Russian nuke strategy

[Spartacus_Σπάρτα&#95]

During the last years of the Cold War, the Soviet Union adopted a policy saying it would not be the first to use a nuclear weapon. In the United States, there were many renowned graybeards - including George Kennan, the father of "containment" policy - who said Washington should adopt the same policy. This, he and others declared, would reduce tensions, including the possibility of an accidental retaliatory launch based on faulty radar readings of incoming missiles from the other side.

But the U.S. never followed suit. This was, after all, the era when 33 members of the Committee on the Present Danger, some of whom had actually advocated a first strike against the USSR, filled many top spots in the Reagan administration. This was one reason that some Soviet generals viewed Reagan's announcement of the Strategic Defense Initiative in 1983 as a drive for a potential first-strike system. One of the arguments made by U.S. foes of a no-first-use policy was that Soviets could lie and say they wouldn't resort to using its nukes first and thus get the U.S. to put down its guard, then send their missiles.

In fact, today, with the Cold War nearly two decades gone, the U.S. still maintains a first-strike option. The authors of the Congressional Commission on the Strategic Posture of the United States wrote that adopting a no-first-use policy "would be unsettling to some U.S. allies." And there's little likelihood that the Pentagon's Nuclear Posture Review slated for delivery in December will revise that stance.

The Bush Doctrine in 2002 went a step further, giving birth to the concept of using nuclear weapons pre-emptively against any non-nuclear nation that was thought to be developing weapons of mass destruction. A nuclear nation attacking a non-nuclear nation with nuclear weapons is a violation of the Non-Proliferation Treaty.

Now, Russia may be going the Bush Doctrine one better. According to Pravda:

Nikolai Patrushev, the head of Russia’s Security Council, said in an interview with the Izvestia newspaper that Russia would consider an opportunity of using nuclear arms depending on circumstances and intentions of a potential enemy.

"In situations critical for national security, a preventive nuclear strike against the aggressor is not ruled out," he said.

The section of Russia’s military doctrine about the opportunity to use nuclear weapons was formulated to preserve the status of a nuclear power for the Russian Federation. The document states that Russia can apply nuclear deterrence against potential enemies to prevent aggression against Russia and its allies.

Current Russian doctrine says nuclear weapons can only be used in response to a nuclear attack or large-scale war against Russia.



In the Izvestia interview, according to Wired magazine:

...he takes a swipe at the United States and NATO, saying that the alliance "continues to press for the admission of new members to NATO, the military activities of the bloc are intensifying, and U.S. strategic forces are conducting intensive exercises to improve the management of strategic nuclear weapons." ...

The Russian Federation is considering the "first strike" option as part of a larger overhaul of military doctrine. The new doctrine, which is supposed to be presented to President Dmitry Medvedev later this year, is supposed to provide "flexible and timely" responses to national security threats.

The United States and Russia may prepping to negotiate a new strategic arms reduction treaty after President Obama declared a "reset" in relations between Moscow and Russia. But Patrushev, apparently, didn’t get the memo. In the interview, he takes a swipe at the United States and NATO, saying that the alliance "continues to press for the admission of new members to NATO, the military activities of the bloc are intensifying, and U.S. strategic forces are conducting intensive exercises to improve the management of strategic nuclear weapons."

 

[vikrams]

with repeated failures of bulava

and usa using high power lasers as antiballistics

good to go for

MAY FIRST USE strategy

 

[navtrek]

Russians really need to concentrate on economic development and take care of other issues when they become a Developed nation

---------- Post added at 09:12 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:11 PM ----------

Russian Missile Forces Lower Quantity But Higher Quality

The recent news conference given by Col. Gen. Nikolai Solovtsov, the commander of the Russian Strategic Missile Forces (RSMF), did not cause a sensation. Specialists and experts on the Missile Forces heard only one piece of new information from the general. This was the news that the command of the RSMF will, of course, react if Russia decides to withdraw from the Intermediate Range Nuclear Forces (INF) treaty in reaction to U.S. plans to deploy a missile defense shield in Poland and radars in the Czech Republic.

It is as ready to assume command of the medium range missiles now as it was before the INF treaty came into force, and there is a possibility that the missiles will be aimed at U.S. targets in Eastern Europe.

"At present nothing is deployed there", Solovtsov said. "But if Poland and the Czech Republic decide to change that, the Russian Strategic Missile Force will be able to consider these objects as targets." Asked by RIA Novosti about the Russian defense industry's ability to produce such missiles in sufficient number, the general said: "After the elimination of medium-range missiles, the designs and technology remained. It will not be difficult to resume production, but it will be with new technology, a new element base, and new guidance systems."

These statements can hardly be called a sensation after the recent statements about Russia's possible withdrawal from the INF Treaty made by President Vladimir Putin, Gen. Yury Baluyevsky, chief of the Russian General Staff, and Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov. But one thing was hard to ignore amid all the talk about American missiles and radars.

Gen. Solovtsov said that this year, two regiments of Topol RS-12M ground-based missile systems in the Kannskaya missile division (which has sixteen launchers for SS-25 Sickle missiles) will be trimmed down, along with a missile regiment in the Kozelskaya division, stationed in the Kaluga Region. There are six regiments of UR-100 NUTTKh silo-based missile systems on combat duty (with 60 SS-19 Stiletto missile launchers capable of carrying six independently targetable nuclear warheads, each with a 750 kiloton yield). One regiment consisting of 10 missiles will be disbanded by the end of the year.

Will the planned reduction in the number of these missiles, as well as further reductions in other strategic missile systems, impair Russia's security? The commander of the RSMF answered unequivocally: "No." These reductions are part of Russia's obligations under the START-1 and SORT treaties. Under the latter, Moscow and Washington will reduce their respective number of nuclear warheads on existing missile systems to 1700-2200 by December 31, 2012. "And this will be accomplished," Gen. Solovtsov said. "Our missiles have many more warheads than that," he added. He did not specify the number, but according to publicly available sources, at the end of 2006 Russia had 762 strategic systems capable of carrying 3373 nuclear warheads. The RSMF alone has 503 strategic systems and 1853 warheads.

Russia's former defense minister, Sergei Ivanov, said at the State Duma on February 7 that the Russian Army will get 17 new strategic missile systems this year. As Gen. Solovtsov said at his news conference, the first division, armed with the ground-based Topol-M missile system consisting of three launch vehicles and one control vehicle, will be enlarged to a regiment with three more launchers. It is therefore clear that the rest of the missile systems will be both silo- and, probably, ground-based, but they will consist only of Topol-M missiles.

Gen. Solovtsov added that by 2016-2018, Topol-M missile systems, both in silos and ground-based, will constitute the backbone of the RSMF. Ivanov said that by 2015, 34 more silo-based missile systems (at present there are 42) and 66 ground-based systems will be supplied to the Armed Forces, bringing the total number of Topol-M missiles systems to nearly 150.

Today, both ground- and silo-based Topol-M missile systems have only one warhead. After 2009, when the START-1 treaty's restrictions on the deployment of ground-based missile systems with MIRVed warheads are lifted, there is a possibility that the new Topol missiles will carry those multiple warheads. Otherwise, Russia won't be able to fulfill its obligations under the SORT treaty.

Though Gen. Solovtsov's news conference caused no sensation, a careful analysis shows that it unveils the prospects for the development of the Russian Strategic Missile Forces. Russia will have fewer missiles than today, but its missiles will be of a higher quality, capable of penetrating both existing and future missile defense systems.

Russian Missile Forces Lower Quantity But Higher Quality

 

[Patriot]

IIRC Soviet Union Nuclear Policy was to nuke all NATO and Western Allies all blue Camp Members if it is threatened.

 

[navtrek]

UR-100N

RT-2PM Topol

RT-2UTTH Topol M

 

[Spartacus_Σπάρτα&#95]

Moscow is claiming that the West can/will attack it with nuclear weapons by 2015. Is this alarmist rhetoric? Perhaps. It's alarmist rhetoric/propaganda meant to galvanize the people around the central authorities. However, in my opinion, it also holds a certain amount of truth. The Russian paranoia, if I may, is rooted in reality. Russia's military today, although resurgent, is overall in very bad shape. The 1990s was disastrous for Russia not just economically, but also politically, demographically, sociologically and militarily as well. The Soviet era nuclear missiles (the majority in Russia's nuclear arsenal) are said to be in very bad shape.

Some military analysts claim that Russia's thousands of Soviet era nuclear missiles and warheads are in such bad shape that a large percentage of them might not even function properly if ever used. That is why Russia is currently investing large sums in new missile projects. By the time these news missile systems fully replace the older unreliable ones it will be many years. It takes time to integrate new systems. As a result, there will be a certain time period when Russia will be, theoretically at least, vulnerable to an initial nuclear strike. This is exactly why the Kremlin has recently placed most of their spending emphasis on nuclear deterrence such as renewed strategic bomber flights, procurement of mobile TOPOL ICBMs (SS-27, land and sea versions) and the development of Iskander (SS-26) medium range nuclear missile system. It wasn't by chance that Medvedev's first presidential visitation was to a TOPOL ICBM site.

Regardless of whether or not the US is capable of destroying Russia's nuclear deterrence, Moscow is taking this situation very seriously. Therefore, theoretically at least, the US military is currently capable of posing a serious danger to the Russian Federation. The proposed anti-missile defense systems in Western Europe, for example, are seen by Russian officials as very serious longterm threat for the Russian Federation. By its very nature, these anti-missile defense systems can potentially null the nuclear deterrence factor that keeps the peace between existing superpowers. With the help of better aerial/satellite surveillance and real time intelligence, a first strike on Russia's nuclear missile carrying submarines and land based missile silos can theoretically knock out its nuclear strike capability in one massive hit. Surviving missiles that may get fired can then be detected and shot down by a ring of early warning radar systems and their anti-missile defenses. These early waring radars and missiles are currently being positioned around the Russian Federation.

Whether or not the US is willing to take such a high risk gamble against Russia is altogether another story, especially now that Russia is rapidly modernizing its armed forces and is on alert. Although theoretically the danger is there, nonetheless, the US today (and for the foreseeable future) is in no shape to attempt such a dooms day scenario. But, as far as military planner in the Kremlin are concerned, they are not about to take chances.

 

[Ras]

Sure the Russians need to hold on to their nukes..other than nukes what else do they have to leverage for influence on the world stage...no industries of note,poor conventional arms,a stagnant economy,shrinking population...