Is Nuclear Parity Important?

[BigRob]

Most nations aren't really interested in nuclear forces because of the cost of them and the fact that they are basically a waste of time and effort. Anyway thats a different issue.

This is the case in most places that we (in the US) would not really care if they had them to begin with. In problem places, this is not really the case. North Korea for example cannot really afford it, yet they have now tested two weapons. Even Libya had a program, they can barely afford anything either.

Apart from a few SSBNs that have a service up to 2015, all of the Russian systems will have outlived their service life by 2010, and they have no extension programmes despite what the scaremongers may say.

This is laughable. Sorry, but the Russians have tested new delivery systems pretty recently, as well as done serious upgrades to its tactical nuclear force.

The real bummer for the Russians was that the mainstay of the ICBM fleet was the SS-18/19 and along with the bulk of the tactical weapons the production/maintenance facilities were in Ukraine which is a bit of a pisser doncha think! Why do you think that the US attaches so much store in getting the Ukrainians into NATO and being their real special buddies? To deny the Russians getting access to those facilites through either threatening military posture or via and economic political pressure.

I doubt Ukraine will ever be in NATO, but that is another issue. Additionally, the Russians have now moved beyond the SS-18/19's. While certainly not in the same scope as in the Cold War, they have upgraded the delivery system. We in the United States have done nothing except downgrade really back to the Minuteman III, and we have more or less made those single warhead missiles.

a reliable and credible.......what......exactly.

Nuclear force that works.

A nuclear weapons system is designed for a specific mission, reliability, accuracy and readiness state plus shed loads of other criteria but lets not bother with that for the moment. Cold war planning was not that complicated in that essentailly you target Russia and its ecomomic/military assests, leadership, population etc. bigger was sometimes better but no always yadda yadda. Okay, so accurate long range delivery systems multiple heads on hair-trigger alert status with high reliability and high maintenance cycles with trained and motivated personnel. Multiple delivery systems short/medium/long range missiles, aircraft, and submarines laying off-shore continental Russia allowed flexiblility and multi-layered responses to dynamic scenarios. Pretty simple huh!

This is a pretty simplistic rendition, but I will go along with it.

So what is your reliable and credible system going to do? destroy small villages or blat the bejeebers out of whopping great cities? Will it be missiles or subs or planes or artilery lobbing these bombs and will they be on ready alert or hair-trigger alert or storeage for 24/48 hours or weeks or months. Do you just want to blat Iran or N. Korea or both (topography is different) do you want to zap their bunkers or their cities or their population or their factories? Or do you just want to whack Moscow?

I want to assure our allies that our extended nuclear deterrent is credible. A reliable and credible deterrent prevents proliferation. In a place like Japan that matters, in a place like Taiwan it matters even more. Do you think that China would have not invaded Taiwan by now if the US had not given Taiwan a security assurance? If China knows our arsenal has atrophied and we won't use it, then what is to stop an invasion? The only thing that would stop an invasion would be a Taiwan nuke, which if they started that program would cause an invasion.

We need flexibility in our response yes. We need to be able to target everything you just mentioned, not throw our hands up and say "oh well, its to difficult."

 

[PLC1]

As much as I'd enjoy hearing the Scotsman fart Dixie, my innate cynicism rings pretty clearly when I read about how the US and Russia are decreasing our stockpiles of nukes. We've been talking about doing so for decades now, and still have the capability of ending civilization. As the above posts show, there is really no clear and simple way to even determine just what capabilities each nation has, short of an actual nuclear war.

Whether or not we actually have nuclear superiority, it is important that the world think we do. That way, it is unlikely that anyone will mess with us, at least with nukes.

Meanwhile, the human race has two choices in the long term: Get a grip on weapons of mass destruction and shoot them up into space for a world wide fireworks display, or plan at some point to go back to the stone age and start over.

 

[BigRob]

As much as I'd enjoy hearing the Scotsman fart Dixie, my innate cynicism rings pretty clearly when I read about how the US and Russia are decreasing our stockpiles of nukes. We've been talking about doing so for decades now, and still have the capability of ending civilization. As the above posts show, there is really no clear and simple way to even determine just what capabilities each nation has, short of an actual nuclear war.

Russia and the United States are not the only players when it comes to nuclear issues. Our nuclear policy with Russia has a major impact in nations like Japan, Taiwan, etc.

Further, there is a pretty easy manner to determine what our capabilities are, yet our government seems intent that any progress in the nuclear arena makes us war-mongers and somehow destabilizes the situation.

Whether or not we actually have nuclear superiority, it is important that the world think we do. That way, it is unlikely that anyone will mess with us, at least with nukes.

Plain and simple. Right now the United States does not have nuclear superiority in my view. We do not even really have nuclear parity. This problem will result in wave of proliferation if we are not careful in monitoring the situation.

Meanwhile, the human race has two choices in the long term: Get a grip on weapons of mass destruction and shoot them up into space for a world wide fireworks display, or plan at some point to go back to the stone age and start over.

Why would the use of 1 nuclear weapon send us back to the stone age? Really the use of 10 nuclear weapons would not even do such a thing. The idea that nuclear weapon use would end the world seems off base to me.

 

[PLC1]

Russia and the United States are not the only players when it comes to nuclear issues. Our nuclear policy with Russia has a major impact in nations like Japan, Taiwan, etc.

Further, there is a pretty easy manner to determine what our capabilities are, yet our government seems intent that any progress in the nuclear arena makes us war-mongers and somehow destabilizes the situation.



Plain and simple. Right now the United States does not have nuclear superiority in my view. We do not even really have nuclear parity. This problem will result in wave of proliferation if we are not careful in monitoring the situation.

So, we have two solutions: Either start building more tactical nukes, or initiate a propaganda campaign to convince people that we have more than we actually do. Either way, we're starting an arms race of sorts.

Why would the use of 1 nuclear weapon send us back to the stone age? Really the use of 10 nuclear weapons would not even do such a thing. The idea that nuclear weapon use would end the world seems off base to me.

The use of two to end WWII did not end civilization, so a limited war most likely would not. The devil is in limiting said war. Wars tend to escalate on their own, with the combatants losing control of the situation. An all out war, the kind visualized when we were busy hiding under our desks in the '50s, would easily set civilization back a few thousand years. Of course, that's just a blink of an eye in terms of the age of the Earth, so maybe we'd come back one day.

Maybe we'd do it again, and maybe not.

 

[BigRob]

So, we have two solutions: Either start building more tactical nukes or initiate a propaganda campaign to convince people that we have more than we actually do. Either way, we're starting an arms race of sorts.

It is not "starting an arms" to catch up to your adversary, or at the very least assure your allies that your weapons work.

We hear the same argument that building a missile defense system will result in an arms race. For detractors of programs such as these, I ask will anything other than unilateral disarmament result in anything other than an arms race?

The use of two to end WWII did not end civilization, so a limited war most likely would not. The devil is in limiting said war. Wars tend to escalate on their own, with the combatants losing control of the situation. An all out war, the kind visualized when we were busy hiding under our desks in the '50s, would easily set civilization back a few thousand years. Of course, that's just a blink of an eye in terms of the age of the Earth, so maybe we'd come back one day.

Who are you envisioning a nuclear war with? North Korea does not have the capability to hit an American city, neither does Iran. Those wars, should they occur, would be very damaging to US interests, but we would not "lose a city" or anything like that.

 

[PLC1]

It is not "starting an arms" to catch up to your adversary, or at the very least assure your allies that your weapons work.

We hear the same argument that building a missile defense system will result in an arms race. For detractors of programs such as these, I ask will anything other than unilateral disarmament result in anything other than an arms race?

A unilateral disarmament would be more likely to cause a war than prevent one, so no, that is not the answer. Building a nuclear defense system wouldn't start an arms race either, no. It would be a huge expense, of course, one that probably none of our enemies or allies could match. I'm not so sure we could afford such a system just now, either. What we need is just what the nuclear reduction treaty proposes to be: A mutual agreement between the two major nuclear powers to scale back the our stockpiles of nuclear weapons. We'd still be way ahead of North Korea, or India, or Pakistan, or any other nuclear power. How far ahead must we be?

Still, as I said before, any agreement between Russia and the US regarding nukes has to be viewed with extreme skepticism.

Who are you envisioning a nuclear war with? North Korea does not have the capability to hit an American city, neither does Iran. Those wars, should they occur, would be very damaging to US interests, but we would not "lose a city" or anything like that.

Russia would be the only possibility currently. In another decade or two, the situation could easily change.

 

[The Scotsman]

This is laughable. Sorry, but the Russians have tested new delivery systems pretty recently, as well as done serious upgrades to its tactical nuclear force.

The only serious testing that is been done recently is on the Bulava which is surrounded in a tad of controvacy as it keeps blowing itself up and those that critise the engineering behind it tend to fall out of buildings; Russians like to commit suicide when they tell the media of naval screw-ups. Trouble is of course the media won't report such tiny mishaps because they too will be doing peter pans out of tall buildings.

The missile itself is supposed to be designed to fit into a new missile sub that may or may not be built - word on the street is that it can also fit into a typhoon missile tube (hedging their bets I guess!) Anyway this sub is supposed to be on stream in 2017 long after all the other systems are rusting hulks in their silos or tubes. So far its a planners dream.

Apart from that there are no major upgrade programms because they cannot afford it. The Kremlin talks a good story and the western media laps it up.

See the problem is Rob, Russia is buggered, their engineers are not really up to it anymore, the quality of the materials is inferior etc. etc. The Bulava is a classic example of a declining military wanting to be seen as being on top of its game; rushing projects through without the engineering behind it. The last Nuclear sub launched was the Yury Dolgorukiy I think it was called, anyway this mighty piece of hardware was a patched up abortion that hasn't actually entered active service yet and is still looking for funding to make it seaworthy. By the way it was designed to carry a R-39UTTH "Bark" missile but that too was a friggin disaster and was scrapped.

You lament the lack of parity - parity of what? Technology, engineering or mega-tonnage? What is the purpose of your desire for parity, deterence or suppression? And who are you aiming to have parity with Russia, China, N. Korea, Pakistan, India, Iran, Israel, France, Britain.....all of the above.

You still haven't addressed the issue of the mission you want your nukes to undertake which will have a bearing on this parity thing.

 

[BigRob]

The only serious testing that is been done recently is on the Bulava which is surrounded in a tad of controvacy as it keeps blowing itself up and those that critise the engineering behind it tend to fall out of buildings; Russians like to commit suicide when they tell the media of naval screw-ups. Trouble is of course the media won't report such tiny mishaps because they too will be doing peter pans out of tall buildings.

Just in February alone Russia committed, despite the sad economy, to continue heavily investing in new advanced weapon systems, including nuclear missiles. The United States has made no such move.

Statements by the Russian leadership echo the sentiment that they are continuing to modernize. Russia has come out with the Topol-M, and are working on the missile you describe. The United States on the other hand has done nothing.

Apart from that there are no major upgrade programms because they cannot afford it. The Kremlin talks a good story and the western media laps it up.

February of this year they pledged another $36 billion. Putin stated "It's expensive, it's very expensive, but there is no other way. We will develop and modernize our strategic deterrent forces."

See the problem is Rob, Russia is buggered, their engineers are not really up to it anymore, the quality of the materials is inferior etc. etc. The Bulava is a classic example of a declining military wanting to be seen as being on top of its game; rushing projects through without the engineering behind it. The last Nuclear sub launched was the Yury Dolgorukiy I think it was called, anyway this mighty piece of hardware was a patched up abortion that hasn't actually entered active service yet and is still looking for funding to make it seaworthy. By the way it was designed to carry a R-39UTTH "Bark" missile but that too was a friggin disaster and was scrapped.

My point is that Russia is making strides at upgrades and the US is letting its arsenal atrophy.

You lament the lack of parity - parity of what? Technology, engineering or mega-tonnage? What is the purpose of your desire for parity, deterence or suppression? And who are you aiming to have parity with Russia, China, N. Korea, Pakistan, India, Iran, Israel, France, Britain.....all of the above.

I do not lament the lack of parity. I do not even think parity is all that important, which is why I feel that the United States should not be giving anything to Russia in the name of "arms control." Why should we eliminate weapons needlessly? While parity is not the be all end all, what does matter is making sure we have weapons that work and can eliminate targets. I think right now, we are falling behind in that department.

What I want our nuclear arsenal's role to be is to be able to provide our allies with a credible assurance of our security guarantees, thus preventing proliferation and limiting the amount of fissile material.

 

[The Scotsman]

February of this year they pledged another $36 billion. Putin stated "It's expensive, it's very expensive, but there is no other way. We will develop and modernize our strategic deterrent forces."

"It’s expensive, it’s very expensive, but there is no other way," Ivanov told lawmakers in the lower house of parliament. "We will develop and modernize our strategic deterrent forces."

Ivanov said last fall that the government budgeted 1.3 trillion rubles ($36 billion) for weapons purchases this year. The exact figures for spending on each category of weapons, including nuclear forces, were not released.

....... and still haven't. I think you'll find that this is just a reiteration of spending that was already announced a long time ago and certainly before they started to slip into the current economic quagmire.

As of April this year the russian navy's pride and joy the "Yury Dolgorukiy" had no new funding allocated to it.

Interesting that you mentioned the TOPOL as a recent directive was sent round stating that under no circumstances were "enlisted men" to accompany this missile as they could not be trusted to operate it. It is only accompanied by officers thus limiting its use.

And the final nail in the quality coffin...................

Experts said that a steady decline of Russian arms industries has swelled production costs and eroded quality, jeopardizing government hopes to boost arms sales. Last year, Algeria returned 15 MiG-29 fighter jets it bought from Russia, complaining of their poor quality.

 

[The Scotsman]

I do not lament the lack of parity. I do not even think parity is all that important, which is why I feel that the United States should not be giving anything to Russia in the name of "arms control."

For what its worth, I think that all is happening here is a face saving operation where the Russian can be seen to be reducing the weapons in an "honourable" way - for public consumption! We all know and understand that Russia cannot maintain its current stockpile, it cannot even maintain adequate security on their existing weapons, in order to give them a way out you have these arms control things.

I think it probably suits the US as well. So far there is no real updated strategy on the mission or targeting for the current weapons let alone any "new" systems - doctrine is still pretty much "cold war" in terms of philosophy, targets, alert and delivery etc. etc. I think the only thing that is being looked at on a more tactical basis are the submarine forces?


What are your views on US nuclear doctrine in the 21st Century. At what point do you think that the US nuclear deterrent ceases to be viable? At the height of the cold war there were around 70,000 war heads on the US/Russian inventory enough to evaporate just about everyone, do you want to go back to that - there are now many other countries that need to be considered potential threats not just Russia! On the other hand the UK has around 180 and Israel has 10 I think that’ll ruin most peoples day if they were deployed!

 

[BigRob]

....... and still haven't. I think you'll find that this is just a reiteration of spending that was already announced a long time ago and certainly before they started to slip into the current economic quagmire.

As of April this year the russian navy's pride and joy the "Yury Dolgorukiy" had no new funding allocated to it.

Interesting that you mentioned the TOPOL as a recent directive was sent round stating that under no circumstances were "enlisted men" to accompany this missile as they could not be trusted to operate it. It is only accompanied by officers thus limiting its use.

And the final nail in the quality coffin...................

Limiting the use of the Topol does not mean that the missile is not effective. It is a better missile than the Minuteman in my view, which has become the backbone of the US arsenal.

Certainly the Russians have money problems, but I think the point is that they are putting money into their nuclear forces. They are making upgrades, such as the Topol coming into service, potential upgrades to tactical forces, continuing to MIRV the missiles.

I do not think they are about to go off and destroy New York, but the point is that the more upgrades they make, the worse our defense shield becomes, and it limits the range of US options in Europe and Asia.

 

[BigRob]

For what its worth, I think that all is happening here is a face saving operation where the Russian can be seen to be reducing the weapons in an "honourable" way - for public consumption! We all know and understand that Russia cannot maintain its current stockpile, it cannot even maintain adequate security on their existing weapons, in order to give them a way out you have these arms control things.

Yes, I agree they cannot maintain their strategic stockpile at current levels. But why does this have to translate into the US allowing its forces to atrophy and eliminating what I view as needed programs?

I think it probably suits the US as well. So far there is no real updated strategy on the mission or targeting for the current weapons let alone any "new" systems - doctrine is still pretty much "cold war" in terms of philosophy, targets, alert and delivery etc. etc. I think the only thing that is being looked at on a more tactical basis are the submarine forces?

Well, the Nuclear Posture Review stated that Cold War was "behind us" and offered a new way of thinking on the issue. Much of this report is classified, but excerpts are available.

"Since the end of the Cold War, the U.S. defense infrastructure has contracted and our nuclear infrastructure has atrophied. New approaches to development and procurement of new capabilities are being designed so that it will not take 20 years or more to field new generations of weapon systems. With respect to the nuclear infrastructure, it needs to be repaired to increase confidence in the deployed forces, eliminate unneeded weapons, and mitigate the risks of technological surprise. Maintaining our ability to respond to large strategic changes can permit us to reduce our nuclear arsenal and, at the same time, dissuade adversaries from starting a competition in nuclear armaments."

Notice that the Defense Department in 2002 has argued that the our nuclear infrastructure has atrophied. While I agree some weapons are a waste, what exactly have we done since this time to reverse the trend that the DOD points out 8 years ago? Nothing.

What are your views on US nuclear doctrine in the 21st Century. At what point do you think that the US nuclear deterrent ceases to be viable? At the height of the cold war there were around 70,000 war heads on the US/Russian inventory enough to evaporate just about everyone, do you want to go back to that - there are now many other countries that need to be considered potential threats not just Russia! On the other hand the UK has around 180 and Israel has 10 I think that’ll ruin most peoples day if they were deployed!

I tend to agree with the NPR of 2002. I do not want to go back to 70,000 warheads because it is not needed, but what is needed are reliable warheads and delivery systems that work. Something that we are ignoring in this country.

I do not have much of a view of deterrence. I think it does not really work the way we pretend it does. Take the Yom Kippur war, a widely view nuclear power of Israel was invaded by non-nuclear powers.

Additionally, the UK has made overtures about new delivery systems as well, so they are doing some thinking of their own on the issue.

I am not saying there are no other threats besides Russia, but we need to ensure that the Russia threat does not become one that limits our range of options in Asia and Europe.

 

[The Scotsman]

I do not have much of a view of deterrence. I think it does not really work the way we pretend it does. Take the Yom Kippur war, a widely view nuclear power of Israel was invaded by non-nuclear powers.

......so why waste money on it?

 

[The Scotsman]

I do not think they are about to go off and destroy New York, but the point is that the more upgrades they make, the worse our defense shield becomes, and it limits the range of US options in Europe and Asia.

......why?

 

[BigRob]

......so why waste money on it?

I am not sure that building nuclear warheads and delivery systems in order to ensure our security assurances remain credible means that we are "wasting money on deterrence."

Since deterrence ought to be viewed with skepticism in my view, we need to be prepared for when it breaks down.