Changing Russian military doctrineQuote:
08:49 GMT, October 9, 2009 NOVOSIBIRSK | Russia's new military doctrine will contain some changes to the situations that could trigger the use of nuclear weapons or preventive strikes against potential foes, the secretary of Russia's Security Council said on Thursday according to RIA Novosti.
Russia will soon adopt a new military doctrine that aims to transform the Armed Forces into a more effective and mobile military force. Their structures will be "optimized" through the use of combined arms units performing similar tasks.
"In respect to the possibility of preventive or nuclear strikes we will formulate some provisions that will be somewhat different from those contained in the current doctrine," Nikolai Patrushev said.
The draft doctrine, called "The new face of the Russian Armed Forces until 2030," is still being developed by the General Staff and will be given, according to Patrushev, to Russian President Dmitry Medvedev for consideration by the end of 2009.
The current military doctrine was adopted in 2000. It outlines the role of the Russian military in ensuring the defense of the country and, if necessary, preparing for and waging war, although it stresses that the Russian military doctrine is strictly defensive.
The doctrine lists factors that the Russian Federation perceives as potential threats, both internal and external and declares support for a multipolar world, in preference to a unipolar world dominated by a single superpower that is quick to resort to military force.
The current document also emphasizes Russia's commitment to military reform, with continued use of conscription, but a gradual shift towards a professional army.
But the Security Council believes that since 2000, drastic changes have occurred in the geopolitical and military situation in the world and in the nature of threats against national security, which makes it necessary to revise the specific tasks facing the Russian Armed Forces and related security agencies.
"We would like to make this new military doctrine transparent so that people in the country and abroad will know what we have developed and how we want to work. We will set goals and lay out how to achieve them," Patrushev said.
President Dmitry Medvedev announced last year that Russia would make the modernization of its nuclear deterrent and Armed Forces a priority in the decade up to 2020.
Hilarious that Russia accuses us of being "quick to use military force" despite their own actions in recent years.
However, despite rosy predictions of more nuclear cuts, the fact that Russia is envisioning
modernizing its nuclear deterrent pretty much puts the kibosh on a "world without nuclear weapons" if anyone actually thought that was going to happen. It would be nice to know more about what doctrinal changes they're pursuing but it doesn't say.
[url=http://www.defpro.com/news/details/8400/Of course their analysts are telling them not to go below 1,500[/url]
Quote:
12:53 GMT, July 1, 2009 MOSCOW | Russia must not cut the number of its nuclear warheads to a few hundred under a new strategic arms deal with the U.S., as it needs to maintain superiority over developing countries' nuclear arsenals, a Russian analyst said according to RIA Novosti.
Sergei Karaganov, chairman of the Council for Russia's Foreign and Defense Policy, said on Wednesday that a "huge gap" between the size of the nuclear potentials of Russia and these countries, including North Korea and potentially Iran, must be maintained because nuclear weapons continue to be "the backbone of Russia's political, and to some extent economic, influence."
Russia and the U.S. have been involved in comprehensive talks over a new nuclear arms reduction deal to replace the START 1 treaty, which expires in December.
The START 1 treaty obliges Russia and the United States to reduce nuclear warheads to 6,000 and their delivery vehicles to 1,600 each. In 2002, a follow-up agreement on strategic offensive arms reduction was concluded in Moscow. The agreement, known as the Moscow Treaty, envisioned cuts to 1,700-2,200 warheads by December 2012.
Russia, which proposed a new arms reduction agreement in 2005, expects Washington to agree on a deal that would restrict not only the numbers of nuclear warheads, but also place limits on all existing kinds of delivery vehicles.
"We could go as low as 1,600, or even 1,500 warheads. This is acceptable, especially if we increase their effectiveness and reduce the response time," Karaganov told a RIA Novosti news conference.
"We are also ready to reduce the number of delivery vehicles by several times," he added.
According to a report published by the U.S. State Department in April, as of January 1 Russia had 3,909 nuclear warheads and 814 delivery vehicles, including ground-based intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBM), submarine launched ballistic missiles (SLBM) and strategic bombers.
The same report said the United States had 5,576 warheads and 1,198 delivery vehicles.
Note that Russian warheads are typicall of a higher yield, so the numbers of weapons and delivery systems isn't the whole story.
In any case, this is precisely why the attitude of both the President and many Americans is naive regarding nuclear arms. The U.S. sits on a continent with countries that have neither the inclination or ability to attack us on our borders. This isn't necessarily true with Russia, which, depsite its own displays of belligerance certainly has much more pressing concerns as to its territorial defense. Its certainly valid and understandable for Russians to want to maintain nuclear superiority over both developing countries and China. However, we shouldn't kid ourselves that we can afford to allow our deterrent to decay compared to theirs. Ultimately, if they are the sole nuclear superpower (and make no mistake, they are never going to give up nuclear weapons after what they suffered in 2 world wars) they will use that as leverage to the benefit of their own country.
Despite a verbal agreement to cut to around 1,600 strategic warheads apiece, there is still not a treaty in place to replace START, which expires this year. Frenkly, I think we're in a headlong rush to cut weapons for the sake of cutting weapons, while we're talking to an opponent who has a floor they won't go below and wants to cut for the sake of making his aresenal newer, better, and more affordable.