Russia says too early to talk tactical nuclear weapons with United States

[Lankan Ranger]

Russia says too early to talk tactical nuclear weapons with United States

It is too early to discuss limiting tactical nuclear weapons (TNW) with the United States, Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov said.

When ratifying the New START arms deal with Russia in December, the United States Senate adopted a resolution obligating the government to start bilateral talks on cutting the TNW stockpiles - landmines, artillery shells and short-range missiles. Washington says Moscow has a larger number of these systems.

"We are not even close to discussing the prospect of concluding any agreement in this sphere, the more so as we don't know yet how the [new] ratified arms reduction treaty will be implemented," Ryabkov told Russian journalists Friday.

"Until we see the way commitments undertaken within its framework are fulfilled and to what extent the sides are acting in line with the treaty's letter and spirit, this issue will be premature for us," he said.
Russian President Dmitry Medvedev signed off on the new pact ratification documents on Friday.

The Russian parliament's upper house ratified the new START treaty on Wednesday. The lower house, the State Duma, ratified the pact Tuesday, adding some provisions to the ratification document and issuing two supplementary statements to the resolution on the treaty ratification.

The ratification document provides a legally-binding clause that links strategic offensive and strategic defensive weapons.

The first supplementary statement addresses the current state and the future of Russia's nuclear deterrent, while the second outlines the State Duma's position on the reduction and limitations of strategic offensive armaments.

The new deal, replacing START 1, which expired in December 2009, was signed by Medvedev and U.S. President Barack Obama in Prague in April 2010. The document slashes the Russian and U.S. nuclear arsenals to a maximum of 1,550 nuclear warheads, down from the current ceiling of 2,200.

The U.S. Senate ratified the deal on December 22, 2010, but added several amendments to the resolution on ratification, including a demand to build up U.S. global missile defenses.

Medvedev said the treaty will formally enter into force after the exchange of ratification documents, which is due to take place at the upcoming meeting between Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov and State Secretary Hillary Clinton.

The meeting could take place in Munich on February 4-5.

Russia says too early to talk tactical nuclear weapons with United States | Defense | RIA Novosti

 

[Chogy]

Russia knows she has a great superiority in tactical nukes, and understandably wants to retain that lead. I find the entire notion of tactical employment to be dangerous, and very likely to escalate into strategic use.

 

[mnd]

Russia's position is clear: no talk until the US agrees to retire all tactical nukes from Europe.

 

[Chogy]

Russia's position is clear: no talk until the US agrees to retire all tactical nukes from Europe.

Which would give them a 99% monopoly on the presence of tactical nuclear weapons on the Continent.

Why does this seem like a crap deal to me?

 

[mnd]

Which would give them a 99% monopoly on the presence of tactical nuclear weapons on the Continent.

Why does this seem like a crap deal to me?

The idea is to retire nuclear weapons from Europe and Russia to move most of them beyond the Urals. Neither Europe or Russia are interested in tensions. The US cheated many times and Russia is very strict on that issue. Until the US compromises to withdraw all tactical weapons to inside their borders, and disminish their military presence, there will be no reductions of any kind.

 

[Chogy]

The idea is to retire nuclear weapons from Europe and Russia to move most of them beyond the Urals. Neither Europe or Russia are interested in tensions. The US cheated many times and Russia is very strict on that issue. Until the US compromises to withdraw all tactical weapons to inside their borders, and disminish their military presence, there will be no reductions of any kind.

And the Soviets/Russians never cheated, right?

Move MOST of them? Leave a handful "just in case"?

Actually, all of the arms reduction treaties have been successful, with both sides making significant strides in reductions. But the notion that Russia "will withdraw most of its tactical weapons beyond the Urals" seems to me to be a bit of a joke. What are they going to do, let inspectors verify the exact location of all their tac nuclear weapons? At all times? What is to prevent them from re-introducing them to forward bases?

In the mean-time, our tac nukes would be 4,000+ nm away.

Sorry, the U.S. has defensive commitments to NATO.

I've got a better answer. How about the U.S. and Russia destroy all their tactical devices, instead of us moving them 4,000 miles away, while theirs are only 1200 to 1600 nm away from NATO countries?

 

[Abu Zolfiqar]

do Russian reccon aircrafts still fly near Hawaii or Alaska

 

[SekrutYakhni]

"Sorry, the U.S. has defensive commitments to NATO."

So that is your problem, deal with it. Either, move away or stay and look at the other side of the border.

 

[mnd]

And the Soviets/Russians never cheated, right?

Move MOST of them? Leave a handful "just in case"?

Offcourse there will be destruction, but 80% of russia´s tactical weapons potential is on the European area, destroy all them will mean a drastic reduction in russia´s military capacity, impossible given their geopolitical and geographical situations. Complete retirement would be in case of US cease of military presence and reductions of Nato countries as well.

Actually, all of the arms reduction treaties have been successful, with both sides making significant strides in reductions.

Wrong, take a look at the "Conventional arms reduction" treaty. Russia was the first to ratify but then withdrew simply because Nato did not accomplish it, US in fact increased it´s presence.

But the notion that Russia "will withdraw most of its tactical weapons beyond the Urals" seems to me to be a bit of a joke. What are they going to do, let inspectors verify the exact location of all their tac nuclear weapons? At all times? What is to prevent them from re-introducing them to forward bases?
In the mean-time, our tac nukes would be 4,000+ nm away.

You are stating that Russia should completely destroy their arsenal? that´s absurd, look at their borders. Foreign military presence near your borders is a belligerent act, not the amount of weapons you have. All these reductions are simbolic anyway, the probability of a European large scale conflict is non existant, European country´s are in fact fighting different wars. These (France, UK,Germany) started reforms and big cuts and have shifted to smaller local high intensity conflicts, while Russia has focused from Europe to the South and the East. But US doctrine on Europe is an anachronism, and they persist on maintainig their big presence.

I've got a better answer. How about the U.S. and Russia destroy all their tactical devices, instead of us moving them 4,000 miles away, while theirs are only 1200 to 1600 nm away from NATO countries?

Again, that´s impossible for Russia given their situation, and the US refusal to take them to their soil, wich is a purely belligerent act. And you have also to take in account third country´s arsenals, France, UK and China, as Lavrov (foreign minister) stated.

 

[Chogy]

To understand this, one must examine history.

The truth is that during the cold war, the Soviets had a massive advantage in mechanized units, manpower, and front-line aviation. Calculations showed that NATO units in-place would be unable to stop a Soviet armored thrust, and the notion of tactical nukes was born. The Soviets also began to build them in great numbers, until there was overkill in the quantities of weapons.

What to do about Russia's overwhelming advantage in tactical nuclear weapons was among several tough issues for the Obama administration that emerged from the Senate debate on the strategic nuclear arms reduction treaty...

The Russians have some 3,800 tactical weapons, compared with less than 500 in the U.S. stockpile, Risch said...

A 1991 agreement between President George H.W. Bush and Russian President Mikhail Gorbachev called for both countries to remove their tactical weapons to central locations and destroy all nuclear artillery, demolition mines and warheads for short-range missiles. There were no provisions for verification on either side, and none has taken place.

Risch and other Republicans pointed out that as Russian troop levels have diminished, Moscow's military leaders have focused increasingly on tactical nuclear weapons.

Russian tactical nuclear weapons still an issue after START treaty ratification

So Russia is whining about U.S. tac nukes, while they have thousands in place and ready to go? Give me a break.

In the mean time, Obama signs a treaty highly favorable to Russia.
BBC News - New Start treaty: Obama signs US-Russia nuclear papers

Russian paranoia is nothing new. If NATO wanted to pound Russia, it would have happened already, either between 1946 and 1952, or in the chaos following the dissolution of the USSR.