What's new

China's nuclear warheads should match the US and Russia

Status
Not open for further replies.

mDumb

FULL MEMBER
Joined
Dec 21, 2008
Messages
339
Reaction score
0
HISTORY:
The United States issued several nuclear threats against the People's Republic of China in the 1950s to force the evacuation of outlying islands and the cessation of attacks against Quemoy and Matsu, part of Republic of China.

Recently declassified documents from the National Archives (UK) indicate that the United Kingdom threatened China with nuclear retaliation in 1961 in the case of a military reclamation of Hong Kong by China. This threat was backed up by the United States.

August 28, 1969:
As Sino-Soviet border fighting continues, the U.S. State Department acknowledges reports that the Soviet Union is considering a preemptive strike against China's nuclear installations.

Would you trust these countries if you were China?
 
.
HISTORY:
The United States issued several nuclear threats against the People's Republic of China in the 1950s to force the evacuation of outlying islands and the cessation of attacks against Quemoy and Matsu, part of Republic of China.

Recently declassified documents from the National Archives (UK) indicate that the United Kingdom threatened China with nuclear retaliation in 1961 in the case of a military reclamation of Hong Kong by China. This threat was backed up by the United States.

August 28, 1969:
As Sino-Soviet border fighting continues, the U.S. State Department acknowledges reports that the Soviet Union is considering a preemptive strike against China's nuclear installations.

Would you trust these countries if you were China?

There is only one reason that China doesn't already have nuclear parity with the United States and Russia. After all, China has possessed the technology for W-88 class warheads and Long March rockets/Dong Feng missiles for decades.

Currently, the U.S. is the only restraint to prevent the Imperial Japanese Army from developing and fielding nuclear weapons. Did I say Imperial Japanese Army? I meant Self-Defense Force. Anyway, if China wants nuclear parity with the U.S. and Russia, the U.S. will no longer restrain the Imperial Japanese Army from going nuclear.

That's the choice. China can choose to accept nuclear non-parity in exchange for no Imperial Japanese Army nuclear weapons. The alternative is far worse. If China destabilizes the military balance vis-a-vis the United States then the U.S. will play the nuclear Japan card. The Eagle has leverage on the Dragon.

The following article is a good summary of the message from the Eagle to the Dragon:

If you challenge me in Asia, I might free the Bear from the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty. (This is a bluff. The Europeans will be really mad with a lot of Russian nuclear intermediate-range missiles pointed at them.)

Also, I might free the Imperial Japanese Army to go nuclear. (This is not a bluff. The Eagle will force the Dragon to pay a price.) Don't rock the boat too much. Or we will both be worse off.

Facing A New Missile Threat From China - CBS News

"May 28, 2009
Facing A New Missile Threat From China
How The U.S. Should Respond To China's Development Of Anti-Ship Ballistic Missile Systems

(CBS) This column was written by Andrew Erickson.

Authoritative Chinese military documents suggest that Beijing has taken a serious interest in anti-ship ballistic missiles (ASBMs).

U.S. government sources state consistently that Beijing is pursuing an ASBM based on a variant of the DF-21/CSS-5 medium-range solid propellant ballistic missile (MRBM). The DF-21’s 1,500 km+ range could hold ships at risk in a large maritime area, far beyond Taiwan into the Western Pacific.

If fielded, the ASBM would be just one of a dizzying array of new platforms and weapons systems China has been buying and building since the late 1990s-systems which, taken as a whole, will allow China to assert unprecedented control of its contested maritime periphery.

The ASBM, however, differs markedly from the quiet submarines, lethal anti-ship cruise missiles, and copious sea mines which China has been adding to its inventory. It would draw on over half a century of Chinese experience with ballistic missiles, would be fired from mobile, highly concealable platforms, and would have the range to strike targets hundreds of miles from China’s shores.

While probably intended with U.S. carrier strike groups (CSGs) specifically in mind, Chinese ASBM development could have deeply destabilizing consequences that would reverberate far beyond U.S.-China strategic relations.

The first damage from a demonstrated Chinese ASBM might be to the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty (INF) between Washington and Moscow, which has prevented both nations from possessing conventional (and nuclear) ground-launched ballistic (and cruise) missiles with ranges of 500 and 5,500 km. Various Russian civilian and military leaders have recently questioned the treaty’s relevance to Moscow’s national interests, particularly in light of U.S. ballistic missile defense development and Chinese nuclear MRBM capabilities (e.g., the DF-21).

Chinese demonstration of the strategic value of missiles with precisely the parameters banned by the treaty might generate considerable pressure in Moscow and even Washington for its revision or outright abandonment.

Additionally, other nations in the region, particularly Japan, which feels increasingly vulnerable strategically yet remains reluctant to develop nuclear weapons, might feel pressured to develop similar capacity of their own. At the very least, the resulting strategic tension would generate additional military procurement and energize long-term investment to counter or balance against Chinese ASBM capabilities in some fashion, a phenomenon that would leave all parties worse off than before.

At the political level, then, Washington must emphasize to Beijing that ASBM development on its part would have implications inimical to both U.S. and Chinese interests.

Responding to the unprecedented strategic challenge presented by an ASBM capability would require the U.S. military and civilian leadership to face hard truths. The most perilous approach would be to insist that the U.S. maintained its ability to keep the peace, when in fact the military capabilities that underpinned that ability were diminishing, at least in a relative sense.

Such a discrepancy between rhetoric and reality would erode America’s regional credibility and fuel Chinese overconfidence. The prospect of documenting that discrepancy publicly might motivate China to conduct a demonstration of an ASBM; a successful test could create the impression that U.S. power projection capabilities-and the regional credibility that depends on them-had been dramatically diminished.

To prevent these negative outcomes, the U.S. must redouble its efforts to promote peace and cooperation, while ensuring that its own capabilities remain strong. Land-based air power will not solve the problem, because China’s strategic rocket forces already hold all useful air bases at risk with surface-to-surface missiles simpler and more reliable than an ASBM.

Defensive measures to increase the stealth of the CSG, such as decoys, obscurants, and electronic countermeasures, may buy some time, but would the U.S. bet a CSG on their effectiveness? More importantly, it would be difficult to credibly demonstrate defensive measures without compromising their effectiveness; China and the region may perceive an erosion of U.S. strength and credibility, even if the CSG can defend itself against the ASBM.

Ultimately, it may prove necessary to shift U.S. combat power from massive, vulnerable platforms that present very lucrative targets, to platforms which are more concealable, survivable, dispersed, or disposable. Investment in submarines, stealthier ships, long-range aircraft, and unmanned aerial vehicles may present options for maintaining credibility even in an environment where the aircraft carrier is perceived as vulnerable. This would require a fundamental cultural shift away from a carrier-centric navy.

These challenges underscore the importance of maintaining positive cross-Strait relations, which have improved markedly since Ma Ying-jeou assumed Taiwan’s presidency last year. Meanwhile, Washington and Beijing are increasingly pursuing tremendous shared interests, from deterring Somali pirates to averting a financial tsunami. They could do more to ensure that bilateral military relations are similarly productive.

This column was written by Andrew Erickson, Associate Professor,
China Maritime Studies Institute, Naval War College. These are his personal views. For further details, see "On the Verge of a Game-Changer," U.S. Naval Institute Proceedings, May 2009."
 
Last edited:
.
let japan make nuclear weapons imo. japanese are rational players and will not accept japan sinking into the pacific for a nuclear war. the only result of a nuclear exchange between china and japan is: japan is history. china takes major damage but survives. this is assuming uncle sam doesn't get involved. but if it does, then we will regret no MAD.

the people most afraid of japanese nukes is the US itself. we should call their bluff. make 5000 nuclear warheads. what's japan going to do? let them make as many nukes as they want, are they going to ever use it? but that's seeing if uncle sam has the guts to let japan loose. the people with the most to lose with a rogue japan is the US.
 
.
China can change/destabilize the military balance in East Asia through nuclear or non-nuclear means. Here is a follow-up on the non-nuclear aspect of China's ASBM (i.e. anti-ship ballistic missile) affecting U.S. military strategy and planning.

Though Defense Secretary Robert Gates never mentions China by name, he has raised the prospect of moving away from a carrier-centric Navy because of China's development of asymmetric weapons to defeat U.S. carriers (see http://www.defence.pk/forums/china-defence/54955-chinas-blitzkrieg-u-s-carrier.html).

New Wars
"May 7, 2010 ... Speech by Secretary of Defense Robert M. Gates at the Navy .... why the Navy needs to rethink its carrier centric policy in this new era .... this year said the move would put carrier procurement on “a more fiscally sustainable path .... Or the cruises could drain away ships, money and sailors given ..."

Gates To Navy: Anchors Away - IBD - Investors.com

"Gates To Navy: Anchors Away

Posted 06:16 PM ET


Four Chinese submarines lead 56 destroyers, frigates, missile boats, subs and planes off the port of Qingdao in April 2009 after tensions flared with the U.S. in the South China Sea. AFP/Getty Images/Newscom

Military Advantage: Our defense secretary proposes doing what no other foreign adversary has done: sink the U.S. Navy. We don't need those billion-dollar destroyers, he says. Meanwhile, the Chinese navy rushes to fill the vacuum.

Once Britannia ruled the waves, later to be replaced by America and its Navy. From the Battle of Midway to President Reagan's 600-ship fleet that helped win the Cold War, naval supremacy has been critical to the protection and survival of our nation.

Which is why we find the recent remarks of Defense Secretary Robert Gates to the Navy League at the Sea-Air-Space expo so disturbing. He seems to think naval supremacy is a luxury we can't afford and that, like every other aspect of our military, an already shrunken U.S. Navy needs to downsize.

"As we learned last year, you don't necessarily need a billion-dollar guided missile destroyer to chase down and deal with a bunch of teenage pirates wielding AK-47s and RPGs (rocket-propelled grenades)," Gates quipped.

We are not laughing.

Pubescent pirates aren't the only threat we face. Last month, a Chinese naval task force from the East Sea Fleet — including the imposing Sovremenny-class guided missile destroyers, frigates and submarines — passed through the Miyako Strait near Okinawa, a move that sent shock waves through Japan.

The exercise took place just days after warships from the North Sea Fleet returned from what China's army-navy called "confrontation exercises" in the South China Sea.

"Do we really need 11 carrier strike groups for another 30 years when no other country has more than one?" Gates asked. The answer is yes. Our national interests are global, in every ocean. Some will be in port, and others will be meeting commitments from the Persian Gulf to the Taiwan Strait.

It's well to consider the "new challenges," as Gates put it, in the form of anti-ship missiles in the hands of the Lebanese Shiite militia Hezbollah or the threat posed by Iran's arsenal of missiles, mines and speed boats near the Strait of Hormuz. But new challenges don't make the old ones go away. We must be prepared to meet them all.

"At the end of the day, we have to ask whether this nation can really afford a Navy that relies on $3 billion to $6 billion destroyers, $7 billion submarines and $11 billion carriers," Gates said.

The question is whether we can afford not to. Defense, unlike health care, is a constitutional imperative."

Defense.gov Speech:

DODc-small.gif

U.S. Department of Defense
Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense (Public Affairs)
Speech

"Naval War College (Newport, RI)
As Delivered by Secretary of Defense Robert M. Gates, Newport, RI, Friday, April 17, 2009

Good morning. It’s a real pleasure to be here for my first visit as secretary to the Naval War College. Based on the weather I’m thinking I may move the Pentagon here.
...
In this respect, it is important to keep some perspective. For example, as much as the U.S. Navy has shrunk since the end of the Cold War, in terms of tonnage, its battle fleet, by one estimate, is still larger than the next 13 navies combined – and 11 of those 13 navies are U.S. allies or partners. In terms of capabilities, the over-match is even greater. No country in the rest of the world has anything close to the reach and firepower to match a carrier strike group. And the United States has and will maintain eleven until at least 2040. I might also note that we have a number of Expeditionary Strike Groups and will in the not-too-distant future will be able to carry the F-35.
Potential adversaries are well-aware of this fact, which is why, despite significant naval modernization programs underway in some countries, no one intends to bankrupt themselves by challenging the U.S. to a shipbuilding competition akin to the Dreadnought arms race prior to World War I. Instead, we’ve seen their investments in weapons geared to neutralize our advantages – to deny the U.S. military freedom of movement and action while potentially threatening our primary means of projecting power: our bases, sea and air assets, and the networks that support them.
This is a particular concern with aircraft carriers and other large, multi-billion dollar blue-water surface combatants – where the loss of even one ship would be a national catastrophe. We know other nations are working on ways to thwart the reach and striking power of the U.S. battle fleet – whether by producing stealthy submarines in quantity or developing anti-ship missiles with increasing range and accuracy. We ignore these developments at our peril.
The Royal Navy’s greatest defeat in World War II – the sinking of the capital ships H.M.S. Repulse and the brand new Prince of Wales by Japanese aircraft just days after Pearl Harbor – was due in part to a command with little appreciation for air power, and in particular the threat posed by a single, air-delivered torpedo."
 
Last edited:
.
No they shouldn't. There are enough nukes as it is in the world.
 
.
let japan make nuclear weapons imo. japanese are rational players and will not accept japan sinking into the pacific for a nuclear war. the only result of a nuclear exchange between china and japan is: japan is history. china takes major damage but survives. this is assuming uncle sam doesn't get involved. but if it does, then we will regret no MAD.

the people most afraid of japanese nukes is the US itself. we should call their bluff. make 5000 nuclear warheads. what's japan going to do? let them make as many nukes as they want, are they going to ever use it? but that's seeing if uncle sam has the guts to let japan loose. the people with the most to lose with a rogue japan is the US.

Let me share with you a conversation I had with an older japanese fellow from Japan. He was the typical gung-ho Japanese who still felt superior to Chinese (there are much less of these types in the younger generation). Even though he doesn't represent the 'average' Japanese, he does give us insight into the 'hard-core right-wing' Japanese.

Interestingly enough he doesn't have any hatred for Chinese. Rather is more of the type of mental superiority that is often display by one ethnic group over another. He is perplexed at why the entire world is all excited about China and thinks Chinese economy is actually weaker than the USA.

What was fascinating was his dislike for the Russians. In fact, Japanese have significantly more animosity towards Russians (and to lesser degree Americans) than Chinese. So we talked quite a bit. He said Japanese can easily defeat Russia and they are technically superior to Russians. I agreed with him. But I pointed out Russia has a massive arsenal of Nukes. He correctly countered by saying Japan possesses the know-how and capability to produce tens of thousands of nukes in a short time.

....... Then I mentioned a startling fact..... which made him silent......



......Japan is a tiny islands......




Just like England and Israel and France and Germany are tiny. Tiny things are easily squashed to death.... :hang2::agree:
 
.
Sino-Nippon have strong cultural-historical-racial ties. Chances of brothers fighting is LOW, but chances of brothers nuking each other NEAR NON-EXISTENT. Chinese and Japanese do NOT share cultural, historical and most importantly racial ties with Americans ----> In other words we are not "brothers" with Americans, so chances we'll use nukes in retaliation are VERY PROBABLE. Hope you understand my underlying message. :)
 
Last edited:
.
Let me share with you a conversation I had with an older japanese fellow from Japan. He was the typical gung-ho Japanese who still felt superior to Chinese (there are much less of these types in the younger generation). Even though he doesn't represent the 'average' Japanese, he does give us insight into the 'hard-core right-wing' Japanese.

Interestingly enough he doesn't have any hatred for Chinese. Rather is more of the type of mental superiority that is often display by one ethnic group over another. He is perplexed at why the entire world is all excited about China and thinks Chinese economy is actually weaker than the USA.

What was fascinating was his dislike for the Russians. In fact, Japanese have significantly more animosity towards Russians (and to lesser degree Americans) than Chinese. So we talked quite a bit. He said Japanese can easily defeat Russia and they are technically superior to Russians. I agreed with him. But I pointed out Russia has a massive arsenal of Nukes. He correctly countered by saying Japan possesses the know-how and capability to produce tens of thousands of nukes in a short time.

....... Then I mentioned a startling fact..... which made him silent......



......Japan is a tiny islands......




Just like England and Israel and France and Germany are tiny. Tiny things are easily squashed to death.... :hang2::agree:

You bring up a good point. The Japanese don't like the Russians. The Japanese want their Northern Territories/Kuril Islands back. This actually makes it quite dangerous to allow the Japanese to have nuclear weapons.

Suppose a right-wing Japanese party wins an election. The new Imperial Japanese Army may try to retake the Northern Territories by conventional military means. They will succeed. The Russians have no answer for the six Japanese Kongo-class Aegis destroyers. The Russians may retaliate with nuclear weapons. Now, we have a nuke war in East Asia.

In the best-case scenario, there may only be a few radioactive clouds blowing over Chinese territory. In the worst-case scenario, the Japanese might trigger a full-fledged nuke war. In this nightmare, after Moscow and St. Petersburg are nuked by the Japanese in retaliation, the Russians may decide to take everyone else with them.

This is like an unintentional and perverted version of my China "borrows" Russians ICBMs in the final all-out nuke war with the U.S. (see post #82 on "China's Nuclear Strike Force" in http://www.defence.pk/forums/china-defence/54955-chinas-blitzkrieg-u-s-carrier-6.html).

http://www.spacewar.com/reports/Japan_deploys_sixth_high-tech_Aegis_destroyer_999.html
"Mar 13, 2008 ... Tokyo (AFP) March 13, 2008 - Japan put into service Thursday its sixth destroyer equipped with the high-tech Aegis radar system, ..."
 
Last edited:
.
Making Japan build lots of nukes if china increase nukes does not make sense.

Why would you have another potential opponent with many nukes? Isn't one enough. What if sooner or later US no longer have as much a say over japanese issues?

Japan arming up with nuclear weapon will create a predictable effect - China arming up even more.

In the end US will have two major nuclear powers to worry about.
 
.
Making Japan build lots of nukes if china increase nukes does not make sense.

Why would you have another potential opponent with many nukes? Isn't one enough. What if sooner or later US no longer have as much a say over japanese issues?

Japan arming up with nuclear weapon will create a predictable effect - China arming up even more.

In the end US will have two major nuclear powers to worry about.

The U.S. will make China pay a price for significantly destabilizing the military balance between the U.S. and China. Japan hates China a lot more than the U.S. Japan is located off China's coast. There is almost no time for China to react to a short-range or intermediate-range Japanese nuclear ballistic missile.

On the other hand, the U.S. will have many chances to shoot down any Japanese nuke headed over the North Pole or Pacific Ocean towards the United States. In other words, a nuclear Japan is far more dangerous to China than to the U.S.

That's why the U.S. keeps warning China to "play ball" and ensure that both countries aren't worse off.

Why Obama Can't End Nukes - Newsweek.com

"The Doomsday Dilemma

This Spring, Barack Obama will push toward his goal of a nuclear-free world. But the stiffest resistance may be at home.
By John Barry and Evan Thomas | NEWSWEEK
Published Apr 3, 2010
From the magazine issue dated Apr 12, 2010

For many years, America's master plan for nuclear war with the Soviet Union was called the SIOP—the Single Integrated Operational Plan. Beginning in 1962, the U.S. president was given some options to mull in the few minutes he had to decide before Soviet missiles bore down on Washington. He could, for instance, choose to spare the Soviet satellites, the Warsaw Pact countries in Eastern Europe. Or he could opt for, say, the "urban-industrial" strike option—1,500 or so warheads dropped on 300 Russian cities. After a briefing on the SIOP on Sept. 14, 1962, President John F. Kennedy turned to his secretary of state, Dean Rusk, and remarked, "And they call us human beings."

Ever since the dawn of the atomic age at Hiroshima in August 1945, American presidents have been trying to figure out how to climb off the nuclear treadmill. The urgency may have faded in the post–Cold War era, but the weapons are still there. By 2002, President George W. Bush was signing off on a document containing his administration's Nuclear Posture Review, an -analysis of how America's nuclear arms might be used. Bush scribbled on the cover, "But why do we still have to have so many?" According to a knowledgeable source who would not be identified discussing sensitive national-security matters, President Obama wasn't briefed on the U.S. nuclear-strike plan against Russia and China until some months after he had taken office. "He thought it was insane," says the source. (The reason for the delay is unclear; the White House did not respond to repeated inquiries.)

During his presidential campaign, Obama embraced a dream first articulated by President Reagan: the abolition of nuclear weapons. The idea is no longer all that radical. In January 2007, an op-ed piece calling for a nuclear-weapons-free world appeared in The Wall Street Journal, signed by Reagan's secretary of state George Shultz; Nixon's and Ford's secretary of state, Henry Kissinger; Clinton's secretary of defense Bill Perry; and Sam Nunn, the former chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee and longtime wise man of the defense establishment. "The Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse," as they were quickly dubbed, had gotten together to give cover to politicians. "We wanted the candidates of both parties to feel they could debate the issue freely," said Nunn.
...
The prospect of nuclear proliferation is anxiety-inducing for all presidents, especially as terrorists try to get their hands on loose nukes. Obama is convinced that nuclear terrorism now poses a greater threat than the remote possibility of a nuclear war. On April 12 and 13, he will host a Washington summit of more than 40 heads of government with the aim of getting tougher measures to secure the fissile material still lying unprotected around the world. He's set a deadline of four years for truly securing the most dangerous materials. His own advisers suspect he is being overambitious but see the summit as a "consciousness-raising exercise." Every five years, the signers of the 1968 Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty meet to review progress, and in May they will meet again. The Obama team hopes to use the conference to push his no-nukes agenda, but he will be resisted by countries, like Iran, that resent American power. At the same time, Obama can't cut America's arsenal as much as he might like. Countries long under U.S. nuclear protection, like Japan, may decide they need their own nuclear arms as American power declines in the world. Countries choosing to stay under the nuclear umbrella will want reassurances that they can depend on it."
 
Last edited:
.
and if japan shoots an IRBM at china, the end result is japan sinks beneath the ocean while china survives, and there is one less race of idiots to worry about. they aren't stupid and irrational.

and what do you mean the russians have no answers to the Kongo destroyers. they have the Tu-95 which can carry P-270 Moskit, P-800 Oniks, Kh-35U, etc.
 
Last edited:
.
China's nuclear warheads should match the US and Russia ???No,China needn't match the US and Russia in nuclear weapon,only the limited deterrence is OK~
 
.
and if japan shoots an IRBM at china, the end result is japan sinks beneath the ocean while china survives, and there is one less race of idiots to worry about. they aren't stupid and irrational.

I think the agreed-upon strategy is to reduce the number of countries in East Asia that possess nuclear weapons. You never know when a crazy leader with historical grudges will come to power in a medium-sized or small country.

Another ugly hypothetical scenario. North Korea nukes Japan. Japan nukes Russia and China. Russia and China nuke U.S. Russia, U.S., and China nuke every country that they don't like.

Bottom line: restrict thermonuclear weapons to the Big-Five or P-5 countries in the U.N. Security Council. The P-5 have demonstrated the maturity to control their thermonuclear weapons. Expanding the number of countries with nukes is playing with fire and a risk to world safety.
 
.
and if japan shoots an IRBM at china, the end result is japan sinks beneath the ocean while china survives, and there is one less race of idiots to worry about. they aren't stupid and irrational.

and what do you mean the russians have no answers to the Kongo destroyers. they have the Tu-95 which can carry P-270 Moskit, P-800 Oniks, Kh-35U, etc.

Between the advanced Kongo-class Aegis destroyers intended to control a bubble of airspace and the advanced American fighters in the Japanese Air Self-Defense Force, I'm willing to bet on the better-equipped and better-trained Japanese to soundly defeat the Russians in a conventional battle for the Northern Territories/Kuril Islands.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2410940/posts
"Dec 18, 2009 ... The recent Bulava launch failure has implications for US-Russian arms .... that the Russian military industrial complex is falling apart. ..."

http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/0416/p06s01-woiq.html

"Iraqi defeat jolts Russian military

Defense and policy experts said last week that modernizing the Army is a top priority.

By Fred Weir, Special to The Christian Science Monitor / April 16, 2003
MOSCOW

In the US's easy defeat of Saddam Hussein's army, Russia sees a lesson for its own conventional forces.

The Iraqi Army - which was cloned from the Red Army in the final decades of the Soviet Union - mounted only a feeble defense before falling apart.

"The key conclusion we must draw from the latest Gulf war is that the obsolete structure of the Russian armed forces has to be urgently changed," says Vladimir Dvorkin, head of the Russian Defense Ministry's official think tank on strategic nuclear policy. "The gap between our capabilities and those of the Americans has been revealed, and it is vast. We are very lucky that Russia has no major enemies at the moment,
but the future is impossible to predict, and we must be ready."

The swift victory by mobile, high-tech American forces over heavily armored Iraqi troops dug in to defend large cities like Baghdad has jolted many Russian military planners. "The Iraqi Army was a replica of the Russian Army, and its defeat was not predicted by our generals," says Vitaly Shlykov, a former deputy defense minister of Russia.

Like its Soviet prototype, Iraq's Army was huge but made up mainly of young, poorly trained conscripts. Its battle tactics called for broad frontal warfare, with massed armor and artillery, and a highly centralized command structure. But those forces were trounced in a few days by relatively small numbers of US and British forces, who punched holes in the Iraqi front using precision weapons and seized the country's power centers more rapidly than traditional military thinkers could have imagined. "The military paradigm has changed, and luckily we didn't have to learn that lesson firsthand," says Yevgeny Pashentsev, author of a book on Russian military reform. "The Americans have rewritten the textbook, and every country had better take note."

Last week, the independent Council on Foreign and Defense Policy - a group of top Russian military experts and former policymakers, including Mr. Shlykov - met to assess the implications of the US triumph in Iraq for Russia. Their conclusion: The Kremlin must drop all post-Soviet pretense that Russia remains a superpower, and make rebuilding and redesigning the nation's military forces a top priority. "We cannot afford to postpone this any longer," Boris Nemtsov, head of the liberal Union of Right Forces, told the meeting.

Twelve years after the USSR's collapse, the most unreformed branch of Russian society remains its armed forces. Though its numbers have been halved to about 1.2 million personnel, and its annual budget has dropped to a mere $10 billion, the structure, weaponry, and doctrines of today's Russian military remain those of its Soviet predecessor. Each Russian defense minister since 1991 has pledged sweeping reform, yet more than half of the Army's combat forces remain ill-trained conscripts required to serve for two years for just 100 rubles ($3) a month. Aside from the strategic nuclear forces, no branch of the Russian military has acquired significant quantities of modern weaponry in more than a decade.

According to a Defense Ministry survey in early 2003, cited in the daily Izvestia, more than a third of Russian officers and their families live below the poverty line, and fewer than half of the officers want to remain in the service.

Critics say that military manpower must be at least halved again, and the draft abolished in order to make reform feasible. "We can afford an army comparable to those of France or Britain, but hard decisions must be made," says Pavel Felgenhauer, an independent defense expert. Adequate spending for equipment, training, and payment of professional troops is key, he says.

Others say that Russia also must define a clear post-Soviet security doctrine. "How can we reform our Army when we have not defined the threats it must deal with?" says Mr. Dvorkin. "We must first identify our national interests, then we'll know who our enemies might be."

As the US prepared to invade Iraq, many Russian military experts warned that American forces would come to grief in the streets of Iraqi cities. Some predicted the battle of Baghdad would resemble the Russian Army's two assaults on the Chechen capital of Grozny - in 1995 and again in 2000 - each of which lasted more than a month and cost hundreds of Russian casualties.

Early in the Iraq war, the Russian online newspaper Gazeta.ru reported that two retired Soviet generals may have played a key role in designing Iraq's defenses. The paper published photos of Vladimir Achalov, an expert in urban warfare, and Igor Maltsev, a specialist in air defenses, receiving medals from Iraq's defense minister two weeks before the war began. Russian TV later quoted General Maltsev as saying "the American invaders will be buried in the streets of Baghdad."

Some in Russia's military establishment still appear reluctant to accept the sweeping military verdict in Iraq. "I think American dollars won the war, it was not a military victory," says Gen. Makhmut Gareyev, president of the official Academy of Military Sciences in Moscow. "The Americans bought the Iraqi military leadership with dollars. One can only envy a state that is so rich."

But others are obviously shaken. "Thank God our public has finally begun to discuss the state of the Army," General Vladimir Shamanov, who commanded Russian troops in two Chechnya wars, told a Moscow radio station after the extent of the US-led triumph in Iraq became clear last week. "Maybe our strategic nuclear forces will protect the country for another decade, but then what? A strong Russia is impossible without a strong army."

One bright note for Moscow, however, is a report that Iraqi forces used Russian-made, laser-guided antitank missiles to destroy several Abrams tanks during the US attack. This could boost profits for Russian armsmakers, who are already receiving inquiries from Syria and Iran, according to Shlykov.

The US has complained that Russia supplied Iraq with defense equipment in violation of UN sanctions. "As a result of the Iraq war and accusations of illegal Russian arms deliveries, applications for Russian weapons have soared," Defense Minister Sergei Ivanov said last week."
 
Last edited:
.
Once a country has nukes pray to god that country never descend into chaos because god knows in who's hand they will end up. China's leaders understand the madness of a nuclear war. Heck, not when the country is just getting ready to shine again

Nukes are expensive to maintain, they also lose effect after a certain number of years due to natural radioactive decay.

It's time to impress others with things other than weapons.
 
Last edited:
.
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest posts

Pakistan Defence Latest Posts

Pakistan Affairs Latest Posts

Back
Top Bottom