Russia possesses one of the most powerful nuclear arsenals in the world, and this fact cannot but attract the attention of foreign experts and the public. In addition, it is the subject of various studies and evaluations. A very curious attempt at analysis was recently undertaken by the American media structure Fox News. This analysis is based on the statements and opinions of specialized experts from the United States.
An article with the provocative title "Russia's nuclear arsenal: All bark and no bite?" (“Russia's Nuclear Arsenal: Barks But Doesn't Bite?”) Was prepared by Fox News Investigation Officer Perry Chiaramonti and his colleague Alex Diaz. In their material, they tried to answer the question in the title.
At the beginning of the article, a curious feature of the current situation is noted, namely the general atmosphere and expert assessments. Now there is a certain increase in fears associated with a possible nuclear war, as was the case during the Cold War. At the same time, some security experts point out the low likelihood of a successful nuclear attack from Russia. However, there are other reasons for concern. First of all, these are local conflicts that attract the attention of powerful powers.
The authors write that against the background of general fears about the possible start of a new Cold War, research from Fox News shows that there are no real risks associated with a hypothetical attack from Russia. Unnamed nuclear weapons experts believe that the Russian nuclear arsenal is defensive in nature. Moscow has the ability to strike first, but it is unlikely to take advantage of it. Experts believe that the potential for a first strike by Russia is unlikely to be effective.
The situation was commented on by a senior military expert of the analytical organization Stratfor Omar Lamrani. As part of its nuclear triad, the United States pays more attention to the naval component, he said, while Russia relies on land systems. O. Lamrani also believes that the developed naval component of the US nuclear forces makes it possible to gain a certain advantage over Russia. He sees the reasons for this in the comparative weakness of the Russian armed forces.
The expert points out that since the Russian navy is weaker than the American one, it has to use a defense-oriented strategy. At the same time, such an approach allows Moscow to reduce the negative impact of problems associated with less military power.
P. Chiaramonti and A. Diaz, comparing the capabilities of Russia and the United States, touch on the issue of military budgets. Russian defense spending is $ 69.2 billion - several times less than the United States with $ 554.2 billion. They also compare the size of the armies. Thus, the Russian ground forces are noticeably larger than the American ones. At the same time, Russia is noticeably lagging behind in quantitative terms in the areas of naval and air forces. Based on this, the Fox News authors conclude that the American armed forces are superior to the Russian ones.
O. Lamrani commented on the current international agreements in the field of strategic arms, namely the START treaty that is currently being implemented. He assumes that Russia wants to preserve this treaty or sign a new agreement of this kind. With the help of such an agreement, Moscow can maintain an advantageous position in the international arena and have parity with Washington. The current START treaty, ratified in 2010, is the third such agreement between the United States and Russia.
The current START III agreement provides for a two-fold reduction in deployed carriers of nuclear weapons. The maximum number of warheads on duty is limited to 1500 units.
According to O. Lamrani, the cancellation of the START III treaty or its termination could lead to unpleasant consequences for Russia. Given this development of events, its strategic nuclear forces will not be able to quickly build up their arsenals, and this will put them at a disadvantage. The Stratfor spokesman believes that the absence of restrictions on nuclear weapons will not allow Russia to compete with the United States in this area. The existing agreement, in turn, gives Moscow a certain potential for negotiating.
Another specialist interviewed by Fox News staff has a different opinion. He believes that the situation is much more complicated, and the escalation of tensions between the United States and Russia is a way to lead to the most dire consequences.
Hans Christensen, head of the Nuclear Weapons Information Project of the Federation of American Scientists, recalls that there will be no winners in a nuclear war, and this is a generally accepted conclusion. If relations between the countries finally deteriorate and an escalation of the conflict begins, which can get out of control, then an exchange of nuclear missile strikes can quickly follow. We are talking about many hundreds of warheads launched at targets in two countries.
H. Christensen resorts to dark irony. He says that you can put a cross on the map and just watch how quickly colossal destruction will occur in this place and an accompanying radioactive contamination will appear.
Also, the FAS spokesman points out the existence of an incorrect methodology for assessing nuclear arsenals. There is a practice of comparing the current state of the countries' strategic nuclear forces with the state of the Cold War. H. Christensen believes that such a comparison is not correct and correct. So, with such a comparison, Pentagon representatives can declare that the United States currently has less than 4 thousand nuclear warheads - such a small number were only during the time of President Dwight D. Eisenhower.
Indeed, the absolute number of nuclear warheads has declined in recent years. However, as H. Christensen rightly notes, it should be borne in mind that the current weapons are much more effective than those that were under Eisenhower. Thus, much more can be done with the current arsenals than with the nuclear forces of the past. As a consequence, direct comparison in terms of quantity is meaningless.
Also, the scientist draws attention to the situation with the "nuclear club". In the second half of the 20th century, half a dozen countries concentrated all their efforts and created their own nuclear weapons. France, China, Great Britain, Israel, Pakistan and India have acquired nuclear weapons, and the total number of such weapons in the world has increased markedly. The nuclear powers that created their strategic forces during the Cold War have gradually reduced their arsenals. At the same time, other countries such as North Korea are gradually increasing them.
H. Christensen believes that at present there really is a risk of an armed conflict with the use of nuclear weapons. However, in his opinion, we are talking about clashes of a regional scale. Similar events can occur on the border of India and Pakistan or on the Korean Peninsula. At the same time, it is possible that a local conflict with the use of nuclear weapons will attract the attention of the larger nuclear powers.
The specialist proposes to present a scenario in which the United States will not independently participate in a war with the use of nuclear weapons. At the same time, they can provide assistance to their ally, who has their own weapons of this kind. If Washington decides to help an ally, then one should expect that Moscow or Beijing will defend the other side of the conflict.
The current Offensive Arms Reduction Treaty is valid until 2021. According to H. Christensen, the main issue in the context of this agreement is its new extension for five years. If the treaty is not renewed, then normal international negotiations could escalate into a global dispute.
If the START III treaty is not renewed or a new agreement does not come to replace it, events will develop according to a specific scenario. Hans Christensen reminds us: in this case, it will turn out that for the first time since the seventies, the United States and Russia will not be bound by any restrictions in the field of strategic nuclear forces. Both countries already have a very serious nuclear potential, and can threaten each other. The scientist considers all this to be a big problem.
The Fox News material ends with H. Christensen's fabrications about the treaty on the elimination of medium and short-range missiles. The representative of the Federation of American Scientists believes that the rejection of such an agreement does not pose a direct danger to Russia and the United States. The reason for this is the insufficient flight range of missiles falling under its effect. At the same time, short- and medium-range missiles can pose a regional threat and pose risks to allies of Moscow and Washington.
***
It is easy to see that the authors of the Fox News publication never gave a direct answer to the question in its title. In addition, they did not even hint at a possible answer, giving readers the opportunity to search for it on their own. At the same time, they cited curious statements by two specialists from well-known organizations. The opinions of these specialists differ in a noticeable way from each other, which may resemble an attempt to objectively examine the problem.
It should be noted the urgency of the problem raised in the article "Russia's nuclear arsenal: All bark and no bite?" Indeed, against the background of the deteriorating international situation, forecasts about the start of the second Cold War, as well as more stringent assessments, according to which a global armed conflict may begin in the foreseeable future, have reappeared. In this context, it does not hurt to assess the military potential of large countries in general, as well as their strategic nuclear forces in particular.
Fox News, reviewing the state and potential of Russia's nuclear arsenals, received commentary from two weapons experts. Interestingly, their opinions on the current issue differ markedly. One of them tends to assess the Russian nuclear forces low, while the other sees them as a potential threat. Their views on the future of strategic weapons also differ in the light of current treaties and their possible absence.
Omar Lamrani of the think tank Stratfor draws particular attention to the comparative weakness of the Russian military, including its nuclear capabilities. In addition, he believes that nuclear missiles of various bases are almost the only factor that allows Moscow to remain an active player in the international arena. O. Lamrani also points out the importance of the START III treaty for Russia, since after its termination, he believes, the United States will receive serious advantages.
Hans Christensen of the Federation of American Scientists expressed a different opinion. He pointed to obvious considerations about the likely outcome of a full-scale nuclear war, and also actually called not to underestimate the Russian potential. In addition, he declared the fallacy of the methodology for comparing arsenals by simple number without taking into account all other important factors. Finally, he touched upon the topic of the strategic situation in the world and the influence on its armaments of both the leading powers and the relatively new members of the "nuclear club". H. Christensen believes that in a number of situations events can develop according to negative scenarios with all serious consequences.
In the title of their article, P. Chiaramonti and A. Diaz ironically ask a question about the real capabilities of the Russian strategic nuclear forces. However, there is no further direct answer. However, having generally known information, you can try to give your answer. Indeed, the Russian arsenal is capable of "barking", but so far it has not "bite" anyone. And the reasons for this lie far from weakness or technical problems.
It is well known that the Russian nuclear triad, like its competitor from the United States, regularly tests various systems and weapons, and also arranges missile training launches at training targets. Such events, to use Fox News terminology, can be called "barking". "Bite" is probably proposed to refer to the actual use of nuclear weapons and its results.
Obviously, Russia's nuclear forces are quite capable of delivering a full-scale missile strike against many enemy targets and ensuring maximum damage. However, this does not happen. The international situation at the moment makes it possible to dispense with other instruments for promoting one's interests and not resort to the most serious means. However, under understandable circumstances, Russia will be forced to use strategic nuclear forces, and the result of this can hardly be perceived with irony.
