Online conference
Nuclear weapons: Does the world faces a new war?
Exactly 66 years ago, an event occurred, which turned the established principles of warfare and radically changed the military-political alignment of forces in the world. On July 16, 1945, the first in history of a nuclear explosion was produced in the USA at the Polygon in Alamogordo. As the invention of nuclear weapons affected the balance of power in the world, and how does this balance be compliance today? What is the further expansion nuclear clubAnd why are individual states so strive to have such technologies? What threatens the use of weapons of mass defeat one of the parties in conflict? What role does nuclear weapons play for the strategic security of Russia? The Acting Director of the State Corporation of the State Corporation responded to these and other issues. atomic energy Rosatom Vyacheslav Mikov.
Answers on questions
Alexander:
Is there a probability of conflict with nuclear weapons today? What is the likelihood that the local conflict with the use of nuclear weapons will grow into a global conflict?
Miking Vyacheslav:
The random of the emergence of a nuclear conflict is extremely unlikely, the more processing it into the world nuclear war. But even with a relatively small degree of randomness of a nuclear conflict, it would be extremely high. Therefore, it is impossible to exclude even the minimum probability of such a development of events. This can be facilitated by many different reasons: technical failures in combat management systems, the spreading of nuclear weapons and nuclear terrorism, the psychological instability and inadequacy of the behavior of personnel in stressful situations.
Alexander:
As an invention of an atomic bomb, it affected the balance of the forces in the world, is this balance compliant today?
Miking Vyacheslav:
As you probably know, a nuclear era began in 1945, when the United States became the first state that experienced, and the first, and so far the only state that applied nuclear weapons in practice is in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. For the United States followed the Soviet Union, which was tested by the first nuclear explosive device in 1949 in Kazakhstan at the Semipalatinsky test landfill. In 1952, nuclear weapons were created in the UK, in 1960 in France, and, finally, in 1964 in China. In 1998, that is, relatively recently, nuclear weapons experienced India and Pakistan. According to almost all experts, Israel has nuclear weapons. Since the appearance of nuclear weapons, the USSR initiated the struggle for its prohibition and withdrawal from military arsenals. In 1946, the USSR submitted to the UN Atomic Energy Commission a draft of the International Convention on the Prohibition of Production and Weapons Based on the Use of Atomic Energy for Mass Destruction. In this project, it was proposed to all participants in the Convention to undertake obligations, under no circumstances to use atomic weapons, prohibit its production and storage, destroy the entire stock of the finished and in the production of weapons in three months. You yourself perfectly give a report in the fact that when only the United States was actually monopulated with this weapon, about any ban on this weapon it was difficult to discuss. Therefore, these all things were regarded, and apparently was correctly regarded as basically propaganda steps. What other milestones can be noted in the position of the USSR, and then Russia in the field of nuclear weapons? This, above all, an agreement on the non-proliferation of nuclear weapons, which entered into force in 1970. In 1978, the USSR said that it would never apply nuclear weapons against those states that refuse its production and acquisition and do not have its own territory . This statement of the USSR was subsequently revised by Russia. In 1982, during the 37th session of the UN General Assembly, the USSR declared that she would unilaterally assumes the obligation not to apply nuclear weapons first. This commitment was also subsequently revised by Russia. In January 1986, Mikhail Sergeevich Gorbachev nominated the program of destroying the entire nuclear weapons and creating a nuclear-free world by 2000. This idea, naturally, was absolutely unrealistic. Unlike the USSR, the United States, the United Kingdom and France never stated the need to prohibit nuclear weapons and the complete elimination of its reserves, since they considered nuclear weapons the necessary element of the guarantee of their national security. We can say that on the issue of attitude to nuclear weapons, the position of Russia after the collapse of the Soviet Union has undergone significant evolution. The concept of national security and military doctrine, which have been accepted already in this century, as well as in other fundamental documents, it is said that Russia reserves the right to use nuclear weapons in response to using it and its allies of nuclear and others. Weapons of weapons of mass destruction, as well as in response to large-scale aggression with the use of ordinary weapons in critical situation of Russia, situations. Actually, why occurred such a review of the position? The fact is that, unlike the end of the last century, when the Soviet Union had a huge advantage in tanks and other conventional weapons at the European Theater of Military Activities, after the collapse of the Soviet Union, this advantage disappeared, and now Russia considers the guarantor of its national security nuclear weapons, And not a weapon of the usual type. The nuclear weapon is assigned the role of solving the protection of the national security of Russia for a sufficiently long period of time. As for the current balance of nuclear forces, and the speech is primarily about Russia and the United States, then it is determined by the agreement on the reduction of strategic offensive arms START-3. The contract was signed by the Presidents Dmitry Medvedev and Barack Obama on April 8, 2010 in Prague and entered into force on February 5, 2011. The agreement is designed for 10 years with possible prolongation on the mutual agreement of the parties for 5 years. The contract provides for a reduction in nuclear warheads up to 1550 units, intercontinental ballistic missiles, ballistic rockets of submarines and heavy bombers - up to 700 units.
Why do nuclear tests need?
Miking Vyacheslav:
Since the first samples of nuclear weapons, test nuclear explosions become an integral and most important stage of the process of creating nuclear ammunition. The need for them was dictated by the need for direct confirmation that nuclear weapons reliably realize their "weapons" affixing qualities, and above all the energy release, which is accepted to express through an equivalent amount of chemical explosives (trinitrogen tons). The complexity of the design of modern nuclear warheads, multistage, diversity and speed of processes flowing into them, their mutual influence on each other did not allow to do for this purpose only with computer and laboratory modeling. The intermediate stages of the new development could be based on the tests of low power, where only part of the processes is being implemented, but the final confirmation, as a rule, was to be a full-scale nuclear test. Nuclear test explosions needed for other purposes - for example, confirmation of the security of a new nuclear ammunition in emergency situation (Fire, fall, shelling, etc.). This does not mean, however, that, in principle, it is impossible to create an efficient nuclear warhead without test explosions. From what has said it follows that the role of nuclear tests is different depending on the purposes that one or another states. Those of them who intend to make the first steps through the "nuclear threshold", provided that sufficient scientific and technical potential and the possibilities of conducting computer simulation and laboratory studies can create a nuclear arsenal limited to the characteristics without conducting nuclear tests. For those who are developing a modern type nuclear weapon, not to mention the "new generation" weapons, for example, an X-ray laser, test nuclear explosions of a full-scale level are vital. In turn, this means that the ban on nuclear test explosions is most significant to terminate the qualitative development and improvement of modern nuclear weapons.
What are the prospects for the US ratification of a comprehensive prohibition of nuclear tests (CTBT)?
Miking Vyacheslav:
Having come to power in the United States, the administration of Barack Obama declared the intention to achieve ratification of the contract on the comprehensive prohibition of nuclear tests (CTBT). Speaking in Prague on April 3, 2009, Barack Obama said: "The administration will undertake immediate and energetic steps to ensure the ratification of the CTBT in the United States." To complete the ratification procedures in the Senate, it is necessary that two-thirds of senators (67 votes) are supported. Currently, the Democratic faction in the US Senate is 57 people. Thus, the administration of Barack Obama needs to be gained another 10 votes of Republican senators. This is a difficult task. To date, the situation is developing in such a way that any practical steps to ratify the contract on the comprehensive prohibition of nuclear tests in Washington in the near future will hardly follow. The alignment of the strength in the American Senate after the last intermediate elections in the congress was clearly not in favor of the contract (the positions of the opponents of the CTBT - Republicans were strengthened). In many respects, the decisive can be 2012 - the year of the presidential elections in the United States and Divotibors to the Senate. Only after the new party alignment in the upper chamber of the Congress becomes clear and the owner of the White House for the next four-year period will be determined, it will be possible (with a favorable development of events) to expect the beginning of ratification procedures on CTBT in Washington, that is, at best no earlier than 2013 .
How justified the fears of opponents of the contract on the comprehensive banning of nuclear tests (CTBT), that the contract will interfere with ensuring the reliability of the American nuclear arsenal?
Miking Vyacheslav:
Doubts about the ability to maintain a nuclear arsenal without nuclear testing - the strongest argument of the opponents of the CTBT. However, according to representatives of the Los Alamos and Livemore Nuclear Nuclear Laboratories, as part of the implementation of the American Maintenance Program for the Maintenance of Nuclear Arsenal, significant successes were achieved. A fundamentally important conclusion regarding the program made independent American experts that there is no reason to believe that accumulation of changes that occurs as a result of aging components of the warheads and the implementation of the program for the extension of their life cycle increases the risk of refusing to certify the expanded warheads. The life of the existing specifies can be extended for decades. Thus, the results of the implementation of the Program in recent years indicate that many technical concerns relating to maintaining the combat readiness of the American Nuclear Arsenal, which caused refusal to ratify the CTBT in 1999, were mainly removed. It is also important that the Ministers of Energy and Defense has been certified by the American Nuclear Arsenal for Safety and Reliability for 15 years in a row. Cumulative expenses for these goals until 2020 are planned in the amount of 80 billion dollars. Such a program is implemented in Russia.
Arkady I:
What role does nuclear weapons play for the strategic security of Russia?
Miking Vyacheslav:
During the 1990s, there was a gradual increase in the role of nuclear weapons in the Russian safety policies associated with the huge superiority of NATO in conventional armed forces and concerns that these forces can be applied against Russia. This concern only increased due to such processes as a more "light" NATO attitude to the use of military force. At the same time, the presence of nuclear weapons is currently one of the important factors that Russia provides the place of one of the world's geopolitical centers. At the beginning of the decade, Russia "by default" refused to the official Soviet policy for the non-use of nuclear weapons first, eliminating this situation from official documents. The concept of national security and military doctrine adopted in 2000 provide for the possibility of applying nuclear weapons "If it is necessary to reflect armed aggression, if all other measures of resolving the crisis situation have been exhausted or turned out to be ineffective." This provision is usually interpreted as allowing the use of nuclear weapons in a wide spectrum of situations, including in response to the limited use of conventional armed forces against Russia. At the same time, the modernization and improving the effectiveness of conventional armed forces should be envisaged by the concept of national security to reduce the support for nuclear weapons. Finally, it is important to realize that the very question of increasing support for nuclear weapons, albeit temporary, is related to the feeling of the threat that has emanated from the use of force in the Balkans, the prospects for the deployment of the US missile defense, and so on. Significant importance for understanding strategies and approaches to nuclear weapons as a whole, of course, played the exit to the new Russian-American agreement on the reduction of offensive arms. However, the contract can act and be viable only in conditions when there is no qualitative and quantitative increase in the possibilities of US missile defense systems that threatens the potential of the strategic nuclear forces (SIAS) of Russia. When and if there is an exit to the level of creating a strategic pro, which will be regarded by our military specialists as creating risks for Russian shenas, we will have the right to terminate the contract. This is the principal position of Russia with an objective measure of the quality of the contract will be the practical experience of its full-scale implementation. Only then, Russia can draw conclusions about how the agreement works and build plans for further steps towards the nuclear-free world. Naturally, this process will need to give a multilateral nature. It is important that countries that have nuclear arsenals will join the efforts of Russia and the United States in this area and actively contribute to the disarmament process.
Valentina Igorevna:
Why are individual states strive to have nuclear weapons?
Miking Vyacheslav:
Increasing the role of nuclear weapons as a political and military instrument cannot not affect the approaches of other countries, increasing their interest in nuclear weapons. At the same time, the opinion on the potential political efficiency of this weapon as a means of preventing possible aggression, and not conducting hostilities after the aggression has already accomplished, only reinforces the idea of \u200b\u200bits value and creates prerequisites for the erosion of the non-proliferation regime. Nuclear weapons are also often seen as a guarantee against defeat in a normal war. The theoretical substantiation of this strategy was developed by NATO during the years of the Cold War and resulted in the strategy for using nuclear weapons first (in contrast to the strategy of the first nuclear strike, under this term usually it is usually understood as the use of nuclear weapons in response to a non-nuclear attack), as well as in theory " Limited nuclear war ", i.e. Applications of a relatively small number of nuclear ammunition to reflect the attacks of ordinary armed forces. In addition, the military-political leadership of some countries believe that the possession of nuclear weapons could contribute to the country of the status of the regional "superpower", carrying out its own independent political course, the provision of political and power pressure on weaker states, the opportunity to successfully resist the stronger powers with or not possessing nuclear weapons.
What does the further expansion of the "nuclear club" lead?
Miking Vyacheslav:
Despite the fact that the period of the "Cold War" ended and significantly decreased the likelihood of a global nuclear catastrophe significantly decreased, it remains an acute problem of preventing the further spread of nuclear weapons, since today there is a sufficiently large number of so-called threshold states for which the possession of nuclear weapons can become not only politically desirable, but also technically real affair. The world community has almost developed a consensus against a list of new threats and challenges. At one of the first places, this list is the problem of non-proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, primarily nuclear. We all clearly realize that in modern conditions The spreading of nuclear weapons to coupled with rocket facilities of its delivery would be fraught with the appearance of strategic chaos, an increase in the risk of regional conflicts using nuclear weapons. This development, naturally, it is necessary to resolutely counteract. The Nuclear Weapon Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) is the main deterrent factor in such developments, while simultaneously providing international cooperation in the field of peaceful use of atomic energy. NPT - a time-tested document, which became one of the main supports of the international security system. The time continues to check the strength of the non-proliferation regime as a whole and its foundation - contract. The NPT stood up this difficult test, confirmed its role of the most important international instrument providing global and regional stability and safety.
What are the results of the discussion of the European Pro in the course of the field meeting of the Russia-NATO Council held in Sochi?
Miking Vyacheslav:
Russia stands for such a situation in the Euro-Atlantic, when all States, regardless of whether they are members of military blocks or not, equal security would be guaranteed. This is the essence of a well-known initiative, nominated by President Dmitry Anatolyevich Medvedev on the conclusion of the EU agreement on Eurobasmacy. The development of events only convinces the relevance of this proposal. In the same key, the situation around the EUROPRO project, which directly relates to the level of security of states in the Euro-Atlantic space. We want it to become a truly joint project and helped the development of Russian-NATO interaction in a positive key. This would be a real step to creating a single security and stability space in Europe. To do this, it is important to solve a number of questions. First of all, it is necessary that all project participants will guarantee each other that the Euro-based system created is not directed against any of its participants. It is necessary to develop criteria that make it possible to objectively assess the compliance of the system about the stated goal - to counteract missile threats whose sources can be outside the Euro-Atlantic. It is equally important to ensure the equal participation of all members of the SRN in the development of the Concept and architecture of Euro and to provide adequate confidence-building measures and transparency measures in the field of missile defense.
Irina Valeryevna:
Is it possible to negotiate between Russia and the United States to reduce tactical nuclear weapons?
Miking Vyacheslav:
The new Russian-American agreement on the reduction and restriction of strategic offensive arms not only recorded the reduced quantitative levels of START, but also identified the prospect of continuing the dialogue on this key to the world community disarmament - in the preamble of the contract, the parties are committed to the process of a phased reduction in nuclear weapons with connecting to it. other nuclear states. Speaking at the signing ceremony of the Treaty in Prague, US President Barack Obama expressed hope for the continuation of negotiations with Russia to reduce not only the strategic, but also tactical nuclear weapons (draio). The subject of Tasya is in the field of vision of the US Expert Community for many years, and the emphasis is on substantial imbalance in favor of Russia in this type of nuclear weapons. In addition, there is a concern about the lack of agreement with Moscow on mutual transparency measures against tactical nuclear weapons (drai). In this context, the position of the administration and the US Congress lies in the fact that negotiations on the draw should begin in possible short time And without any prerequisites, which is hardly arranged by the Russian side, which, as follows from official statements, proceeds from the need to equalize the starting positions of the two sides, without waiting for the launch of the negotiation process, that is, to ensure the preliminary redeployment of US tactical nuclear funds to the US Continent . As for the issue of the relation to the tactical nuclear weapons (TRAO) between the two countries, then, according to a number of Russian experts, Moscow would be ready to exchange relevant data with Washington only after the start of negotiations on the reduction of these funds, that is, as it was During the preparation of a bilateral agreement on the liquidation of medium and low-distance missiles (RSMD), signed in 1987, judging by the statements of representatives of the American administration, any adjustment of the US position on tactical nuclear weapons (TAO) is not viewed - American tactical nuclear products must remain in Europe. The problem of Tasya is not the only stumbling block towards the continuation of the Russian-American dialogue on nuclear disarmament. Obviously, further steps in this direction should be considered and carried out, taking into account the entire set of factors that can affect strategic stability. It is, in particular, about such factors as the creation of regional systems about the security of neighboring states, plans to create strategic carriers in non-nuclear equipment, building the capacity of strategic missile defense, the imbalance in the field of conventional weapons, the basing of nuclear weapons in the territory of non-nuclear states.
The opinion of the conference participants may not coincide with the position of the editorial board.
In recent days, the Korean Peninsula turned out to be the focus of the entire world community. The USA and the DPRK threaten each other by preventive nuclear strikes, Japan leads to a state of readiness of self-defense, and the President of the United States promises that he will not give a descent to the brilliant comrade. Collected all the information necessary for those who are seriously interested in the prospects for nuclear conflict.
What is a "nuclear club" and who is included in it?
The Nuclear Club is an unofficial name of a group of states possessing nuclear weapons. Pioneers here were the United States. In June 1945, they were the first to blow up an atomic bomb. According to the father of the American atomic project of Robert Oppenheimer, when he looked at it, a quote from Bhagavadgitis came to his mind: "If hundreds of thousands of Suns came to the sky, their light could compare with the radiance that came from the Supreme Lord ... I - Death , destroyer of worlds. Following the Americans, the USSR, United Kingdom, France and the PRC were acquired by their atomic arsenal - in 1949, 1952, 1960, 1964, respectively. These five states amounted to the Nuclear Club, the entrance to which was closed in the 1970s, when the overwhelming majority of the countries of the world signed an agreement on non-proliferation of nuclear weapons.
Does anyone else have nuclear weapons?
Yes. The agreement on non-proliferation of nuclear weapons was not signed by Israel, India, DPRK and Pakistan. These countries became informal members of the Nuclear Club. India first secretly experienced nuclear weapons in 1974, and in 1998 did it already openly. In the same year, an atomic bomb blew up the rival of India - Pakistan. North Korea acquired nuclear weapons in 2006. India tried to protect against China, Pakistan - from India, and the DPRK - from everyone around, and first of all from the United States.
Photo: U.S. LIBRARY OF CONGRESS / HANDOUT VIA REUTERS
Special status from Israel. This state does not confirm and does not refute the presence of nuclear weapons. However, experts are almost unanimous: Israel has an atomic bomb.
The relevant developments were conducted in South Africa, but in 1991 the country under pressure from them refused. His military nuclear programs existed at different times in Sweden, Brazil, Switzerland and Egypt. Iran was repeatedly accused of desire to produce a nuclear bomb, but the authorities of the Islamic Republic insist that their research program was always pursuing a purely peaceful goal.
Why India, Israel, Pakistan and the DPRK are not included in the official nuclear club?
Because the world is unjust. Countries, first received nuclear weapons, reserved the right to possess them. On the other hand, political regimes in them are stable, this allows at least partly to ensure that nuclear weapons will not fall into the hands of terrorists. With the collapse of the Soviet Union, for example, there was a great concern about the entire world community. In the end, the Soviet Atomic Arsenal went to Russia as a state - the Faucer of the USSR.
What are nuclear ammunition?
In general, all such ammunition are divided into two major groups: atomic, in which the fission reaction of heavy uranium-235 or plutonium cores, and thermonuclear - in which the reaction of the nuclear synthesis of light elements is carried out into heavier. At the moment, most countries of both the official and informal nuclear club have thermonuclear weapons as more destructive. The only known exception is Pakistan for which the creation of its own thermonuclear bomb It turned out to be too expensive and difficult.
What is the volume of nuclear arsenals from the countries of the nuclear club?
Most of all the warheads in Russia - 7290, in second place - the United States, they have 7 thousand. But on battle duty among Americans, the warheads are more - 1930 against 1790 in Russia. Further, the rest of the nuclear club is followed with a large margin: France - 300, in China - 260, in the UK - 215. Pakistan, as it is believed to have 130 warheads, India - 120. North Korea has only 10.
What level of uranium enrichment is needed to create a bomb?
Minimal - 20 percent, but it is quite inefficient. In order to make a bomb from this material, hundreds of kilograms of enriched uranium are needed, which you need to stuff in a bomb to somehow and send an opponent's head. It is believed that the optimal level of enrichment of weapons uranium is 85 percent or higher.
What is easier to create a bomb or build a peaceful nuclear power plant?
The bomb is much easier. Of course, for the operation of weapons uranium or plutonium, a fairly high technological level is needed, but to create a uranium bomb, for example, it does not even need a reactor - enough gas centrifuges. But uranium or plutonium can be stealing or buying, and then the case is already a matter of technology - to make a private bomb in this case, even the average developing country will be able. To build and maintain a nuclear power plant in the working condition, you need much more effort.
What is a "dirty bomb"?
The purpose of the "dirty bomb" is the distribution of radioactive isotope on the maximum extensive space. Theoretically, the "dirty bomb" can be both nuclear (for example, cobalta) and non-nuclear - say, a conventional container with isotopes, which is undermined using an explosive device. Until now, no country, as far as known, has not created "dirty bombs", although this plot is often used in artistic films.
How big is the risk of leakage of nuclear technology?
Great enough. Now Pakistan is now raising - "Nuclear Supermarket", as he called him the head of El Baradei. In 2004, it turned out that the head of the Weapon Development Program Abdul Kadyr Khan sold nuclear technology to the right and left - in particular, in Libya, Iran and the DPRK. In recent years, however, security measures in the Nuclear Arsenal of Pakistan were seriously strengthened - since the Islamic State forbidden in Russia threatened to acquire their own bomb, bribing the Pakistani scientists and the military. But the risk is preserved - if the leaks of technologies from Islamabad can still be monitored, then from Pyongyang is impossible.
Where did the nuclear weapon come from North Korea?
Work on the nuclear program in the DPRK began in 1952 with the support of the USSR. In 1959, Chinese joined to Soviet assistants. In 1963, Pyongyang requested the development of nuclear weapons to Moscow, but the Soviet Union responded with refusal, and Beijing was also accepted. Neither the USSR nor China wanted the emergence of a new nuclear power: moreover, Moscow in 1985 made the DPRK sign an agreement on the non-proliferation of nuclear weapons in exchange for the supply of a research reactor. It is believed that Koreans were engaged in their nuclear bomb from the second half of the 1980s in secret from the IAEA.
Where can North Korean rockets fly?
It is hard to say. South Korea and Japan accurately fall into the reach area, but it is unclear whether the US missiles take. Official Pyongyang traditionally declares that his rockets will affect the enemy at any point of the Earth, but until recently, these threats were perceived by experts with the famous skepticism. Even the successful launch of the satellite into orbit did not mean that North Korean rockets are really able to affect major goals on the American coast. However, the demo "Hwmes-13 missiles", they are KN-08 / KN-14, at the parade in October 2016 indicates that Pyongyang seems to be literally in a step from the creation of a truly intercontinental ballistic missile. And it is possible that over the past six months this step has already been made.
Is the nuclear weapon by the containment factor?
Definitely yes. In 1962, during the Caribbean crisis, it was the prospect of a nuclear apocalypse who prevented the war between the USSR and the United States: Khrushchev and Kennedy had common sense, so as not to go to the "Red line" and not to strike ahead. Nevertheless, there are at least two cases of conflict between nuclear powers: in 1969, between the USSR and China for the island of Damansky and in 1999 between India and Pakistan (formally from the Pakistani side, the militants of quasi-state "Azad Kashmir" participated) for border heights in Jammu And Kashmir. In the first case, the possibility of using an atomic bomb was not considered at all; in the second, both parties led martialctions Maximum careful as possible so as not to provoke an enemy to apply nuclear weapons.
Favorites in Ruune
Alexander Radchuk
Radchuk Alexander Vasilyevich - Candidate of Technical Sciences, Professor of the Academy of Military Sciences, Advisor to the Chief of the General Staff of the Russian Federation.
Today there are about 40 states in the world with technical capabilities for the production of nuclear weapons. And if in the twentieth century. The possession of the OMP was the privilege of strong states, then in the XXI century. The reverse trend is planned. This weapon attracts weak states, counting with it to compensate for their military-technological lag. Therefore, it is quite natural that, although the role of nuclear deterrence in the relationships of the Great Powers decreases, none of them will never give up its nuclear status.
And how I would like to take me
in this game! I even agree to be a pawn,
just would you take ... although, of course, more
i would like to be a queen!
Lewis Carroll. Alice in the Wonderland
After in August 2009, President of Russia D.A. Medvedev sent a message V.A. Yushchenko on a wide range of problems of Russian-Ukrainian relations and suspended the arrival of the Russian ambassador to Kiev to the election of the new president of Ukraine, the Ukrainian nationalist organizations of the Crimea turned to the official Kiev with the appeal, proposing to urgently collect 15-20 nuclear warheads from undergraduate materials, put them on tactical rockets And let's give, thereby response to Moscow on her diplomatic demarche. This seemingly an anecdotic case clearly showed how firmly and deeply nuclear weapons penetrated our lives.
Not only politicians and military, but also of ordinary people who are quite natural consider nuclear threats To solve any questions. Indeed, almost two generations live in the world, in which there is the most destructive weapon in the entire history of mankind, which can destroy not only the city and the army, but also the planet is entirely. In the world, in which two decades have been developing in parallel, two interrelated processes - a race of strategic offensive arms and nuclear disarmament.
Nuclear weapon today
Today, the question of the possession of nuclear weapons (YAO) is inevitably considered by each state with bell towernational interests. After all, in conditions when world economy It clearly gives failures, often military force becomes a factor determining the international status of the state. At the same time, the subjective nature of the modern policy, in which the personal qualities of some leaders are beginning to prevail not only over political feasibility, but even over common sense, indeed makes thinking about the feasibility of achieving nuclear zero..
Window capabilitiesfor nuclear disarmament, no first year is trying to open very many policies and scientists as widely as possible. And recently joined the battle heavy artillery.
In early 2007, in the article "Peace without nuclear weapons" George Schulz, William Perry, Henry Kissinger and Sam Nann stated that today nuclear weapons are a huge danger and need to move to a solid universal agreed refusal, and in perspective at all The exception of the threat of a threat to the world, since with the end of the Cold War, the Soviet-American doctrine of mutual intimidation went into the past. This statement unexpectedly turned out to be the focus of all progressive world communitywhich showed a huge interest in the idea of \u200b\u200bnuclear disarmament. It would seem that today, at the height of the global economic crisis, issues of economics and finances, the definition of mutually beneficial economic cooperation, the need to create new reserve currencies and other economic problems, on the solution of which the efforts of many countries can be sent, should be in the Center for Public Discussion as Russia and abroad. However, even President Iran Mahmoud Ahmadinezhad spoke at the UN General Assembly in September 2008 with a proposal to create an independent observation committee for disarming nuclear powers.
On the eve of the visit of the President of the United States of Barack Obama to Moscow, a group of famous politicians and military from all over the world, united in the framework of the initiative Global Zero., presented a plan for phased full destruction of nuclear weapons on the planet by 2030. It includes four stages:
· Russia and the United States agree on reducing their arsenals to 1000 nuclear warheads each.
· By 2021 Moscow and Washington reduce the threshold of up to 500 units. All other nuclear powers (China, United Kingdom, France, India, Pakistan, Israel) agree to freeze and subsequently reduce their arsenals of strategic weapons.
· From 2019 to 2023 - the conclusion of the "Global Nolat Agreement" conclusion, with a graph of a phased verifiable reduction of all nuclear arsenals up to a minimum.
· From 2024 to 2030 - the process must be finally completed, and the verification system will continue to work.
And on April 5, 2009, the President of the United States spoke in Prague with a speech on the problems of reducing nuclear potentials and stated: "The Cold War has sunk in the past, but thousands of weapons of weapons of the Cold War remained. Strangely the story turned. The threat of global nuclear war has decreased, but the risk of nuclear attack has increased. As the only nuclear power, which applied nuclear weapons, the United States, having morally responsible, should act. We do not succeed alone, but we can lead the struggle for achieving success. So, today I declare with all the clarity and conviction about America's commitment to the achievement of peace and security without nuclear weapons. "
He also said that nuclear non-proliferation should be mandatory for everyone, and proposed to hold a summit in 2010, which should adopt a new international law or a rule that would prohibit any nuclear tests and even the production of split materials.
On June 12, 2009, UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon made a message on the occasion of the beginning of preparation for the International Day of Peace. In it, he announced the beginning of the campaign called "We must get rid of weapons of mass destruction." He appealed to governments and people of the whole world with a request to focus on solving issues of nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation. It was noted that without energetic measures, humanity will still be threatened with existing reserves of nuclear weapons.
Finally, held at the beginning of July 2009, the visit of President of the United States of America Barack Obama to Moscow gave a new impetus to the process of further reduction and restriction of the strategic offensive arms of Russia and the United States. According to the results of the visit, a document was signed entitled "Joint understanding on the issue of further abbreviations and restrictions of strategic offensive arms", which determined the general parameters of a new "legally binding arrangement", which should come to replace the START EXPLAY (START one). It was stated that the new agreement should be operated by the next 10 years and will determine the limit levels of the START of the parties as follows: for strategic carriers - 500-1100 units and for the relatious warheads - 1500-1675 units.
Suppose that the new START agreement took place and these levels of abbreviations will be achieved after 10 years. What's next? New ten-year negotiations with subsequent microscopic contractions? Expansion of the circle of negotiators? Distribution of restrictions on non-strategic nuclear weapons? Or a sudden turn of the plot and either the development of fundamentally new agreements or a complete refusal of them?
To some extent reveals the American vision of the prospects for bilateral nuclear disarmament of the interview with US Vice President John Bayden, published on July 25, 2009 in The Wall Street JournalIn which he stated that the growing economic difficulties will force Moscow to accept the loss of the previous geopolitical role, which will entail the weakening of the Russian influence in the post-Soviet space and a significant reduction in Russian nuclear potential. In his opinion, it was the inability of the Russian side that to maintain his nuclear potential for it the main motive for the resumption of negotiations on its reduction with President Barack Obama. At the same time, Mr. Biden clearly made it clear that the United States should play the role of a senior partner of "weakening Russia".
At the same time, Professor of Georgetown University, Edward Ifft, the last representative of the United States at negotiations under the contract agreement, offers the following further steps in the Russian-American arms reduction process:
· Reduce nuclear weapons of parties to about 1000 deployed strategic warheads. "There is nothing special in the figure of 1000 warheads. Just 1000 is a good round digit. " (A strong argument!) In this case, the deterrence system will continue to function as a constant form, the nuclear forces triad will continue and the existing verification system.
· With deeper abbreviations, "quantitative changes will go into high-quality" and "may have to review the concept of deterrence, including extended deterrence." At the same time, "deterrence is a fundamental aspect of international security, and the need for it will remain, even if all nuclear weapons are eliminated." However, "as the role of nuclear weapons decreases, the deterrence system will increasingly depend on conventional weapons. ... The usual armed forces will play a comprehensive role in the deterrence system. "
The last thesis fits fully into the ideology new Strategic TriadUSA. And everything would be fine, but, apparently, Russia does not fit into it, since it is proposed "with a great understanding, to replace the small number of nuclear warheads with non-nuclear", as well as "proceed to solving the issue related to the extensive arsenal of tactical and follow-up nuclear warheads. " True, considerations about how the usual weapons will be reduced and limited, according to which the United States has overwhelming superiority, Edward Ifft does not express.
What is the reason today such increased attention to nuclear disarmament issues? With traditional concerns about the nuclear Arsenals of Russia and the United States, which may, as in the years of the Cold War, lead to a nuclear conflict between them with catastrophic consequences for the whole world? Or with the same traditional views on strategic offensive weapons as on the locomotive of Russian-American relations, which should be pulled out by the solution of other issues of bilateral dialogue? Or maybe it is a hope that new solutions will somehow affect others as de jure,so I. de factonuclear powers? Or just a inability to look at the situation in a new way and really assess the role and place of nuclear weapons in the modern world in general and in Russian-American relations, in particular?
It is unlikely that all these questions can be answered unequivocally.
All transition programs to the nuclear-free world, all the proposed steps in this direction, a list of specific events that need to be carried out, look enough enough scholastic. And this is because they do not decide the essence of the problem. But the essence is that in the modern world, as uncomfortable sounds, only nuclear weapons, which is the extreme embodiment of military power, serves as a reliable guarantor of the security of any state.
After all, today, during the period of global civilization changes, there is no answer to the main question, without which it is unlikely to talk about the prospects for nuclear disarmament: what now and in the future is nuclear weapons - just the most Grozny embodiment of the military power of the outgoing era or prototype and the basis of the weapon of the future century? Will military methods for the resolution of interstate conflicts have been exhausted, and if not, whether nuclear weapons will remain, and therefore the nuclear containment will remain an effective way to resolve contradictions and protecting national interests? Will the power absorption of opponents and competitors from the arsenal of foreign policy?
There is no conversation about the real, and not fictional roles and location of nuclear weapons in the XXI century. On the meaning of military force. On effective international security mechanisms. What is there still in the world even one status state attribute as nuclear weapons? And why such many countries seek to possess them? Why it turned out that the list of official (by a day) of nuclear powers coincides with the list of permanent members of the UN Security Council? And in general, what are the role and place of nuclear weapons and nuclear deterrence in the modern world?
Views of the members of the nuclear club
In the views on the role and place of Yao in the modern world and in the future there is a wide range of opinions lying between two diametrically opposite points of view: from the need to complete the exclusion of Yao from the arsenal of the armed struggle to the expediency of its transformation from political weaponsin weapon battlefield.
Representatives of the first point of view (for example, Academician E.A. Fedosov) believe that in modern conditions the nuclear war does not allow to achieve those political goals for which the military conflict is unleashed. It is believed that the denial of the nuclear paradigm of the XX century is gradually. and change the entire policy of armed struggle in the XXI century. Alternative to Yao becomes modern high-tech systems with high-precision weapons, capable of completely replace nuclear weapons in the foreseeable future as a deterrent.
Opinion about the possibility of solving specific combat missions by the use of Yao during hostilities is based on the fact that, despite the fact that, although it is possible that precisely because the threat of a large-scale nuclear war has almost disappeared, a political and psychological barrier has weakened, which made the use of nuclear weapons Practically unacceptable. This allows for admissibility, and in some cases the feasibility of its limited use. Therefore, the support on Yao, as well as the planned steps on its modernization, is not just a caprication or communeindividual figures. It represents the answer to real or at least clearly felt threats. Confirmation of this thesis is a positive decision on the request of the administration of George Bush on the development of a new type of magnifier's low-power enterprises, which are designed to defeat highly stabbed purposes at great depths.
In addition, funds were requested to reduce the readiness time of a nuclear landfill in Nevada to test.
And in the United States, not everyone shares the opinion of the need for further nuclear disarmament and exclusion of nuclear deterrence from the arsenal of state security tools. So, the former US Permanent Representative in the UN John Bolton considers the erroneous position of Barack Obama, in accordance with which the reduction in the US nuclear potential will make the world more secure and relieve the desire of a number of countries to create Yao: "Obama's policy is dangerous for the United States and their allies that are under their nuclear umbrella.Although Obama thinks that a decisive reduction in nuclear weapons, which has the United States, will reduce the risks of nuclear weapons, in fact, the result of such actions will be directly opposed. " Former US Defense Minister James Slesinger believes that it is not worth refusing from Yao, as it is not in the interests of the United States and the rest of the world:
"The US Nuclear Umbrella played and plays a significant role in non-proliferation. Without him, some of our allies, and perhaps, and a significant number of our allies would feel the need to create their own nuclear weapons. ... If, by the will of the miracle, we could destroy nuclear weapons, we would get a certain number of countries that have the opportunity to unleash the war or applying to possession of such an opportunity to intimidation. "
According to him, the USA is used every day to contain potential opponents and to provide guarantees to allies in Asia and Europe:
"If we defended only the North American continent, we could do it with a much smaller amount of weapons than we have today. We need a strong deterrent tool, at least for several decades, and in my judgment, to a greater or lesser extent indefinitely. "
Strategic offensive weapons, due to the enormous destructive power of the Yao, intercontinental range and long-term global consequences, are intended to carry out the tasks of strategic deterrence (first of all - at the global level), determined by the military-political leadership of the state both for military and peacetime , in the interests of ensuring the implementation of the policy of containing potential aggression. At the same time, Yao becomes strategic not only in the sense of a purely military, as the decisive strategic objectives of the war as a whole, but also in more general - in the sense higher(or large)strategy (A.E. Vandam, Edgard James Kingston-McClory, Basil Henry Lidde Garth, V.Ya. Novitsky).
From this point of view, a military strategy is only part of a common, or higher state strategy, which not only determines the place and role of military strategy in the long-term historical activities of the state covering and conjugate peaceful and military periods of the country, but also is the coordination and direction of all resources Countries or groups of countries to achieve the political goal of war-acepan defined by state policy.
Since, as back in 1913, I wrote the Russian military thinker V.Ya. Novitsky, "The task of the highest strategy is to ensure independent existence and the further development of the state, in accordance with its political, economic, historical and cultural interests," the appearance of Yao has been practically guaranteed to ensure that this task is solved. At the same time, if the military strategy is limited to the consideration of the issues related to the war, the highest strategy is involved in issues related not only to the war, but also followed by the world. It should not only combine various means of warfare, but also ensure that their use is to avoid damage to the future of the world - its security and prosperity. The purpose of the highest strategy: in peacetime - to avoid war or protect national interests, without resorting to military actions; During the war, to determine the purpose of the war, plans and methods of its management. Thus, Yao is strategicit is from the point of view of the highest strategy.
It should be recognized that there are no new world war for more than six decades, as if nuclear deterrence opponents did not refute this thesis. World wars are unleashed by superpowers, they are also prevented by them. In this case, nuclear deterrence, even in a fairly specific form, works today. The most visual example is North Korea and Iran, for which the presence of nuclear programs only ensure the potential opportunity to create Yao is a well-work tool for ensuring its safety. Nuclear Tests of the DPRK and Iran Rocket Tests are forcing many countries to change tone in a conversation with them. After all, according to many authoritative experts, if Saddam Hussein had OMA, the US could hardly begin the war against Iraq. And in Yugoslavia, Yao was not.
Not this reason, the reason more and more problems arises in the process of implementing the Treaty on the non-proliferation of nuclear weapons (NPT), first of all, from the point of view of the so-called negativeguarantees to ensure the safety of non-nuclear states by nuclear powers - i.e. Guarantees from pressure or blackmail from countries with Yao?
In accordance with the NPT, only the states that have been producing and experiencing Yao before January 1, 1967 are recognized as nuclear powers. These countries are USA, Russia, United Kingdom, France, China.
At the same time, according to SIPRI, as of January 2007, in addition to nuclear fivesat least four states have nuclear weapons. This is: India - about 50 nuclear warheads, Pakistan - about 60, Israel - about 100, the DPRK is about 6 nuclear warheads.
All those countries that can create Yao and do not fall into a particular system of guaranteed to ensure their safety (DPRK, Iran), as we see, do not refuse to create it. And today, according to different estimates, there are from 20 to 45 countries capable of creating Yao.
The United States of America is the first state in the world that has become the owner of Yao. At the same time, they were not only the first to have nuclear tests in July 1945, but the first (and the only one!) Apply it for military purposes - by destroying the Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in August of the same year.
Speed, with what was created by Yao, amazes! Just over than six years old passed from the moment of informing Leo Szilllard and Enrico Fermi Government of the US government on the possible influence of atomic research on warfare techniques (March 1939) to the first nuclear explosion at the polygon in Alamogordo in New Mexico (July 16, 1945 ). And all this in the context of World War II.
For six decades, the US nuclear doctrines have repeatedly changed. In January 2002, the US Congress was presented with a report on the state of nuclear weapons, which contains the main provisions of the American nuclear strategy and are scheduled for the development and transformation of US nuclear forces in the next 5-10 years. When planning the American strategic forces, the approaches of the Cold War, based on threats, are replaced by approaches based on opportunities, which will allow in the coming decades to ensure reliable deterrence at the lower level of US nuclear arsenals and their allies.
The report noted that the nuclear potential of the United States has unique properties, plays a crucial role in the US defense system, their allies and friends, allows you to solve important strategic and political tasks, ensures military opportunities to contain a wide range of threats, including MU and large-scale conventional armed forces. (Sun). Nuclear forces are the main means of conducting an effective containment strategy regarding the wide range of potential opponents in a wide variety of unforeseen situations.
The possibilities of applying nuclear strikes of various scale, coverage and orientation will be complemented by other military means. Therefore, we need a new combination of nuclear, non-nuclear and defensive forces to reflect the most different opponents and unexpected threats with which the United States may face in the coming decades. Therefore, the Pentagon has established a new strategic triad, including:
· Offensive impact systems (nuclear and non-nuclear);
· Defensive (active and passive);
· Updated defensive infrastructure to ensure new opportunities in countering arising threats.
At the same time, the first component of the triad - offensive - must exceed the Triad of the Cold War, Intercontinental Ballistic Rockets (ICBD), ballistic missiles, launched from submarines, and nuclear bombers of the far radius of action. Defensive systems, not allowing limited blows and reducing their effectiveness, combined with the ability of the United States to apply a retaliatory blow to prevent the attack and create new opportunities to resolve crisis situations, improve the provision of the United States in regional confrontation, ensure guarantees against the defeat of traditional deterrence. The updated nuclear infrastructure should allow the United States to get rid of unnecessary weapons and reduce the risk of technical problems.
By 2012, the US operationally unfolded nuclear forces will have to include 1700-2100 strategic missile warheads, 14 atomic submarines with ballistic missiles (plars) Trident(with two warheads of 14 at each moment of time), 500 MBR Minitman76 Bombarders B-52h.and 21 bombarders AT 2.They will provide American containment policies, keep the opponent objects at the sight, including political management bodies and military power, and prevent the achievement of its military goals. Types of objectives include managers and military objects, especially wage, military command objects and other control and infrastructure centers. Thus, some quantitative decline in the US nuclear arsenal, in this case, in the framework of the Moscow Treaty on reducing the Strategic Offensive Potentials of 2002, should be fully compensated by improving its quality and the emergence of new elements of the strategic triad.
Thanks to the huge superiority over all other countries in conventional weapons in general and in high-precision weapons, in particular, the United States can seek most military purposes without the use of Yao and with high efficiency, low losses and without a global ecological catastrophe. In wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, a new structure of the US Armed Forces and the methods of their combat use, communication and management intelligence systems are being implemented. Almost all over the past 20 years, the USA is in constant readiness for war and develop their military potential.
At the same time, the strategic offensive forces of steel today burdensome for them, because there is enough roads to operate, and at the same time they cannot be applied in a normal war. Thus, speaking in modern economic language, Yao becomes non-profile assetmodern wars of the fifth, sixth and subsequent generations. And from non-core assets you should get rid of. And not just throw away, but, it is desirable sellcompetitors as expensive as possible.
You should also not forget that US nuclear forces are integrated into the overall structure of NATO nuclear forces. That is, formally capable of acting according to the unified plan with the nuclear forces of its allies in the Alliance - Great Britain and France.
In September 2003, a message appeared in the press that the US Sun is engaged in the development of a new type of nuclear charge, created on the basis of Hafnia and having a huge devastating force. With his underground, radiation arises, which, like a neutron bomb, destroys all living things in the explosion area. Such nuclear charges allow you to create miniature shells and then reset them from an airplane, shoot from tanks or, and even from ordinary hand grenade launchers. Despite the fact that the Fursa-Spratt law from 1994 prohibits the military to develop Yao with a capacity of less than five kilotons in Troatil equivalent, in the Pentagon, it states that since Gafnia detonates without nuclear decay, it does not fall under the action of this law or other international treatiesthat limit the development and distribution of Yao, and hafnium shells to conventional weapons closer than to nuclear. Nevertheless, they contradict the definition that the American government gave nuclear weapons, including any weapon, which by releaseing radiation or radioactivity can kill or hard to hurt a significant number of people.
The implementation of this program actually translates the Yao from a purely restraining, political means into a means of conducting war along with ordinary weapons. This is confirmed by both the programs of production in the United States of new types of low-power nuclear ammunition and appeared in the American press in 2003. Before starting the war in Iraq, reports on the readiness of Americans to apply tactical Yao to defeat the warehouses of OMA.
In 2005, the United States revised the doctrine of YAO application, in accordance with which the President can now give an order for the proactive nuclear strike on the enemy, ready to apply OMU. Now the United States admire proactive strikes under States or terrorist groups, in particular to destroy the reserves of chemical and biological weapons.
According to the Brooking Institute (USA) for the second half of the twentieth century. The United States was invested in atomic projectapproximately 5.5 trillion dollars. At the same time, no more than 7% of the funds (about $ 400 billion) were spent on production (about $ 400 billion). All other costs fall on the means of delivery and infrastructure, including equipment of the JAO based areas not only in the United States, but also in various regions of the globe.
Therefore, the destruction of only nuclear ammunition will only lead to the fact that the remaining 93% of the potential of the Nuclear War will ultimately require substantial means of lesion to any other. There will be such a substitute for conventional or not, the economy will determine, technological capabilities and political feasibility. Do not make the legs of the ideas of equipping American ICBMs in conventional warheads? After all, any attempts to raise the issue of contractual restriction of infrastructure parameters are found by American military-political leadership in bayonets.
Today, the administration of Barack Obama is preparing a new review of the US nuclear policy. Although the key provisions are not yet known yet, there is no reason to believe that the indigenous principles of the United States nuclear strategy will undergo significant and, most importantly, the principal adjustment and the United States will refuse the doctrine of nuclear deterrence, despite the statement of Obama that the gradual destruction of the total Yao is one From the main goals of his administration.
In April 2009, the Federation of American Scientists, which includes 68 Nobel laureates, published a report entitled "from opposition to minimal containment".
The report concludes that the most relevant in modern conditions is minimum deterrencewhat is ensured by the United States with only a few hundred nuclear warheads. They call this and Russia. And ordinary weapons can be used for hostilities. In addition, in the XXI century. For effective US nuclear deterrence can choose new goals for their missiles with nuclear warheads. Since it is inhumanly chosen as targets, the targets should be made by targets, only important objects of infrastructure of probable opponents, which in the report call not only Russia, but also China, North Korea, Iran and Syria. However, as an example, the authors of the report lead to precisely Russia, determining a list of 12 targets on its territory sufficient for effective deterrence. The list includes three refineries (Omsk, Angarsk and Kirishi); Six most important metallurgical enterprises (Magnitogorsk, Nizhny Tagil and Cherepovetsky Metallurgical Combines, Norilsk Nickel,Fraternal and novokuznetsky aluminum plants); Three power plants (Berezovskaya, Middle Ural and Surgutskaya GRES). However, even in this case, in this case, in the destruction of these facilities, Russia will not only be able to wage a war, since its economy will be paralyzed, but the million Russians will inevitably die.
This is quite consistent with the opinion of one of the ideological architects of the United States policies of the last decades, the former US Presidential Security Advisor Zbignev Brzezinsky, who wrote that "in the coming years, one of the main tasks of the American Political Guidelines for Safety will remain preservation of the stability of mutual Nuclear deterrence of the United States and Russia. "
Russia (USSR)
Nuclear energy work began in the USSR somewhat later than in the United States, - February 11, 1943, when "... In order to disclose the ways to master the energy division of uranium and research the possibility of military use of uranium energy, laboratory No. 2 of the Academy of Sciences was created THE USSR. And just like in the United States, after 6 years - August 29, 1949 - the first Soviet nuclear bomb was successfully implemented at the Semipalatinsk landfill. The US atomic monopoly ended in just four years. Thus, the plan of the committee of the headquarters of the headquarters of the USA (Pincher plan) on the maintenance of a nuclear war against the USSR was actually disavowed.
In 1960-1970 In the USSR, it was believed that any armed conflict between nuclear powers in the confrontation of two socio-political systems and the availability of NATO and the organization of the Warsaw Agreement (in fact - in the two-pole world) will inevitably lead to a large-scale world war with the participation of most countries of the world and, as a result, The exchange of massive nuclear strikes, the application of which will be the main, determining method of warfare. Given this point of view in the Soviet Union, in the development of nuclear weapons systems, the main focus was made on ensuring the ability to conduct in any, even harsh conditions, massive anti-license strikes on the objects of the military-economic potential of the enemy and apply to it a catastrophic (absolutely unacceptable) damage in which The state ceases to function as an organized system and ensure the minimum necessary conditions for the life of the population. With this approach, it was also considered that the containment of a global threat would allow to keep and smaller on-scale regional threats, since the possibility of guaranteed to destroy the most powerful enemy (US) will ensure the destruction of all other, weaker, potential aggressors. At the same time, since the Soviet Union, which possessed the powerful forces of general purpose, was able to restrain and parry any regional military threats and without the use of YAO, the question of the application of strategic nuclear forces (SIAS) in the regional conflict was not translated into a practical plane, and actually the only purpose of SAYAS It was the containment of opponents from the unleashing of the Global Nuclear War.
As for Russia, then in the "National Security Strategy of the Russian Federation until 2020" And the military doctrine of the Russian Federation states that "... in modern conditions, the Russian Federation proceeds from the need to have nuclear potential capable of ensuring the application of a given damage to any aggressor (state or coalition of states) in any conditions. At the same time, nuclear weapons, which are equipped with the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation, is considered by the Russian Federation as a factor in the containment of aggression, ensuring the military security of the Russian Federation and its allies, maintaining international stability and the world. "
The specified strategy states that "the world's development goes along the path of globalization of all areas of international life, which is characterized by high dynamism and interdependence of events." At the same time,: "To ensure the national interests of the Russian Federation, there will be a negative impact will be provided by probable recurrences of unilateral power approaches in international relations, contradictions between the main participants in world politics, the threat of the spread of weapons of mass destruction and its hit in the hands of terrorists, as well as the improvement of the forms of illegal activities in cybernetic and biological areas in high technology. ... will increase the risk of increasing the number of nuclear weapons states. The possibilities of maintaining global and regional stability will be significantly narrowed by placing elements of the global system of missile defense of the United States of America. "
In the field of international security, Russia will maintain the commitment to the use of political, legal, foreign economic, military and other tools for the protection of state sovereignty and national interests. " The key task will remain "the implementation of strategic deterrence in the interests of ensuring the country's military security." At the same time, one of the ways to ensure strategic stability in the world is "consistent advancement to the world, free from nuclear weapons, and creating conditions for equal security for all." Russia "gives special importance to achieving new full-informative bilateral agreements to further reduce and restrict strategic offensive arms."
Today, in fact, only nuclear umbrellait can provide Russia with the possibility of a quiet and successful completion of the process of internal reform and the state as a whole, and Sun, in particular. In addition, Yao provides the high status of our country in international tabel about ranks,reinforces the legality of its membership in the UN Security Council, and also allows rules of the gamein nuclear sphere. Consequently, it is the status of a nuclear power in many respects determines the role and place of Russia as one of the leading countries in the global community. Thus, the presence of Russia has nuclear power supports its military power at the level necessary to contain a potential aggressor, pursuing the most decisive goals, from a large-scale attack, including the use of Yao. This makes it possible to ensure the protection of the state with a significantly smaller volume of allocations on defense, which in the economic situation in Russia has been extremely important. Therefore, nuclear deterrence remains a key element to ensure its national security.
Great Britain
United Kingdom - the world's third nuclear power, holding its first nuclear tests on October 3, 1952. Work on the British atomic project began in 1940. He participated in the scientists not only England, but also the United States, Canada and France, including under Manhattan Project. The creation of an atomic bomb took 12 years and cost 150 million f. Art.
The United Kingdom, giving a priority to political, diplomatic and economic means in achieving national goals, in the military doctrine clearly defines its desire to resolve contradictions in the world with power positionsand maintain principles nuclear intimidationwhen maintaining the leading role of strategic nuclear deterrence at the global level. At the same time, it can be stated that the views of the British leadership for the role of the Yao and the conditions for its use practically do not diverge with the American position.
The military-political leadership of Great Britain strictly adheres to the main provisions of the coalition strategy - the "NATO's new strategic concept" adopted in April 1999 in it indicated: "Despite the reductions in the strategic nuclear forces, the unauthorization of missiles and the fact that Russia is no longer considered as a threat, NATO still relies on nuclear weapons as protection against an indefinite future, warranty of the security of the Alliance and the containment of countries striving for the acquisition of nuclear weapons. Strategic weapons remain the cornerstone of the containment strategy, and non-strategic nuclear weapons and conventional weapons are an additional component of deterrence. "
In this document, the main provisions of the former strategic concept are practically preserved. nuclear intimidation- the foundation of the former coalition strategy flexible response.
According to the executive director of the British-American Security Information Council (BASIC), the United Kingdom on February 23, 2006 took part in the so-called precision tests of nuclear weaponsin the United States in the Nevada Desert under the American Nuclear Arsenal Management Program, with which the US Safety and Reliability is ensured. He also mentioned investments in the amount of about $ 1.7 billion to the Nuclear Center in English Aldermaston, intended to ensure the safety of the existing Arsenal of nuclear missiles Trident.Nevertheless, the Basic director indicated, additional subsidies can mean the development of new type nuclear warheads.
At the end of 2006, the British Prime Minister Tony Blair said that before his care, the mechanism of replacement and modernization of the State Nuclear Arsenal intends to launch. Rocket Systems Tradenposted on four atomic class submarines Vanguard,until 2025 should be fully updated. This program will require about 25 billion f. Art. (46 billion dollars). The British authorities intended to reduce their nuclear arsenals by 20%. The exact number of British nuclear warheads while remaining on battle duty will significantly decrease and will have less than 160 units.
At the same time, in February 2009, the United Kingdom Foreign Minister David Mi-Libend called on the leading countries of the world to start negotiations on nuclear disarmament. He expressed the hope that the United States, China, France, the United Kingdom and Russia will be able to find ways for "perhaps the full destruction of nuclear arsenals." In addition, David Miliband commended the tightest policy in the field of non-proliferation Yao, in particular, in relation to Iran, and also called on leaders of leading nuclear powers to meet on the issue of nuclear disarmament.
France
France is the fourth country, which has become the owner of Yao and holding nuclear tests on February 13, 1960 in the Sahara desert using American equipment. Since the creation of the French Commissioner for Atomic Energy (October 1945), almost 15 years have passed to the first nuclear explosion.
In the "White Defense Book", published in 1994, it was said that the basis of the military doctrine of France is a strategy easy and deterrence,based on the Regulations on the mandatory presence of the Country of Strategic Nuclear Forces and Tactical Nuclear Weapons, which was considered as a means of "the last warning" of the likely enemy about the readiness of France to strike with strategic nuclear weapons. The essence of this strategy was to "prevent any potential aggressor to encroach on the vital interests of France by creating a threat to which he in this case will be subjected. And then it was said that "we are talking about the cause of the aggressor of damage equal to scale, at least, the benefit to which he expects". As possible opponents, on the objects of which Yao can be applied, the potential owners of Yao began to be considered, "capable of resorting to its use against France." At the same time, the French were going to focus on a miniature Yao, which can be used when applying preventive point shocks for such purposes as a presidential bunker or an underground nuclear plant, minimizing the loss among civilians.
Actively rethinkthe tasks of Yao France began after re-election of Jacques Chirac in 2002. The French doctrine of strategic nuclear deterrence, which also fit into the NATO coalition nuclear strategy, provides that French warheads are no longer directed only to countries with Yao. Now any country (nuclear or non-nuclear), which threatens national security or strategic interests of France can be subjected to impact strategic forces.
Previously, the plan of strategic nuclear deterrence provided for the use of weapons of mass defeat only as an extreme measure - as a retaliatory blow. Moreover, the object of the defeat of French atomic bombs could be the peaceful population of the hostile power. Now the French, apparently, reserve the right not only for a retaliatory blow against the country, from where the terrorist threat comes from. Paris is ready for preventive bombardments (and point) places of production of wow and base terrorists. In addition, from now on, the French doctrine of nuclear deterrence is oriented against China.
France in modern conditions is considering nuclear forces not only as an opponent's containment tool, the nuclear potential of which is superior to French, but also as a means of finding the potential owners of wow, capable of resorting to its use against France. Evaluating the prospects for the development of the military-strategic situation in the world in the next 10-15 years, the French leadership invariably believes that in the foreseeable future, the national independence of the state will be related to the possession of the YAO, although conditions can significantly change and, in addition to nuclear intimidation, the development and development is also acquiring Improving the potential of conventional means of defeat.
In October 2003, President Jacques Chirac said that "in accordance with the new doctrine, France's nuclear weapon will turn into an active threat to its enemies." In essence, France, leaving the right to a nuclear strike in response to the application of wow, began to allow nuclear strikes on the facilities of military-political management, economic objects, places of production of WMD countries from which it comes (or even can proceed) Applications waw. In this, France follows the American strategic model in terms of the admissibility of the preventive application of the YAO against states with or even only suspects in possession of OMA. Such an unprecedented decline nuclear rockno nuclear state has no one.
The opinion of a major French specialist in the field of military strategy and geopolitics of General Pierre Galua is also observed. He believes that the more countries possessing Yao, the stronger the world around the world. Therefore, in no case in any case cannot destroy nuclear and strategic weapons, and it should be kept and increasing. This is the guarantee of its national security. At the same time, American hegemony in Asia and in the Far East can only be stopped by a powerful system of national security of large Asian powers with a support on Yao.
China
The People's Republic of China closes the list de jurenuclear states.
China's military-political leadership from the first years of the establishment of the People's Republic of China proceeded from the fact that the country should have sun with modern weapon, including nuclear. The first nuclear program of China, adopted in 1951, had a purely peaceful orientation, but in the mid-1950s. It was supplemented by a secret section with an eye on the creation of his own Yao and his carriers. The decision on the production of an atomic bomb was adopted by Mao Tsedun on January 15, 1955. In response to American threats to apply Yao against China. The first Chinese atomic bomb was tested 13 years - October 16, 1964
In accordance with national traditions, the Chinese manual, taking a course on the creation of Yao, simultaneously in official views on nuclear policies in every way the role of Yao. At the same time, the conviction of the military-political leadership of China in the need for the possession of Yao not only did not doubt, but also strengthened.
Immediately after testing the first nuclear device on October 16, 1964, China declared a refusal to use Yao first. China went along the path of preferential production of thermonuclear nuclear ammunition and the creation of ground-based ballistic missiles and aviation bombs. Currently, the PRC has both strategic and non-strategic Yao. China's Schayas include strategic missile troops (SRV), strategic aviation (CA) and atomic rocket fleet. As of January 1, 2007, the total amount of means of delivery of nuclear weapons of strategic appointment was 244 units.
China's nuclear policy is aimed at ensuring the implementation of the National Development Strategy. The main tasks of China's current nuclear strategy can be formulated as follows:
· Maintain the status of the Great Power;
· Prevent any forms of the impact of other nuclear powers on the policies and the economy of China by means of nuclear intimidation;
· Maintaining superiority over PRC rival countries in the Asia-Pacific region.
The role of the Yao in the structure of national security is mainly expressed in the concept limited response nuclear strikesupporting the construction of a large-scale consideration of nuclear deterrents limited by the combat composition capable of creating a significant damage to make a significant damage to force it to abandon the use of Yao against China. This concept does not imply the achievement of nuclear parity in relation to the United States and the Russian Federation. Thus, we can say that the Chinese nuclear doctrine has become differential: it continues to rely on the strategic level. minimum deterrenceand at the regional level is based on limited containment.
India
India is a sixth country that has received Yao in 1974 and spent on it 26 years.
India's strategic concepts in modern conditions are based on reliable minimum nuclear deterrenceand ability to adequate retribution, if the containment turns out to be ineffective. In January 2003, the Government of India announced the creation of a strategic nuclear command, which is intended to streamline and formalize the procedure for making decisions on the use of India Yao. At the same time, a new nuclear doctrine was approved, the provisions of which can be reduced to the following:
· India intends to create and develop the potential of minimally reasonable deterrence;
· India proclaims the principle of non-use of Yao first - it can be applied only as an answer to a nuclear attack on the territory of the country or Indian Sun anywhere;
· A retaliatory nuclear strike, which can be applied only with the sanction of the civilian political leadership of the country, will be massive, with the calculation of irreparable damage;
· Yao cannot be applied against a non-nuclear state;
· In the case of a large-scale military attack on India or Indian Sun anywhere in the use of chemical or biological weapons, India reserves the right to respond to a nuclear strike.
India's President Abdul Calam, speaking at a meeting with MSU students in Moscow on May 23, 2005, said: "Many countries have large reserves of nuclear weapons, primarily Russia and the United States. They must move to the complete abandonment of nuclear weapons, then small countries will destroy their nuclear reserves. " At the same time, he stressed that the nuclear doctrine of India implies the principle of complete disarmament and the refusal to use the Yao first. And in February 2009, the adviser to India's National Security Prime Minister Kelat Narayanan, speaking at the 45th Munich Security Conference, stated that India was always against nuclear weapons and still supports nuclear disarmament, "being the only state, Which is ready to negotiate the full destruction of nuclear Arsa-Nalov. "
However, on July 26, 2009, the first Indian nuclear submarine was launched Arichant (fighter enemies),what foreshadows significant changes in the global balance sheet of strategic forces. According to preliminary information, Arichantwill be armed with 12 ballistic missiles capable of carrying nuclear warheads up to 700 km. Over time, the boat can be equipped with rockets with a range of up to 3.5 thousand km.
"We entered the list of selected states capable of building atomic submarines," said India Prime Minister Manmohan Singh at the solemn ceremony. A few days before that, US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton signed Mallaiya Krishna Joint Statement on the further development of a bilateral strategic partnership with the head of the Indian Foreign Ministry. Reaffirming that "India and the United States have common views on the world free of nuclear weapons," Hillary Clinton and Socan Mallai Krishna "agreed to move forward in the framework of the Conference on Disarmament to the non-discriminatory, subject to international and efficient audits to terminate the production of splitting materials."
Thus, US-Indian cooperation in the atomic sphere is actively developing, despite the fact that India has never signed the NPT. In addition, India and the United States began consulting on the implementation of the US-Indian partnership agreement in the field of civilian nuclear power engineering, signed in March 2006, the document provides for the division of Indian civilian and military atomic programs with the transfer of peaceful developments and 35 civilian nuclear facilities under the control of the international Atomic Energy Agencies (IAEA). Instead of the United States pledged to provide India technology for creating reactors and nuclear fuel for its civilian programs.
Pakistan
Starting his nuclear program in 1965, Pakistan came out on the first nuclear tests after a third of the century - May 28, 1998
In Pakistan, there is no nuclear doctrine in the form of an official document, however, in practice, Pakistani leadership adheres to the following key principles:
· Minimum convincing nuclear deterrence concentrated in India;
· The principle of massive retribution;
· The policy of applying Yao first;
· Equivalent nationwing of Yao;
· Decentralized structure of the nuclear command and control (control).
Pakistan's nuclear policy can also be judged by statements and interviews of officials, including the president of the country, and high-ranking Pakistani military. Relying, in contrast to India, on the principle of use of Yao first, Islamabad formulated four main factor in which Pakistan will apply the Yao against India:
· Conventional or nuclear attack of India to Pakistan and capture it most of the territory of Pakistan (spatial threshold);
· Destruction of India most of the ground or air forces of Pakistan (military threshold);
· Application of India's significant economic damage to Pakistan or an economic blockade, established by India Pakistan (economic stroke);
· Implementation of India of political destabilization or large sabotage in the country (internal destabilization).
According to the official position of Pakistan, the main function of his nuclear arsenal is to not give India the opportunity to take up over the country. The second goal of Pakistan's policies in the field of nuclear weapons is to restrain the superiority of India in an attack on Sun Pakistan with the use of conventional weapons.
Former president of Pakistan Paramene Musharraf In his statement in December 2002, said that the war with India managed to avoid due to its constant warnings, which in case the Indian Sun cross the internationally recognized border between India and Pakistan in Kashmir or Pakistani Punjab, then Pakistan It will not be limited in its response only by conducting hostilities using conventional weapons. Despite the fact that in 2002 the new Indo-Pakistani war was avoided only with difficulty, immediately after the discharge of tensions in Indian-Pakistani relations in 2003. Pakistani military planners seem to be even more assured in their ability to manage the risks of strategic deterrence . Thus, the bilateral Indo-Pakistani model of regional nuclear deterrence, which protects these countries from direct military conflicts was actually formed. Therefore, Pakistan is likely to continue its policy of using flexible and indefinite nuclear doctrine on the use of Yao.
Thus, currently all official nuclear powers, although they maintain a tendency to some quantitative reduction in their nuclear arsenals are not collected in foreseeable time to completely abandon Yao.
Non-surfactant: utopia or reality?
The first attempts to exclude Yao from the list of means of armed struggle were taken almost immediately after his appearance. In January 1946, the UN Commission on Atomic Energy was established, whose competence included preparation of proposals "Regarding the exclusion from national arms atomic weapons and all other major types of weapons suitable for mass destruction. " On March 19, 1946, the Soviet government already at the second meeting of the UN Commission made a draft convention on the prohibition of nuclear weapons, including the provisions on the "prohibition of production and application of nuclear weapons" and "destruction in a three-month period of all reserves of finished and unfinished atomic weapons."
However, these efforts were not crowned with success, and the UN Atomic Energy Commission has ceased after conducting the first nuclear explosion in the USSR on August 29, 1949. To replace it in 1952, the UN Dealtration Commission for Disarmament Commission was formed, as part of which the Soviet Union proposed The draft International Convention on the prohibition of atomic, hydrogen and other weapons of mass destruction, and England and France jointly carried out a memorandum, providing for the "complete prohibition of nuclear weapons and withdrawing it from arms." In 1955, the USSR made a refined disarmament program providing for the conclusion of the International Convention on the Reduction of Arms and the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons. The culmination of the Soviet initiatives was the performance of N.S. Khrushchev on September 18, 1959 at the XVI session of the UN General Assembly with proposals on universal and complete disarmament of all states that had previously held three consecutive stages of disarmament in four years:
· A significant reduction in ordinary aircraft and weapons under international control.
· Elimination of the remaining Sun and military bases in other people's territories.
· Destruction of all types of nuclear and missile weapons, completing events on universal and complete disarmament.
The formal basis for today's conversations about the nuclear-free world is the VI article of the NPT (open to signing in 1968 and entered into force on March 5, 1970), which reads: "Each member of this Agreement undertakes in the spirit of goodwill to negotiate effective measures Upon termination of the rice of nuclear weapons in the near future and nuclear disarmament, as well as on the agreement on universal and complete disarmament under strict and effective international control. "
But since it did not reach the general and complete disarmament, the USSR began to rapidly catch up with the United States in his nuclear potential, then almost four decades the nuclear disarmament process and reduction of strategic offensive arms became actually the work of only two countries - the United States and Russia (Soviet Union ). A series of bilateral agreements as if he learned the whole world to what these two countries answerfor nuclear disarmament. This process began on May 26, 1972 from the first Soviet-American temporary agreement between the USSR and the United States on some measures in the field of restricting strategic offensive armaments (ASSR-1 Agreement) concluded by L.I. Brezhnev and Richard Nixon in Moscow simultaneously with the contract for. Then there was an agreement between the USSR and the United States on the restriction of strategic offensive arms (AUC-2 Agreement) in 1979, classicalThe START-1 Treaty in 1991 and the Moscow Agreement on Reducing Strategic Offensive Potentials 2002 as a whole during this period the strategic nuclear arsenals of Rossi and the United States fell almost five times.
Russia and the United States have stopped the nuclear weapons race, negotiate negotiations on nuclear disarmament, developed rules for mutual control. At the same time, the company has long developed the opinion that breakthroughson this issue, not only the prospects for Russian-American relations in general, but also the prospects for the further movement of the nuclear disarmament process.
Others de jurenuclear powers - participants of the NPT, no desire to legally limit their nuclear arsenals yet expressed. At the same time, for example, China in 1995 stated that "those powers whose nuclear and ordinary weapons exceed everyone., We are particularly responsible for control over arms and disarmament." At the same time, the idea of \u200b\u200bthe nuclear-free world, the most advanced intellectual and political leaders in the middle of the twentieth century, originated in the minds in the middle of the twentieth century., Gradually germinates and in century today.
Back in February 1983 A.D. Sakharov in an open letter Sydney Drelel wrote: "The nuclear war may arise from the usual, and the usual war, as you know, arises from politics. ... The nuclear war is impossible to win. It is necessary to be systematically - although carefully - strive for complete nuclear disarmament based on the strategic equilibrium of conventional weapons. So far, there is a nuclear weapon in the world, such a strategic equilibrium of nuclear forces is necessary, in which none of the parties can decide on a limited or regional nuclear war. Genuine security is possible only on the basis of the stabilization of international relations, refusing expansion policies, strengthening international trust, openness and pluralization of socialist societies, respect for human rights throughout the world, rapprochement - convergence - socialist and capitalist systems, global coordinated work on solving global problems. "
It is absolutely fair and today the thesis (with the exception of the missing world socialist system today) it follows that complete nuclear disarmament is possible only if the expansion policy is refusing and the strategic equilibrium of conventional weapons. But are these requirements today? It should be noted that the thesis of universal and complete disarmament somewhere slowly disappeared from the disarmament and non-prolite discourse.
The basis of almost all modern Western models of complete nuclear disarmament is as a rule, the ideas expressed by Ronald Reagan in the 1980s. :
· Understanding that national security should not depend on Yao.
· Awareness of the need to move from a system for restricting arms to nuclear disarmament.
· A look at the system about both the key to the liquidation of Yao.
· Actual refusal of the doctrine of the protracted nuclear war that existed in the 1970s.
Ideas are good. Suppose they embodied in life. However, methods, and, consequently, the consequences of such an embodiment may be different. They depend on those goals that really put disarmament parties. At the same time, the implementation of these ideas is impossible without answering a number of questions. What international mechanisms should National Security depend on? But today, these practically do not work or work quite selectively. And the most reliable tool still remains military force.
What real capabilities is the system of pro? After all, it can work against the means of delivering not only nuclear, but also ordinary weapons, and is also quite effective tool Combating space missiles, ensuring, including undoubted commercial advantages to the owner of such a system. And in modern society, the one who will own the cosmos will own the world.
What will the rejection of the protracted nuclear war? To the abandonment of wars in general or limited nuclear war, to lightning disarming nuclear strikes with the support of high-precision conventional weapons and under umbrellaAbout? And all this in a single information and control space provided by space satellite systems?
The fact that such consequences of nuclear disarmament are quite real, says the situation in the modern world, in which there is hardly a day without wars and armed conflicts. Today, the main threats to the world are associated with conventional, conventional weapons. It is with their use that war is underway in the modern world, and their gOka, their rapid increases change regional and global balance sheets.
What are the proposals for complete nuclear disarmament? Does the real refusal of Yao really occur in principle or this is just a kind of attempt to unleash instead race nuclear weapons Race of nuclear disarmamentnia? And then what can be the goals and results of such a race and to whom does it benefit?
After all, countries, possessing both Yao, and a complete nuclear fuel cycle, should disarmament. Moreover, besides moral incentives, such disarmament is not reinforced. And to abandon the creation of the Yao and the production of nuclear materials should be countries, they do not possess. At the same time, attempts are made - when successful, when not very - such a refusal to stimulate financially. Although examples of explicit refusal from Yao, and at the same time without explicit external materialists, we have only two: it is Sweden (in 1968) and South Africa (in 1991). But they occurred for purely internal reasons.
When idea nuclear zeroarriving more than half a century ago, almost simultaneously with the creation of Yao, began to gain real incarnation? Only at the time when a new effective high-precision weapon came to change, capable of solving the tasks of regional conflicts. Of course, frames report CNN,where cleverhigh-precision non-nuclear winged rocket It flies into the dictator bunker window, much more humane than the photos of Hiroshima and Nagasaki destroyed by an atomic bomb. Although, inherently, the transition from nuclear sledgehammerto conventional scalpelit does not make much sense. Thus, the goals and objectives are the same, only the ways to achieve them are different.
But it is precisely the fact that the state that has made such a transition in the field of military tools, but in many respects preserving the old approaches in the field of goaling, proposes to accelerate the movement towards the nuclear-free world, makes you think about true purposes and the possible results of the proposed nuclear disarmament. And from this point of view, today's activation of conversations about the full nuclear disarmament looks quite unequivocally. After all, as the US Secretary of Defense wrote Robert Gates in his article in the journal Foreign Affairs.in early 2009, "The goal of our strategy ... maintaining the current existing superiority in traditional and strategic arms and technologies over the armed forces of other countries."
Today, the world stands on the threshold of a new era, in which the only military superpower will have guaranteed impunity, i.e. the possibility of disarming strike (with acceptable environmental consequences) for any potential enemy, including the Russian Federation. So far, about such an opportunity (exactly as guaranteed), it is not necessary to speak, but the chances of the success of a hypothetical response strike systemally and are deferred to minimum values. Including - through international legal mechanisms. Therefore, the Barack Obama initiative on nuclear disarmament actually allows you to bring this global war hegemony to a qualitative level.
For the same to understand whether the transition to full and universal nuclear disarmament is possible in general, it is necessary to clearly represent where the world existing today will develop today. And what methods will ensure its safety.
Scenarios XXI century.
The dynamics of world processes is determined by the current situation and is inextricably linked as persons who make political decisions perceive military strength, what role and place they are discharged by Yao in achieving state development goals. And such perception depends on the set of factors: a geopolitical situation, the ratio of military relics of states, economic and scientific and technical capabilities and, not least, the personalities of the leaders themselves.
Today, as a result of the crash, first bipolar, and then the same-polar world developed a situation in which each pawn on chessboardgeopolitics wishes to go to the queen. Especially those who tasted the sweetness of participation in big game.Especially if it was big nuclear gameone application for participation in which immediately displays a player in the terms of favorites. After all, an instant transition from the category izgoyathe category of an equal partner in a nuclear dialogue not only flashes the pride of the political leader and raises any nation in her own eyes and in the eyes of the world community, but can also bring real economic benefits.
For a long time, futuristic forecasts were only science writers and astrologers. Despite the fact that some of the forecasts came true with sufficiently high accuracy, it is impossible to base strategic planning on them, since direct extrapolation of existing trends on a long term inevitably leads to significant errors. History gave us a lot of examples of negative consequences of such scholastic forecasts.
Each modern state, and even the world community as a whole, is a complex system described by an infinite number of parameters and having an infinite set of degrees of freedom. However, in such a very popular and rapidly developing science today as synergistic, it is quite strictly proved that there is a final set order parametersdetermining the behavior of similar objects at large time intervals. This varies so-called slowand fastvariables, and almost always can be given weak forecastthose. Answer the question that will not happen in this system.
When predicting the future there are many problems, without solving which it is impossible to give a scientifically substantiated forecast. One such problem is the so-called paradox planner.Its essence is that the decision that is the best for the future in 5-7 years can lead to far from the best consequences after 10-20 years and even be disastrous in 40-60 years. The depth and content of any predictions are determined by their time horizon: short-term - up to 1 year, medium-term - up to 5 years, long-term - up to 10 years, promising - dozens of years. In military-political prediction, the 10-15-year period is usually considered, at which specific strategies for the activities of the state and its individual organizational structures should be implemented. This is due to the fact that only for this period there is a sufficiently accurate assessment of the resource base required to achieve a strategic goal, as well as extrapolating trends, both already manifested and only emerging to the beginning of the forecast period. At the same time, electoral cycles traditional for developed countries also fit into the specified time frames, which makes it possible to confidently talk about political and ideological views and preferences of individuals that will actually make strategic decisions. And since solutions in the nuclear sphere are historical in the most direct sense of the word, the forecasting horizon is extremely important and should be at least half a century.
It is also necessary to take into account that a huge impact on the life of a separate person and on the lives of entire peoples and states has decisions taken in short, historically insignificant time segments - days, weeks, months. At the same time, such solutions can be accepted under conditions of time deficit, incompleteness of information, psychological stress, including incompetent or random people. However, the story is a continuous irreversible process, and many questions cannot be postpone tomorrow.Another fundamental problem is the impossibility of a torture experiment to verify the correctness of the decisions made, as well as the lack of adequate mathematical models and complete information for the computer's experiment.
Consequently, no matter how paradoxically sounded, it is unlikely to rely on the formal methods of promising forecasting in the nuclear sphere. The reflective component is too strong in such forecasts, subjective interests and preferences appear too frankly. At the same time, projections are necessary in order to be laid in specific programs for the development of the state, political and military strategies and doctrines. Thus, it remains to be focused on purely political verbal projections. Although, of course, they are often subject to political conjuncture and give the desired for valid.
What picture is evaporated when looking from today at the XXI century? What future models do we have? What are the role and place of Russia in this future? Oddly, despite all the conversations about the need for complete nuclear disarmament, the search for new effective mechanisms for ensuring international security, almost all forecasts predict humanity and conflicts, including nuclear.
The neoconservative movement "Project for the New American Age", created in 1997, declares that the leadership of the United States on the world stage will favoraly affect both the United States themselves and in the rest of the world and that "such leadership requires military power, diplomatic insight and moral obligations. " When diplomacy and sanctions can no longer cope with the situation, the United States should be prepared for military actions. The increase in military spending and the development of military technologies are the direct duty of the United States after the end of the Cold War. The project calls for the creation of a "special, US global army", which would be able to "fight and decisively win on several main theaters of hostilities at the same time," as well as " policeresponsibilities related to security in key regions. About how participants in the movement held by the leading posts in the administration of George Bush Jr. (US Representative in the United Nations John Bolton, US Vice President Dick Cheney, US Ambassador to Iraq Zalmai Khalilzad, Minister of Defense Donald Ramsfeld, President of the World Bank and author doctrine BushPaul Wolfowitz), realized its positions, well known.
In December 2003, the public research materials on the development trends of the modern world - "Global Trends 2020" were presented on the Internet website of the US National Council of US exploration of the United States. The following was the following thesis on the continuation of the US global domination, although the influence of the influence of China is possible to reduce the strategic importance of Europe in matters of world security. Key solutions for the use of US military force and their allies, as before, will be accepted alone, without regard to the world community. Although by 2020, the return to the military and ideological confrontation of Russia with the West is no longer possible, its relationship with the outside world will be dual and contradictory. Russia will remain the main power of Eurasia. A certain form of the federation is possible, even the Union with Belarus. The main problem of the Russian leadership will be the problem of reconciliation of regional economy with global political ambitions. be a great power.In political and economic terms, Russia by 2020 will submit something similar to what is already observed and now, and its economy will remain under international standards. The rod element of Russian military planning will be able to use Syas, whose storage locations by the time may be protected by joint efforts of Russia and the United States, which will not allow to support Russian status as great Power.Russia's foreign policy exchange rate will increasingly be held in accordance with those in the United States and the EU.
In another analytical study, "Strategic paradigms 2025: US Security Planning for the New Era" of the Washington Institute of International Policy Analysis (IMP) states that the future of Russia directly affects the future of the European Union and on the fate of the NATO block. However, the future of Russia itself is much less predictable than the future of any other state or region. According to the forecast of the PAMP, you can submit three options for the future of Russia:
· Authoritarian Russia will hold confrontational and extremely active policies near its own borders, in Europe and Central Asia. The Russian economy will act inefficiently, foreign investments will be extremely limited. Real power in the country will belong to security forces. The basis of the security strategy will be a support for nuclear forces.
· Democratic Russia with a market economy will be an active and full-fledged partner of the West. Russia will actively participate in the process of globalization, will cooperate with NATO and jointly conduct peacekeeping operations. Her national security policy will be minimal dependent on the concept of external threats.
· Compromise average option. Russia will remain a very complex and inconsistent partner in the field of international relations. Russia will accept the first stage of NATO expansion, but will fiercely protest against further expansion of this block. The concept of national security will be a little extent to rely on the nuclear arsenal. Russia will play an active role in counteracting the actions of the West, but its possibilities in such confrontation will be seriously limited.
In the spring of 2009, NATO presented the public an extensive report-strategy on scenarios for the development of the future political situation in the world - "Multiple Futures Project. Navigating Towards 2030. In it, NATO positions itself as the only military alliance, responsible for deterring conflicts on the planet. It is noted that the priority of the Alliance is to contain the rice of nuclear weapons. But at the same time, it is said about the likely nuclear attack on the major cities of Europe and major transport European nodes. It is noted that a single nuclear strike for the application of substantial damage to Europe will not be enough. The country of the Alliance, which was subjected to a nuclear attack, will definitely strike a return, and will also resort to article V Washington Treaty, as it does not have enough power of its armed forces for retribution. Therefore, the strategy stated that the alliance should have a sufficient number of ordinary and nuclear weapons to be able to respond to unexpected attacks.
Spanish political scientist and economist Jozep Kolomer believes that, since the Westphalian model nation-statesnot universal, the main elements of world politics of the future will be two types of potentially viable territorial and political communities: large empires (America, China, Europe, Russia and Japan) and small nations (several hundred) living in their orbits.At the same time, V.T. Tretyakov believes that "the survival and further prosperity of the Euro-Atlantic (Christian) civilization is possible only when moving from constant competition and even confrontation (up to the military) between these subjects to their sincere and equitable alliance." As a result of such an alliance, a pan-European Union (or the Union of European Union - EU and the Russian Union) should be created, the United States should leave Europe as a political and military force and conclude a tripal military-political defensive agreement with the European Union, "involving the absolute internal political sovereiga of each of each participants. " At the same time, for the creation of a similar union history, we let us go no more than 15-20 years.
Preservation modern system International relations with the prevalence of state actors is not the only possible option for the development of events in the beginning century.
According to the researcher Alex Batler, the emerging "multipolar structure of international relations with a variety of power centers is the most unstable system. This is the world of chaos, struggle against all. It leads to the participation of regional conflicts, including the military. From the point of view of international stability, this is the worst version of the structure of the international system. " He notes that the multipolar world will historically go into bipolar with two centers of power (presumably, the United States and China), and then in Singoopolar - "On Earth there will be a single worldwide economy." States as global actors will not finally come from world aosa, but their classical significance by the end of the XXI century. Lose. The global government is formed.
The fact that it is not just one of the alternative options for the future appearance of the world, testify the results of the first summit in the framework of the economic and strategic dialogue between the United States and China. At the opening of the Forum, US President Barack Obama declared American-Chinese relations "Defining for the XXI Century" and proposed Beijing to start working on a global scale and coordinate the actions of the two countries in the economy, security, foreign policy and energy. "Relations between the United States and China will determine the XXI century. This is the responsibility that we have to bear together, "the Barack Obama proclaimed. He also stated about readiness to strengthen cooperation between the armies of the two countries, to establish data exchange and coordinate foreign Policy In various regions of the world, for example, in Africa. At the same time, the United States will not try to distribute its values \u200b\u200bto China.
And after all, what is interesting - possessing the US strategic Yao and China did not declare a refusal of nuclear deterrence policies in mutual relations and did not sign the relevant agreements. However, it turned out that nuclear deterrence does not prevent a strategic partnership or economic cooperation when both sides are interested in them. And today from more than 2 trillion dollars. Its international reserves of the PRC holds $ 801.5 billion in the treasury bonds of the United States and about 700 billion dollars - in other US securities. Indeed, the thesis was faithful: "If you have $ 100 banks. - These are your problems, and if you have to 100 million, then this is already the problems of the bank."
The most unfavorable scenario of the development of the military-political situation in the XXI century. It is the continuation and possible strengthening of today's negative trends of the forceful decision of contradictions and conflicts. As such a scenario, one can consider the whole world in the summer of 2009. It is published in the new book of George Friedman - a popular American political commentator and founder of the company Stratfor,engaged in intelligence using only open sources. The author, without claiming the one hundred percent accuracy of his forecast and urging at the same time not to perceive it and how too fantastic, looked forward for a whole century and painted a rather rainbow picture of American hegemony in the upcoming century, based on the US power dominance, remaining the only global pole of force controlling Directly Atlantic and Pacific Oceans.
According to George Friedman, in the period up to 2020, Russia will turn into a major regional player, the main task of which will be the restoration of strength and influence in Eastern Europe and in the post-Soviet space. This can lead to its confrontation with Germany, so Russia will throw significant forces to increase its military potential, and will also try to restore the system of internal buffers (a similar one that existed under the Soviet Union in the form of the Union republics) will then strive to increase the number of buffer states and will go beyond former USSR. At the same time, Moscow will make efforts to stop the formation of coalitions from its borders, entering into a global confrontation with America in various parts of the world, which will reach the peak by 2020, however, hangingin this confrontation, at the beginning of the third decade of the XXI century. Russia will fall apart, just as the Russian Empire and the Soviet Union broke.
After the collapse of Russia, Turkey, the new leader of the Islamic world, which united in the coalition of Islamic countries will turn into an influential regional power and will be able to conduct expansionist policies not only in the Caucasus, and then on the Arabian Peninsula, but also in the Balkans. Egypt and Iran will be competitors. Unable to unite the Islamic world will perceive the dominance of Turkey. However, the coalition of Eastern European states led by Poland will be an even more faithful ally of America. The main goal of such an alliance will be promotion to the East. The occupation of St. Petersburg in Estonians, Kiev - Hungarians, and Minsk - Poles will be quite real. By the beginning of the 2040s. The contradictions between the United States, on the one hand, and the Union of Turkey and Japan, and the other are gradually gaining contradictions. China and Japan will continue to withstand US dominance in the Asia-Pacific region, countries of Eastern Europe It will continue to fight against the spheres of influence, the European Union will begin to experience difficulties due to the involvement of a large number of countries with different levels of development of the economy and an increase in the number of different ethnocon confessional communities, Mexico will contribute to the erosion of the boundaries between North America states. The presence of these problem areas will undoubtedly lead to conflicts.
World War will begin in the middle of the XXI century. After the conflict of Poles and the Turks due to the Balkans. The US goal will be reduced to preventing the development of regional leaders of Eurasia and combining them into a single GEGEM state. Japan will strive to consolidate its domination in the North-West region of the Pacific Ocean, Turkey - stabilize your region. At the same time, the war will be unprecedented according to the methods of reference. The factor determining the victory in the War of the XXI century will be accuracy. A special rate will be made on unmanned supersonic combat aircraft with the support of rocket weapons from space. The war will take a protracted nature, but the acceleration of the production of weapons in the United States will allow them to seek serious success by mid-2052 and win. The positions of the United States as the leading power of the planet are further strengthened. Losses as a result of war will be relatively small - several tens of thousands of people. At the same time, China, which will strengthen the position in Central Asia in the most advantageous position.
After the war comes golden decadefor the United States, which will continue the militarization of space. Poland will begin to strengthen its position in Europe, its composition will include Belarus. Other allies form a new confederation managed from Warsaw. However, in the 2080s. The development of Mexico will gradually lead to the weakening of the United States, as a result of which the areas are completely populated by Mexicans. The growth of the Mexican economy will spur Mexican nationalism, which, in turn, will lead to the discharge of Mexican-American contradictions. A full-scale rivalry between the United States and Mexico for leadership in North America will unfold. This rivalry is permitted already in the XXII century.
Almost all of the above scenarios of a quiet life of mankind in the coming decades do not promise. And some predict us not only regional, including nuclear, conflicts, but even new world War. It means that the need for military force, and, consequently, Yao as the most striking embodiment of the military-political leadership of the great powers, as well as the leaders of the most ambitious states, most likely will continue, at least dozen years.
Road map nuclear disarmament
Such a vision of the future strengthens the confidence that Yao in the coming century, most likely, will not disappear from the arsenal of political and military funds and will be present and taken into account in relations between nuclear powers and the rest of the world still indefinitely. Although the struggle of the global community for nuclear non-proliferation increases, for many countries, the possession of Yao will become a vital condition for its own survival.
Yao plays a crucial role not only during the war, but in peacetime. It is the most visual example of an attempt to monopolize military force. The process itself has been classified in all countries. So an attempt was made to monopolize nuclear knowledge. But, as we know, she failed. After the first nuclear test and the use of the Jao United States against Japan, they had an illusion about the possibility of the monopoly use of this force. (By the way, the creation of a global missile defense system is also, in essence, there is a continuation of such an illusion.) Then, after the failure of this attempt, efforts were made towards the monopolization of power over the Yao, which took place in the NPT - as a monopoly option. fivecountries on Yao. But this attempt was unsuccessful. Yao is spread on the planet - first in the form of nuclear knowledge, then in material form, and behind it in legal. Today, monopolism of both knowledge and strength in the global world is impossible. And if it is impossible in the economy and geopolitics, who will agree with him in the nuclear field? Speaking by the language of economists, the appearance of Yao instantly and radically changed geopolitical competitive Wednesdaygiving him the owner of a monopoly on absolutemilitary power. It was this situation that forced the geopolitical competitors of the United States to do everything to eliminate this monopoly.
For a number of estimates, today there are 30-40 states that have technical and industrial opportunities for the production of Yao with nuclear forces or developing peaceful and military nuclear programs. According to official data of the IAEA, 70 states carry out "significant nuclear activity", i.e. They have energy and / or research reactors and, therefore, theoretically able to deploy a military nuclear program. Among them: Five officially recognized in accordance with Nuclear Nuclear Names - USA, Russia, United Kingdom, France and China; Two unrecognized such, but conducted nuclear tests (India and Pakistan); States in respect of which there is an opinion that they already possess Yao (such as Israel, DPRK); A number of countries that have already had yao or can produce it in a short time or striving for one or another way to seize them, - South Africa, Brazil, Argentina, Sweden, Switzerland, Italy, Australia and others.
If in the twentieth century. The possession of Yao was the privilege of strong, developed in the military-technological relations of states, then in the XXI century. The reverse trend is planned. This weapon attracts relatively weak states, counting with it to compensate their military-technological backwardness. And since the number and quality of Yao in such states cannot lead to mutual destruction in a military conflict between them, then the parties turn out to be a dilemma: resort to the first to Yao or lose it.
So it is quite natural that, although the role of Yao and nuclear deterrence in the relations of the great powers is reduced, none of today de jurenuclear powers in such conditions will never give up their nuclear status. After all, this requires not only the desire to maintain a high place in the world tabel about ranks,but the elementary feeling of healthy state self-preservation. While there is military force, it exists, first of all, to intimidate potential opponents. Thus, in the report "Nuclear Weapons in the Modern World and Safety of Russia", released in 2001 by the Working Group of the Council on Foreign and Defense Policy, it is noted that nuclear powers are doomed to mutual deterrence in the essence of their strategic relationships. Deterrence can go to the forefront in a crisis or retreat for the stems of the current policy in the situation of improving relationships, but it remains an objective reality and is always invisible. At the same time, the containment allows a wide range of models both with an equal and unequal position of the parties. In addition, the deterrence is still considered in the sense of the guarantee from the release of the other party from the contractual regime and the resumption of the race offensive and defensive nuclear weapons, namely such an aspect of deterrence is becoming increasingly important after the end of the Cold War and for the foreseeable future.
In order to be between nuclear powers there could be no relationship of mutual nuclear deterrence, a number of conditions are followed:
· Power are military-political allies;
· They are out of reach of each other's nuclear media;
· Their nuclear products are clearly directed against the third party;
· One of them has an overwhelming nuclear superiority and the potential of a disarming strike against another.
And finally, nuclear deterrence in its traditional model can be abolished when creating effective missile defense systems and protection against other types of nuclear carriers of one of the parties. And since today the strategic interaction between Russia and the United States does not satisfy any of these conditions, the system of their mutual nuclear deterrence, according to the authors of this report, is preserved.
At the same time, the analysis of conceptual documents of leading nuclear powers, speeches of officials and specialists, a number of concrete steps in the field of strategic arms make it possible to conclude that the relationship to the Yao, and, consequently, to nuclear deterrence as a tool for ensuring strategic stability and national security In modern conditions undergoing a certain transformation. The key problem of developing adequate approaches to the definition of possible directions for the evolution of the role of a nuclear factor for the relationship between traditional nuclear powers is to determine the role of nuclear deterrence in the conditions of the multipole world. The events of recent years have shown that in the current geopolitical situation, Yao is not able to play the role of the deterrent factor, the more confronting the new security and stability threats, which may arise in the multipolar world, since their main part lies below the level that justifies the rationality of the nuclear war. At the same time, the system of crisis stability based on the Yao creates a comfortable for all participants in the global nuclear balance of the forces, when none of the parties are interested in a one-step violation of this balance or a different action that creates incentives for the escalation of the armed confrontation by ordinary forces.
Thus, today we can only talk about those necessary conditions that should be created only to ensure the principal possibility of achieving nuclear zero.After all, the existing system of rules of behavior in the nuclear sphere was designed completely in another - the Bipolar - World. And they created her countries and people who have not put a nuclear-free world, and their own nuclear monopoly.
Since the issue of full destruction of Yao is not in the real agenda not only modern, but also, apparently, future political leaders, it is necessary to develop new rules and conditions for safe life in the nuclear century. Achieving such conditions can be provided by the following necessary steps.
Firstly,the definition of those international institutions to which the mission of nuclear disarmament can be assigned. When expanding the bilateral format of negotiations, the relevant international body is required, which coordinates the process of interaction between the participating countries. With all numerous claims to the UN, only this organization is capable of such work in our complex world.
Russia and the USA has already passed its part of the road to nuclear disarmament. And not just passed, and formed a kind road cardthis process. Therefore, the success of the process of further nuclear disarmament depends on when other nuclear states come out on this road and what road cardthey will use. This road cardmust be the first page of a thick detailed atlas of the new look of the nuclear-free world. And one of the pitfalls on the way of creating the International Institute of Nuclear Disarmament is the complexity of reaching a consensus, which is necessary precisely because without it we will remain there as we are today.
Secondly,formation of the official list of countries - members of the new nuclear club with amnestynewly claimed nuclear powers, i.e. Legalization of the entire existing Yao.
This step will allow, on the one hand, to remove the Yao already created from the shadows, on the other hand, to satisfy the ambitions of its owners, giving them nuclear statusand putting at the same time in certain legal frameworks and under tight control. After all nuclear statusimposes quite specific requirements for the owner of the Yao and his politics.
Thirdly,final closing(by date or list - it does not matter!) List of nuclear powers with the definition of a new effective system of harsh sanctions for its violation.
Such a step will require, most likely, a certain revision of the NPT, or even its replacement for a new, more adequate to today's realities of the contract. This requirement will give the opportunity to negotiate recurrences of block thinking, to a large extent inherent in disarmament agreements of the 1960s - 1970s. The need for this measure is confirmed by explicit slidingrecent Review Conferences Day.
Fourthlyfixation of the achieved levels of nuclear weapons on a multilateral basis and thereby legalization. Determination of transparency measures and methods for verifying nuclear arsenals. Coordination of nuclear strategies and programs.
This will provide the ability to engage in the dialogue of all nuclear countries and create prerequisites at least to preserve nuclear hazards at the same level. Coordination of behavior strategies will increase the predictability of the policies of nuclear countries and will allow to minimize the risk of spontaneous nuclear conflict.
Fifthcreating a new international security system and reformattingnon-proliferation regime.
This will require the formation of a new understanding of not only modern, but also a promising system. knutovand gingerbreadmany decades are able to act more effectively. It must be borne in mind that the appetites of nuclear players grow, and gingerbreadit is all more expensive.
At sixth,formation new system guarantees and conditions for the development of peaceful nuclear programs in any countries of the world without their division on goodand badwithout axes of eviland country-rogue.
It was in line with this step that there is a Russian proposal to create an international nuclear fuel storage.
In-seventh,the permission of legal nuclear powers of periodic (once every 10-15 years) nuclear tests to verify the reliability of nuclear arsenals and preserving the qualifications of nuclear specialists. These tests must meet all the requirements of radiation and environmental safety and maybe under the control of the IAEA or any other international organization.
This offer, of course, may seem the most radical and least acceptable. But without him, talking about the correct understanding of the state of affairs in the sphere of Yao, as well as a qualified control of the non-proliferation regime will be impossible. Only tests allow you to confidently and safely produce, exploit, store and utilize nuclear ammunition.
To go through all these steps, it will take at least 15-20 years. It should be noted that these measures should be implemented all and completely. The withdrawal of any of them will fail, because all the reasons contributing to today's situation will not be eliminated.
The success of these steps will depend on the possibility of achieving sufficientthe conditions of nuclear disarmament - voluntary refusal of all states from nuclear weapons and from the use of military force in international relations. However, apparently, as the great Russian poet N.A. Nekrasov, "To live at this time, you really do not have to me nor you.
Notes
Sychev Valeria. Farewell to Slavyansky. Results, No. 34 (688), 2009, August 17, http://www.itogi.ru/polit-tema/2009/34/143119.html
Iran proposes to create a nuclear disarmament committee. Time of East, 2008, September 24, http://www.easttime.ru/news/2/11/668.html. (Last visit - November 25, 2009).
Terekhov Andrei. Complete nuclear disarmament is possible. Independent Military Review, 2009, July 10, http://nvo.ng.ru/concepts/2009-07-10/6_razorujenie.html
Obama offers a nuclear disarmament, radio freedom, 2009, April 5, http: //www.svobo-danews.ru/content/article/1602310.html (Last visit - November 25, 2009).
Joint understanding on the issue of further abbreviations and restrictions of strategic offensive arms, 2009, July 6, http://tours.kremlin.ru/text/docs/2009/07/219078.shtml(Last visit - November 25, 2009).
Strokan Sergey, Sidorov Dmitry. And now overload. Kommersant, No. 134 / P (4189), 2009, July 27, http://www.kommersant.ru/doc.aspx? Docsid \u003d 1210932 (Last visit - November 25, 2009).
Ifft Edward. The following steps in the Russian-American process of reduced weapons. Security Index, No. 2 (89), Volume 15, Summer 2009, p. 129-134.
Fedosov E.A. Power that weakens. Russian Military Review, No. 5, 2004, p. 6-9; Slipchenko V.I. Wars of the sixth generation. Weapons and military art of the future. M.: Veva, 2002, 384 p.
Sokov N.N. The evolution of the US nuclear policy: will the role of nuclear weapons increase? Nuclear control. № 3 (69), Volume 9, Autumn 2003, p. 71-86.
Cylric Daria. Obama impose an account for Moscow. Independent newspaper, 2009, July 14, http://www.ng.ru/world/2009-07-14/2_obama.html (Last visit - November 25, 2009).
Vandam A.E. Geopolitics and geostrategia. M.: Kuchkovo Field, 2002, 272 p.
Kingston-Macclory Edgard James. Global strategy. M.: Military Publishing House of the USSR. 1959.
Lidde Garth B.H. Indirect strategy. M.: Foreign Literature Publisher, 1957.
Novitsky V.Ya. Higher strategy. SPb.: Typography of the Marine Ministry in the main admiralty, 1913. 97 p.
Yearbook Sipri 2007: Armament, Disarmament and International Security. M.: Imheremo RAS, 2008. 894 p.
Varava V.P., Drontov V.A., Dumik V.P. and others. Nuclear weapons and national security. Institute of Strategic Stability Rosatom. Saransk: Red October, 2008. 188 p.
Solovyov Vadim. Nuclear doctrine of the United States. Independent Military Review, 2002, March 22, http://nvo.ng.ru/wars/2002-03-22/1_doctrine.html (Last visit - November 25, 2009).
New nuclear weapons of Americans can revolutionize the tactics of wars, 2003, August 21, http://www.newsru.com/world/21aug2003/weapon.html (Last visit - November 25, 2009).
New nuclear doctrine of the United States: the enemy threaten "preventive nuclear strikes", 2005, September 12, http://www.newsru.com/world/12Sep2005/omu.html.
Akhtamzyan I.A. Jaog: nuclear programs, military doctrines, nuclear non-proliferation policies. PIR-Center, http://www.pircenter.org/data/ss/nucprog.pdf. (Last visit - November 25, 2009).
Zygyar Mikhail. Russia broke on twelve targets. Experts suggest Barack Obama, where to plant nuclear rockets. Kommersant, № 67 (4122), 2009, April 15, http.:// www. kommersant.ru/doc.aspx? Docsid \u003d 1155792 & print \u003d True (last visit - November 25, 2009).
Brzezinsk zbignev. Choice: world domination or global leadership. M.: International Relations, 2004, 288 p.
Military strategy. Ed. Marshal Soviet Union V.D. Sokolovsky. M.: Milivdat, 1968, 464 p.
Military doctrine of the Russian Federation. M.: 2000; Strategy of the National Security of the Russian Federation until 2020. Approved by the Decree of the President of the Russian Federation of May 12, 2009 No. 537. Rossiyskaya Gazeta, No. 88 (4912), 2009, 19 May.
United Kingdom held the first nuclear tests for four years, 2006, February 24, http://www.lenta.ru/news/2006/02/24/bomb/ (Last visit - November 25, 2009).
Kirilov Roman. Blair opens the debate on nuclear weapons, RBC Daily, 2006, November 20, http://www.rbcdaily.ru/2006/11/20/focus/250424 (Last visit - November 25, 2009).
Huseynov E.F. France is ready to apply a preventive strike - the new nuclear doctrine of France. National security, http://www.nationalsecurity.ru/library/00028/00028nuclearfrance.htm.(Last visit - November 25, 2009).
Sosnovsky M.E. Nuclear policy and nuclear weapons of France. National defense, № 4, 2006, http://www.iss.niiit.ru/pub/pub-98.pdf.
Gallua P.-M. The main thing for Russia to maintain and build nuclear potential. Red Star, 2004, November 5th.
Zolotarev P.S. Modern nuclear strategy of China. 2009, April 2, http: //www.warand- peace.ru/enalysis/vprint/34192/ (Last visit - November 25, 2009).
Sosnovsky M.E. Nuclear policy and nuclear weapons of China. National Defense, No. 8, 2006.
Basrur R. To the question of the nuclear doctrine of India. Nuclear Control, No. 1 (75), Volume 11, Spring 2005, p. 41-50.
President of India encourages major powers to submit an example to another in full nuclear disarmament, 2005, May 23, http://www.moscowuniversityclub.ru/home.asp.? Artid \u003d 1728 (Last visit - November 25, 2009).
India is ready to make steps on nuclear disarmament, sounded at the conference in Munich, 2009, February 6, http://www.newsru.com/world/06feb2009/yadern.html (Last visit - November 25, 2009).
Sotnikov V.I. Nuclear doctrine Pakistan, 2009, March 25, http://www.iimes.ru/rus/stat/2009/25-03-09.htm (Last visit - November 25, 2009).
Timerbaev R.M. Russia and nuclear non-proliferation. 1945-1968. M.: Science, 1999. 383 p.
Barzkun S. Disarmaled only in an honest world. National Defense, No. 4 (37), 2009, p. 14-30.
Sakharov A.D. The danger of thermonuclear war. Open letter Dr. Sydney Drelela, 1983, February 2, http://www.iseu.by/rus/memoria/sakharov/sakharov/atom.html. (Last visit - November 25, 2009).
Goodby James. Nuclear disarmament initiative as a basis for future agreements. Security Index, No. 2 (89), Volume 15, Summer 2009, p. 19-29.
Gates Robert. Balanced strategy. Russia in Global Policy, No. 2, March-April 2009, http://www.globalaffairs.ru/numbers/37/11574.html (Last visit - November 25, 2009).
Khramchikhin Alexander, Remizov Mikhail, Vashchenko Alexey, Belkovsky Stanislav. Danger of nuclear disarmament. Prospects for the creation of new Russian nuclear forces. To the meeting of Dmitry Medvedev and Barack Obama. Report of the Institute of National Strategy. M., 2009. http://www.apn.ru/publications/article21494.htm. (Last visit - November 25, 2009).
Kapitsa S.P., Kurdyumov S.P., Malinetsky G.G. Synergetics and forecasts of the future. Synergetics: from the past to the future. M.: URSS, 2003. 288 p.
Lyapina E. Project "For the New American Age", http://amstd.spb.ru/21cent/newcent.htm. (Last visit - November 25, 2009); Project of the new American century (PNAC), 2007, June 12, http://t0x4.livejournal.com/786.html. (Last visit - November 25, 2009).
Grinyev Sergey, Kovtunenko Mikhail. The future of Russia according to the estimates of the National Council for US exploration. The main landmarks of the "global trends 2020". http://www.agentura.ru/dossier/russia/people/grinyaev/2020 (Last visit - November 25, 2009).
In 2025, Russia will ... Par [tag]., 2002, November 2, http://stra.teg.ru/library/Global/0/0//print(Last visit - November 25, 2009).
Colomer Josep M. Great Empires, Small Nations. The UNCERTAIN Future of the Sovereign State. London; New York: ROUTLEDGE, 2007. 114 p. Cyt. By: Busina I.M. Great Empires, Small Nations. Unclear future of the sovereign state. Emergency ration. 2008, № 3 (59).
Tretyakov V.T. Two European Union - one (and united) Europe. Political class, number 4 (52), April 2009, p. 18-25.
Battle Alex. The contours of the world in the first half of the XXI century and a little further. World economy and international relations, 2002, No. 1, p. 73-80.
Gabuev Alexander. The United States declared China to reboot. Kommersant, № 136 (4191), 2009, July 29, http://www.kommersant.ru/doc.aspx?docsid\u003d1211889.
Friedman George. The NEXT 100 YEARS: A Forecast for the 21st Century. Doubleday, New York, 2009. Cyt. By: XXI century: before and after the Third World War. American futurologist scenario. Political class, № 5 (53), May 2009, p. 26-46.
Timerbaev R.M. Mode of nuclear non-proliferation at the present stage and its perspectives. Scientific notes of the PIR Center: National and Global Security, No. 1 (25), M., October 2004; Fedorov Yu.E. Nuclear factor in world politics XX! century. Pro et Contra, Foreign Policy of the New Century, Volume 7, No. 4, October 2004, p. 57-71.
Nuclear weapons in the modern world and the safety of Russia. Report of the Working Group of the Council on External and Defense Policy. M., 2001.
Nuclear factor in the modern world. M.: Russian Institute of Strategic Studies, 1996. 258 p.
1. Nuclear weapons were necessary for victory over Japan in World War II.
In the world - and especially this is noticeable in the United States - it is common that the nuclear strike, applied to the Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, was necessary for victory over Japan during World War II. Nevertheless, the most famous American military of that epoch, including Dwight Eisenhower (Dwight Eisenhower), Omar Bradley (Omar Bradley), Hap Arnold (Hap Arnold) and Admiral William Lyha (William Leah), do not share a similar point of view. So, for example, General Eisenhower, who was during World War II by the Supreme Commander-in-Chief of the Allies in Western Europe, and later the US President wrote: "I felt a feeling of deep confusion and therefore expressed my concerns [Military Minister Stimson], based primarily , on my belief that Japan has already been defeated, and there was no need for an atomic bomb in the explosion. In addition, I believed that our country should not have been in charge of the world public opinion by the bomb explosion, the use of which, in my opinion, already It was not an indispensable condition for the salvation of the life of the Americans. I believed that it was at this very moment Japan is looking for the best way to fold the weapon without losing his "face". ". The use of nuclear weapons was not just useless, its excessive destructive ability has already led to the late 1945 to the death of 220,000 people.
2. Nuclear weapons prevented the beginning of the war between the United States and the Soviet Union.
Many believe that a nuclear "draw", achieved during the Cold War, held two world powers from the beginning of the war, because there was a real threat to the mutual destruction of both states. Despite the fact that the two powers during the Cold War did not really unleasize a nuclear catastrophe, nevertheless, during this time, serious confrontations have repeatedly happened between them, which put the world on the edge of the nuclear war. The Cuban crisis broke out in 1962 with the most serious confrontation.
During the Cold War, there were many deadly conflicts and "customized" wars, unleashed by the powers in Asia, Africa and Latin America. The most significant example can be considered a war in Vietnam, which claimed the lives of several millions of Vietnamese and 58 thousand Americans. All these wars led to the fact that the so-called nuclear truce turned out to be extremely bloody and deadly. At the same time, the shadow constantly hidden the real threat to the beginning of the nuclear confrontation. The Cold War has become an extremely dangerous period, the main characteristic of which can be considered a massive race of nuclear weapons, and mankind is extremely lucky that he managed to survive this time without a nuclear war.
3. Nuclear threat disappeared after the end of the Cold War.
After the completion of the Cold War, many were considered that the threat of a nuclear war disappeared. Despite the fact that since the end of the Cold War, the nature of the nuclear threat has changed, nevertheless, such a danger did not disappear at all and did not even decrease any significant way. During the Cold War, the main threat was the nuclear confrontation between the United States and the Soviet Union. In the period following the end of the Cold War, several new sources of nuclear threat appeared at the same time. Of particular attention, among them are the following: Currently there are much more danger that nuclear weapons will fall into the hands of terrorists; There is a real threat to the beginning of the nuclear conflict between India and Pakistan; The United States Government pursues a policy on the creation of miniature and lighter in the use of atomic bombs; There is a threat to the erroneous use of nuclear weapons - especially from Russia, due to the imperfection of the warning system; Development of nuclear weapons by other countries, in particular, Northern Korea, which can use it for the "equalization" of forces when confronting a stronger state.
4. Nuclear weapons are necessary for the United States to ensure national security.
In the United States, the opinion is ubiquitous that nuclear weapons are necessary to protect against the attack of aggressor states. Nevertheless, the US National Security will cease to be subjected to excessive dangers if the United States takes on the role of a leader in the campaign to destroy nuclear weapons around the world. Nuclear weapons are the only one that can actually completely destroy the United States, and the existence and distribution of such types of weapons seems to be a serious US security threat.
The state in which the level of terrorist threat is marked is now orange, engaged in the development of miniature and simpler to use nuclear weapons and conducting extremely aggressive foreign policy should realize that its actions lead to the fact that weaker countries feel vulnerable. The weakest states may begin to perceive nuclear weapons as a means of neutralizing the threat from another state with nuclear weapons. So, in the case of the Northern Korea, the threat from the United States may begin to spur Pyongyang to obtain nuclear weapons. The fact that the United States continues to build its military power based on nuclear weapons is a bad example for the rest of the world and puts the United States themselves, instead of protecting them. The United States owns a sufficient number of traditional types of weapons and will feel more safe in the world where there will be no nuclear weapons.
5. Nuclear weapon strengthens the safety of a single country.
There is a very common opinion that the presence of nuclear weapons can protect any country from the blow from a potential aggressor. In other words, fearing a response hit by one or another nuclear power, the aggressor will not attack it. In fact, it happens exactly the opposite: the nuclear weapon overlays the safety of countries owning them, as it gives them a false feeling of security.
Despite the fact that such measures to dissuade the enemy can give a certain feeling of calm, there are no guarantees that the fear of the response strike will turn the country-aggressor from the attack. There are numerous opportunities that the enemy's dedication policy will not work: misunderstanding, bugs of communication, irresponsibility of managers, errors in the calculations and accidents. In addition, the presence of nuclear weapons increases the threat of the spread of terrorism, proliferation of weapons and significant losses during the nuclear conflict.
6. None of the leaders of the states will be so reckless that nuclear weapons actually apply.
Many believe that the threats to the use of nuclear weapons can be distributed for a long time, but none of the leaders of the states have not yet reached the degree of observance to apply it in fact. Unfortunately, nuclear weapons were used before, and today it is quite possible that many - if not all - leaders of nuclear powers, hitting a certain situation, will use it. The leaders of the United States, considered by many quite rational people, the only time used him during the war: when applying a strike on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. With the exception of these bombardments, the leaders of nuclear powers were repeatedly on the verge of applying such weapons.
Currently, the United States is considered justified by the use of nuclear weapons in response to the application of a chemical or biological impact on the United States, their bases and allies. One of the prerequisites of the United States to unleash a preventive war is the belief that other countries can apply a nuclear strike on the US. The exchange between India and Pakistan threats to apply a nuclear strike can be considered another example of Brinkmanship (balancing on the verge of war), which can turn into a nuclear catastrophe. Historically, the leaders of various countries did everything possible, seeking to show that they are ready to use nuclear weapons. It would be unreasonable to assume that they would not do it.
7. Nuclear weapons are an economic way of national defense.
Some observers suggest that due to their amazing destructive power, the nuclear weapon can serve as an effective means of defense at minimal costs. Guided by such arguments, endless studies on the development of nuclear weapons of a limited radius of action, which will be more convenient to use. According to the study conducted by Brookings Institution, the costs of developing, conducting experiments, the creation and maintenance of nuclear weapons exceeded 5.5 trillion dollars in 1996. Given the achievements in the field of technology and the creation of nuclear weapons, the costs and consequences of nuclear conflict will have achieved an unprecedented level.
8. Nuclear weapons are well protected, and the likelihood that it will fall into the hands of terrorists is low.
Many believe that nuclear weapons are reliably hidden, and it is unlikely that it can get into the hands of terrorists. Nevertheless, after the end of the Cold War, Russia's ability to protect their nuclear potential has decreased significantly. In addition, the state coup in the country owned by nuclear weapons - for example, in Pakistan - can lead to power of rulers, ready to supply the above-mentioned weapons to terrorists.
In general, the following situation is folded, the greater the land of countries owning nuclear weapons, and the more units of this weapon on our planet, the higher the likelihood that terrorists can take place. The best way to prevent this is a significant reduction in global nuclear potential and the establishment of rigid international control over the existing weapons and materials necessary for its production in order to subsequent destruction.
9. The United States is doing everything possible to fulfill their obligations to disarmament.
Most Americans are confident that the United States fulfills its obligations on nuclear disarmament. In fact, the United States does not fulfill the conditions recorded in the VI section of the Nuclear Nuclear Weapon Treaty, according to which they have already needed everything possible for nuclear disarmament for more than thirty years. The United States has not ratified the Treaty on the full ban on testing nuclear weapons and came out of the contract.
Signed by the Russian Federation and United States Agreement on the reduction and restriction of strategic offensive arms ("SNA Treaty") brings part of nuclear weapons from active use, but nothing speaks of a systematic reduction of such types of weapons and is contrary to the principle of irreversibility achieved in 2000 on Conferences on the revision of the contract for pro. The contract signed between Russia and the USA is an example of the most flexible attitude towards the possibility of nuclear re-equipment, instead of an irreversible reduction in nuclear arsenals. If the agreement is not extended, then its validity period will expire in 2012.
10. Nuclear weapons are necessary to combat terrorist threat and outcast states.
It has repeatedly expressed the assumption that nuclear weapons are necessary to combat terrorism and outcast states. However, the use of nuclear weapons to divide or defense is ineffective. The threat of applying a nuclear strike against terrorists cannot be a measure of their dissociation, because such organizations do not occupy a certain territory, on which a blow can be applied.
It is impossible to use nuclear weapons as a measure of division and against rogue countries: their reaction to a nuclear threat can be irrational, and the division is based on rationality. The use of nuclear weapons as a means of defense will lead to huge losses among civilians, military and cause a significant blow to the environment. With the help of nuclear weapons, you can destroy any of the Iraev States, however, the efforts spent to achieve this goal will be disproportionately large and deeply immoral. It is useless to use similar weapons against terrorists, since the strategic campaigns cannot accurately determine the location of the attack object.
Large nuclear game in the XXI century: disarmament or war?
Radchuk Alexander Vasilyevich - Candidate of Technical Sciences, Professor of the Academy of Military Sciences, Advisor to the Chief of the General Staff of the Russian Federation.
Today there are about 40 states in the world with technical capabilities for the production of nuclear weapons. And if in the twentieth century. The possession of the OMP was the privilege of strong states, then in the XXI century. The reverse trend is planned. This weapon attracts weak states, counting with it to compensate for their military-technological lag. Therefore, it is quite natural that, although the role of nuclear deterrence in the relationships of the Great Powers decreases, none of them will never give up its nuclear status.
And how I would like to take me
in this game! I even agree to be a pawn,
just would you take ... although, of course, more
i would like to be a queen!
Lewis Carroll. Alice in the Wonderland
After in August 2009, President of Russia D.A. Medvedev sent a message V.A. Yushchenko on a wide range of problems of Russian-Ukrainian relations and suspended the arrival of the Russian ambassador to Kiev to the election of the new president of Ukraine, the Ukrainian nationalist organizations of the Crimea turned to the official Kiev with the appeal, proposing to urgently collect 15-20 nuclear warheads from undergraduate materials, put them on tactical rockets And let's give, thereby response to Moscow on her diplomatic demarche. This seemingly an anecdotic case clearly showed how firmly and deeply nuclear weapons penetrated our lives.
Not only politicians and military, but also ordinary people who are quite natural consider the use of nuclear threats to solve any questions. Indeed, almost two generations live in the world, in which there is the most destructive weapon in the entire history of mankind, which can destroy not only the city and the army, but also the planet is entirely. In the world, in which two decades have been developing in parallel, two interrelated processes - a race of strategic offensive arms and nuclear disarmament.
Nuclear weapon today
Today, the question of the possession of nuclear weapons (Yao) is inevitably considered by each state with the bell tower of national interests. Indeed, in conditions where the global economy clearly fails, it is often warstorming that it becomes a factor that determines the international status of the state. At the same time, the subjective nature of the modern policy, in which the personal qualities of some leaders begin to prevail not only over political feasibility, but even even over common sense, it really makes thinking about the feasibility of achieving a nuclear zero.
The window of opportunities for nuclear disarmament is no longer the first year trying to open very many policies and scientists as widely as possible. And recently, heavy artillery entered the battle.
In early 2007, in the article "Peace without nuclear weapons" George Schulz, William Perry, Henry Kissinger and Sam Nann stated that today nuclear weapons are a huge danger and need to move to a solid universal agreed refusal, and in perspective at all The exception of the threat of a threat to the world, since with the end of the Cold War, the Soviet-American doctrine of mutual intimidation went into the past. This statement unexpectedly turned out to be the focus of all the progressive world community, which showed a huge interest in the idea of \u200b\u200bnuclear disarmament. It would seem that today, at the height of the global economic crisis, issues of economics and finances, the definition of mutually beneficial economic cooperation, the need to create new reserve currencies and other economic problems, on the solution of which the efforts of many countries can be sent, should be in the Center for Public Discussion as Russia and abroad. However, even President Iran Mahmoud Ahmadinezhad spoke at the UN General Assembly in September 2008 with a proposal to create an independent observation committee for disarming nuclear powers.
On the eve of the visit of the President of the United States of Barack Obama to Moscow, a group of famous politicians and military from around the world, united in the framework of the Global Zero initiative, presented a plan for phased full destruction of nuclear weapons on the planet by 2030. It includes four stages:
· Russia and the United States agree on reducing their arsenals to 1000 nuclear warheads each.
· By 2021 Moscow and Washington reduce the threshold of up to 500 units. All other nuclear powers (China, United Kingdom, France, India, Pakistan, Israel) agree to freeze and subsequently reduce their arsenals of strategic weapons.
· From 2019 to 2023 - the conclusion of the "Global Nolat Agreement" conclusion, with a graph of a phased verifiable reduction of all nuclear arsenals up to a minimum.
· From 2024 to 2030 - the process must be finally completed, and the verification system will continue to work.
And on April 5, 2009, the President of the United States spoke in Prague with a speech on the problems of reducing nuclear potentials and stated: "The Cold War has sunk in the past, but thousands of weapons of weapons of the Cold War remained. Strangely the story turned. The threat of global nuclear war has decreased, but the risk of nuclear attack has increased. As the only nuclear power, which applied nuclear weapons, the United States, having morally responsible, should act. We do not succeed alone, but we can lead the struggle for achieving success. So, today I declare with all the clarity and conviction about America's commitment to the achievement of peace and security without nuclear weapons. "
He also said that nuclear non-proliferation should be mandatory for everyone, and proposed to hold a summit in 2010, which should adopt a new international law or a rule that would prohibit any nuclear tests and even the production of split materials.
On June 12, 2009, UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon made a message on the occasion of the beginning of preparation for the International Day of Peace. In it, he announced the beginning of the campaign called "We must get rid of weapons of mass destruction." He appealed to governments and people of the whole world with a request to focus on solving issues of nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation. It was noted that without energetic measures, humanity will still be threatened with existing reserves of nuclear weapons.
Finally, held at the beginning of July 2009, the visit of President of the United States of America Barack Obama to Moscow gave a new impetus to the process of further reduction and restriction of the strategic offensive arms of Russia and the United States. According to the results of the visit, a document was signed entitled "Joint understanding on the issue of further abbreviations and restrictions of strategic offensive arms", which determined the general parameters of a new "legally binding arrangement", which should come to replace the START EXPLAY (START one). It was stated that the new agreement should be operated by the next 10 years and will determine the limit levels of the START of the parties as follows: for strategic carriers - 500-1100 units and for the relatious warheads - 1500-1675 units.
Suppose that the new START agreement took place and these levels of abbreviations will be achieved after 10 years. What's next? New ten-year negotiations with subsequent microscopic contractions? Expansion of the circle of negotiators? Distribution of restrictions on non-strategic nuclear weapons? Or a sudden turn of the plot and either the development of fundamentally new agreements or a complete refusal of them?
To some extent reveals the American vision of the prospects for bilateral nuclear disarmament of the US Vice-President John Biden, published on July 25, 2009. In The Wall Street Journal, in which he stated that the growing economic difficulties will force Moscow to put up with a loss of the former geopolitical role that entailing the weakening of the Russian influence in the post-Soviet space and a significant reduction in the Russian nuclear potential. In his opinion, it was the inability of the Russian side that to maintain his nuclear potential for it the main motive for the resumption of negotiations on its reduction with President Barack Obama. At the same time, Mr. Biden clearly made it clear that the United States should play the role of a senior partner of "weakening Russia".
At the same time, Professor of Georgetown University, Edward Ifft, the last representative of the United States at negotiations under the contract agreement, offers the following further steps in the Russian-American arms reduction process:
· Reduce nuclear weapons of parties to about 1000 deployed strategic warheads. "There is nothing special in the figure of 1000 warheads. Just 1000 is a good round digit. " (A strong argument!) In this case, the deterrence system will continue to function as a constant form, the nuclear forces triad will continue and the existing verification system.
· With deeper abbreviations, "quantitative changes will go into high-quality" and "may have to review the concept of deterrence, including extended deterrence." At the same time, "deterrence is a fundamental aspect of international security, and the need for it will remain, even if all nuclear weapons are eliminated." However, "as the role of nuclear weapons decreases, the deterrence system will increasingly depend on conventional weapons. ... The usual armed forces will play a comprehensive role in the deterrence system. "
The last thesis fully fits into the ideology of the new US strategic triad. And everything would be fine, but, apparently, Russia does not fit into it, since it is proposed "with a great understanding, to replace the small number of nuclear warheads with non-nuclear", as well as "proceed to solving the issue related to the extensive arsenal of tactical and follow-up nuclear warheads. " True, considerations about how the usual weapons will be reduced and limited, according to which the United States has overwhelming superiority, Edward Ifft does not express.
What is the reason today such increased attention to nuclear disarmament issues? With traditional concerns about the nuclear Arsenals of Russia and the United States, which may, as in the years of the Cold War, lead to a nuclear conflict between them with catastrophic consequences for the whole world? Or with the same traditional views on strategic offensive weapons as on the locomotive of Russian-American relations, which should be pulled out by the solution of other issues of bilateral dialogue? Or maybe it is a hope that new solutions will somehow affect others as de Jure and de facto nuclear powers? Or just a inability to look at the situation in a new way and really assess the role and place of nuclear weapons in the modern world in general and in Russian-American relations, in particular?
It is unlikely that all these questions can be answered unequivocally.
All transition programs to the nuclear-free world, all the proposed steps in this direction, a list of specific events that need to be carried out, look enough enough scholastic. And this is because they do not decide the essence of the problem. But the essence is that in the modern world, as uncomfortable sounds, only nuclear weapons, which is the extreme embodiment of military power, serves as a reliable guarantor of the security of any state.
After all, today, during the period of global civilization changes, there is no answer to the main question, without which it is unlikely to talk about the prospects for nuclear disarmament: what now and in the future is nuclear weapons - just the most Grozny embodiment of the military power of the outgoing era or prototype and the basis of the weapon of the future century? Will military methods for the resolution of interstate conflicts have been exhausted, and if not, whether nuclear weapons will remain, and therefore the nuclear containment will remain an effective way to resolve contradictions and protecting national interests? Will the power absorption of opponents and competitors from the arsenal of foreign policy?
There is no conversation about the real, and not fictional roles and location of nuclear weapons in the XXI century. On the meaning of military force. On effective international security mechanisms. What is there still in the world even one status state attribute as nuclear weapons? And why such many countries seek to possess them? Why it turned out that the list of official (by a day) of nuclear powers coincides with the list of permanent members of the UN Security Council? And in general, what are the role and place of nuclear weapons and nuclear deterrence in the modern world?
