Tip:
Highlight text to annotate it
X
Steven Pifer, director of the Initiative on Arms Control and Non-Proliferation at the Brookings Institute
U.S. forces are now seeking modernization in the same manner as Russia today
is modernizing its nuclear arsenal and its armed forces.
A new submarine carrier of nuclear missiles has been launched.
It took America a bit longer to take a decision to modernize its armed forces and, in particular, the nuclear arsenal,
because it all starts with writing off old submarines and nuclear missiles by both parties - both America and Russia.
Systems that become obsolete are replaced by new ones.
When in 2010 President Obama published a program on nuclear forces, among other things,
the role of nuclear power was pointed out in the Declaration on the Protection of the U.S. armed forces.
So I think you can see that there are efforts invested in modernization
and, at the same time, efforts are aimed at reducing the nuclear potential.
When he was in Berlin in June, he made a couple of statements on the reduction of strategic nuclear forces
down to 1,500 warheads, President Obama has proposed reducing the nuclear potential, the nuclear arsenal, by a third.
And the U.S. officials, that's what I was told,
at the same time the U.S. is also ready to reduce the number of new strategic weapons, our missiles and warheads.
The President has called for a reduction in strategic forces,
but there has been no reaction to this statement on the part of Russia.
Vladimir Dvorkin, senior research fellow of the Institute of World Economy and International Relations at the Academy of Sciences of Russia, retired Major General
The Berlin Initiative of President Obama has essentially remained unsettled,
because it was certainly not talking about a unilateral reduction of down to 1000 of weapons,
for example, but about a mutual reduction between Russia and the United States.
But the Russian government, President Vladimir Putin, has said that we cannot further reduce our own nuclear weapons.
He said "unilaterally", but I think he was referring to the mutual reduction involving Russia and the U.S.,
the next would be to talk about a multilateral reduction of nuclear weapons.
That is why at the moment I do not see any prospects for immediate negotiations
in the START framework regarding nuclear arms reduction to the level of,
for example, a thousand warheads, but from a military point of view, from the security perspective,
it would be possible and effective, especially because Russia has to catch up from the bottom,
to reach the level of the Prague Treaty.
Based on the exchanged results,
at the moment we possess 1400 warheads in our arsenal, while the allowed amount is 1550.
The possibility of multilateral, I would not say disarmament,
but multilateral control and limitation of nuclear weapons,
is an extremely complex issue that goes far beyond our traditional relations in the field of nuclear disarmament,
because there can be no talk about any multilateral treaty at the moment.
No one will go for it, even the official members of the nuclear club, the United Kingdom, France and especially China,
who believe that Russia and the United States are too much
and have too great an advantage in terms of strategic weapons and tactical weapons,
and it is absolutely impossible to negotiate even something here.
This is true, and at the moment I do not see any prospects of multilateral treaties.
With regard to modernization.
I think that the modernization of nuclear weapons is natural.
It is ongoing in the U.S. and in Russia.
If we look at the U.S. nuclear arsenal, B-52 bombers have been there since the 1950-1960's.
Land complexes with Minuteman-3 missiles also have been around for more than a dozen years,
and there is no more room for their improvement.
So naturally, when reducing armaments one has to put aside and make up for what will be written off the arsenal with improved,
upgraded types of weapons.
Russia is doing the same.
Sergei Oznobischev, head of the Institute of World Economy and International Relations at the Academy of Sciences of Russia, Professor at the Moscow State Institute of International Relations at the Foreign Ministry of Russia
There is a tremendous atmosphere of distrust, and in this atmosphere of distrust to do something positive,
to initiate some new talks on strategic stability or keep repeating that the missile defense system in Europe poses no threats...
It is a waste of time, a waste of taxpayers' money, it is an especially sensitive issue for the Americans,
and in fact it causes a regress in our relations.
How and when we are going to do it, I still do not know.
The situation is quite paradoxical and difficult.
In my opinion, first of all, the West, America, has to stop repeating the same arguments that do not work.
And some of them have not been working already for decades, they are still repeated.
For example, that "the expansion of NATO does not threaten you and it is not clear why you are concerned about it."
Well, we are, and we have been already for more than 20 years.
Currently, a similar situation exists in case of the missile defense system, though,
to the credit of Obama and the White House, I must say that the program has indeed been modernized,
but the perception is very, very cautious.
So we must pass on to a dialogue, a dialogue which would be very lively and partner-based,
which would react very quickly to the concerns of the other side.
Looking ahead, I would like to say that I think that arguments about the missile defense system
(that it will be even lower, weaker and perhaps will not even fly anywhere)
would no longer influence our experts, the majority of experts.
In my opinion, it is necessary to work very constructively and fulfil the promises,
the commitments that we have given, perhaps too light-heartedly, but nevertheless we have.