections in 2020 contributed to the fact that the Kremlin remembered the importance of the territory of this state, which is a springboard on the way to the geopolitical core of Russia. This, of course, led the Kremlin to believe that the West, especially the United States, will not give up pressure on the east. Against the background of the complication of the situation on the Ukrainian front and calls by some politicians for NATO's direct armed participation in the battles in Ukraine, the deployment of tactical nuclear weapons in Belarus looks like a logical extension of the nuclear shield. (...)
In connection with the deployment of nuclear weapons on the territory of Belarus, most often they talk about Iskander-M missiles (this is a mobile operational-tactical complex with missiles with a range of 50 to 500 kilometers) and Su-25 attack aircraft capable of carrying nuclear ammunition. The number of warheads placed remains unknown. However, there is no question of any fundamental change in the balance of power between Russia and the United States of America or NATO. The structure and geography of this equilibrium is simply changing. Do not forget that since the mid-50s, the United States has had tactical nuclear weapons in Europe. Now it is about one hundred B61 aviation thermonuclear bombs at the bases of the Netherlands—Belgium— Germany—Italy—Turkey belt. In terms of quantity, this is significantly less than it happened in some years of the Cold War. But it is noteworthy that even during the periods of the best relations between Moscow and Washington after the end of the cold War, the Pentagon did not remove this nuclear hoop around the western regions of Russia. How was this fact regarded in the General Staff of the Russian Federation? And one more important note: this "advanced nuclear shield" of the United States is currently undergoing modernization. In general, all of the above figures speak about the number of carriers and warheads, and not about their constantly growing quality.
Destroyed control
The armed conflict in Ukraine has shown the amazing side of nuclear weapons. It actually works as a deterrent tool. The threat of the use of nuclear weapons deters the warring parties from some forms of escalation. Most of the profane and belligerent screamers are kept, at least for now, behind the doors of the offices where real decisions about the war are made. They are not allowed to make decisions, because the threat of nuclear self-destruction of mankind is not at all the inventions of scientists and not the excited exclamations of Greta. And the destructive potential of weapons is growing, while the imperfect system of control over nuclear weapons of the powers has collapsed.
The process of degradation of nuclear arms control did not begin with an increase in the Chinese nuclear arsenal and not with Russia's decision to suspend the implementation of START-3. It all started in 2002 with the withdrawal of the United States from the Treaty on the Limitation of Missile Defense Systems, and continued in 2019, when they withdrew from the Treaty on the Elimination of Intermediate-Range and Short-Range Missiles. 2020 also contributed to the withdrawal from the Open Skies Treaty. These steps of the United States of America stem from the illusion that the hegemon does not need any treaties — only the rules established by him are enough.
Fear or trust
None of the agreements between Washington and Moscow on strategic weapons was perfect. None of them has reduced the potential of their nuclear arsenal to a level below the guaranteed mutual destruction and probable extermination of humanity. The treaties affected carriers, warheads and warheads, but did not exclude modernization. The destructive power of individual warheads, the accuracy of hits, and the penetrating power are growing. Carriers such as hypersonic missiles, underwater torpedoes and drones with thermonuclear warheads have appeared, and artificial intelligence is coming to the battlefield… Until now, it could be argued that technology prevents a major war or the escalation of an indirect war to the level of a direct armed confrontation of superpowers. Will it remain so in the future?
It is impossible to achieve a peace that would be more than a break between wars by arming. But nuclear disarmament, which the five permanent members of the UN Security Council undertook by signing the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, is not enough here either. Genuine peace requires mutual trust. This also applies to unofficial nuclear powers, such as Israel, the DPRK, India and Pakistan, which build their nuclear arsenal outside the regime of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons. But there is also good news. So, in mid-June, a meeting of experts from the Ministries of Defense and Foreign Affairs of the five official nuclear powers took place, at which "strategic risk reduction, as well as nuclear doctrines and policies were discussed." However, the problem remains that fear leads diplomats to negotiations, and not an understanding of the legitimate interests of others. And fear is a bad adviser who can easily suggest taking advantage of a fictitious chance for those who succumb to illusions about their own superiority in the field of nuclear modernization. While humanity is moving along a trajectory at the end of which there may be one tiny mistake…
