The big nuclear deception. how the USSR lost in arms reduction. Russian-American treaties on the reduction of nuclear weapons Reduction of nuclear weapons

In 1958, in response to the launch of the first artificial Earth satellite in the USSR, the Americans founded DARPA (Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency), an agency for advanced defense research projects. The main task of the new agency was to maintain the primacy in US military technology.

Today, as it was half a century ago, this agency, subordinate to the Pentagon, is responsible for maintaining the global technological superiority of the US military. Among the concerns of DARPA is the development of new technologies for use in the armed forces.

In February 2013, the agency's specialists began to actively prepare for a nuclear war. A project was launched to protect against radiation damage, including using methods that directly affect human DNA. We are talking about new methods of treatment, devices and systems that can mitigate the effects of radiation exposure. The main goal of the agency's project is to develop technologies that will radically reduce the susceptibility of the human body to high doses of radiation. Those who are treated with the latest technology have a high chance of survival.

Today, the efforts of scientists are directed in three directions: a) prevention and treatment after exposure to radiation; b) reducing the level of negative consequences and preventing death and the development of oncological complications; c) modeling the impact of radiation on the human body through research at the molecular and systemic levels.

The agency took up a new project because the level of nuclear threat in the world has increased and has not decreased. Today, any country may face the threat of nuclear terrorism, a catastrophe at a nuclear power plant or a local conflict with the use of nuclear weapons.

This project, of course, did not come out of nowhere. It is known that Barack Obama positions himself as a peacemaker. Atomic bombs, like Truman, he did not drop on foreign countries. And in general, he constantly talks about reductions in nuclear arsenals - not only Russian, but also native, American.

It was his peacemaking that reached the point that very influential misters turned to him with a written petition in which they tearfully asked not to reduce the nuclear weapons of the long-suffering homeland of the Republicans and Democrats.

The appeal to the president was signed by 18 people: former CIA director James Woolsey, former US representative to the UN John Bolton, former commander of the Marine Corps, General Karl Mundy and others. International analyst Kirill Belyaninov (Kommersant) believes that such an appeal was a confirmation that the White House is indeed working on plans to reduce nuclear arsenals.

According to some secret report, among the authors of which are individuals from the State Department, the Pentagon, the National Security Council, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, intelligence services and the US strategic command (in a word, a complete military secret set), the number of nuclear warheads in service with the country today "far exceeds the number needed to ensure nuclear deterrence", while in modern conditions an arsenal of 1-1.1 thousand warheads is quite enough. But a group of influential politicians who, of course, know these data, still demand that Obama abandon the "rash step."

What were the 18 misters afraid of?

The authors of the petition are confident that "the growing cooperation between Pyongyang and Tehran" can lead to "catastrophic changes." And the aspirations of Iran and North Korea can be restrained by the "American nuclear triad, which guarantees strategic stability," and only that, and nothing else.

The signatories of the document believe that the threshold set by the new START treaty is critical: by 2018, the Russian Federation and the United States must leave no more than 1,550 warheads on combat duty.

However, the Obama administration intends to continue talks with Moscow to reduce its stockpile of nuclear weapons.

The concern of eighteen people is based more on the interests of the US military-industrial complex than on the real situation. What "catastrophic changes" can Iran cause in the world? It is absurd to assume that gentlemen of the American politicians and the military, who signed the letter to their president, were frightened by Ahmadinejad's recent words that Iran is a "nuclear power." Or is 1550 warheads not enough to defeat the DPRK?

The reduction in stockpiles of nuclear weapons, which Obama is sure to enforce this time, is by no means a "working off" of the Nobel Peace Prize. The President of the United States is facing the fact of the collapse of the national economy: a huge public debt is also complemented by a large budget deficit, the issue of which is being solved through sequestration, cuts, layoffs, cuts in military programs and an extremely unpopular tax increase among any class of the population. Reducing nuclear stockpiles is a road to savings: after all, maintaining arsenals costs a lot of money.

Tom Vanden Brook (USA Today) recalls that the US military budget will be reduced by $ 500 billion over 10 years through sequestration - the so-called "automatic reduction". The Pentagon assumes that before the end of the current fiscal year (September 30), it will have to "cut off" spending by $46 billion. Former Defense Secretary Leon Panetta said the cuts would make America a minor military power.

The cuts will also affect military contractors. For example, the economic losses of Texas will amount to a gigantic sum of $2.4 billion. A whole army of civil servants - 30,000 people - will lose their jobs. Their personal financial loss in earnings will be $180 million.

In terms of maintenance, those states with large warehouses will suffer here, as they will be closed in the coming months due to upcoming budget cuts. Pennsylvania, for example, has two main maintenance depots where complex weapon systems are upgraded, including, for example, the Patriot. Texas and Alabama will be hit hard. The closure of the depot here will stop the repair of weapons, communication devices and vehicles. The reduction in the flow of orders will affect 3,000 companies. Another 1,100 companies will face the threat of bankruptcy.

The latest data on the estimated losses of contractors directly for nuclear services are not yet available. But that they will be is beyond doubt. Obama will look for any reserves in order to cut budget spending.

As for the calls to Russia, everything is clear here: it is somehow not convenient for America to reduce nuclear weapons alone. That's why we started talking about negotiations with the Russians. Moreover, Obama swung at a large reduction: either by a third, or by half. However, these are only rumors, albeit coming from the United States.

Vladimir Kozin ("Red Star") recalls that regarding information about further reductions in strategic offensive arms, White House spokesman Jay Carney said that he does not expect new announcements on this matter in the next presidential message to Congress. Indeed, in his message on February 13, the American president only indicated Washington's readiness to involve Russia in the reduction of "nuclear weapons", without specifying any quantitative parameters. Nevertheless, the fact remains: the reduction is planned. Another thing is how and in what ways.

V. Kozin believes that the United States “still intends to follow the path of selective reduction of nuclear weapons, focusing only on the further reduction of strategic offensive weapons. But at the same time, they completely exclude from the negotiation process such important types of non-nuclear weapons as anti-missile systems, anti-satellite weapons and high-precision means of delivering a "lightning strike" anywhere in the world... "According to the analyst, the United States is proposals and ideas" in the field of arms control, its far-reaching plans to deploy forward-based means in the form of tactical nuclear weapons and missile defense, destabilizing the global military-political situation and undermining the fragile military-strategic parity between Moscow and Washington, which has been established for several decades.

That is, nuclear weapons will be reduced selectively, and in parallel, the European missile defense system will be created, and the first will serve as a distraction for the second. And at the same time, it will probably free up money for this very second one. With budgetary sequestration, this is a very hot topic.

It is useless to accuse the Americans of slyness or double standards: politics is politics. Sergei Karaganov, Dean of the Faculty of World Economy and International Affairs at the National Research University Higher School of Economics, founder of the Council on Foreign and Defense Policy, chairman of the editorial board of Russia in Global Affairs magazine, says that "the idea of ​​a world free of nuclear weapons is slowly fading away."

“Moreover,” he continues, “if you trace the dynamics of the views of such famous people as Henry Kissinger, George Schultz, Sam Nunn and William Perry, who played a certain role in launching the idea of ​​nuclear zero, you will find that these famous four in the second article, published two years after their first article, already talked about the reduction and even elimination of nuclear weapons as a good goal, but really demanded more efficiency and strengthening of the existing US military nuclear complex. They realized that the United States of America could not ensure its security without nuclear weapons. Understanding perfectly well this whole situation, our leadership - both Putin and Medvedev - announced without batting an eyelid that they also stand for complete nuclear disarmament. To say otherwise would be to admit to bloodlust. But at the same time, we are building up and modernizing our nuclear potential.”

The scientist's confession is also interesting:

“Once I studied the history of the arms race, and since then I sincerely believe that nuclear weapons are something sent to us by the Almighty in order to save humanity. Because, otherwise, if there were no nuclear weapons, the deepest ideological and military-political confrontation in the history of mankind, the Cold War, would have ended with World War III.

The Russians should be thankful for their current sense of security, says Karaganov, Sakharov, Korolev, Kurchatov and their associates.

Let's go back to the USA. Under the 2010 nuclear doctrine, America retained the right to launch a nuclear strike first. True, it narrowed down the list of situations that lead to such use of the nuclear arsenal. In 2010, Obama announced the renunciation of the use of nuclear weapons against states that do not possess such weapons - on one condition: these countries must comply with the nonproliferation regime. Also in the strategic document it was stated: "... the United States is not ready to pursue a policy according to which the deterrence of a nuclear strike is the only goal of nuclear weapons." This speaks of a possible preventive use of nuclear weapons, albeit with the reservations cited above.

Both during the Cold War and after its conditional end, the United States and NATO did not rule out the option of using nuclear weapons against their opponents - and be the first to use them. The 2010 doctrine narrowed the list, but did not change the right of application.

Meanwhile, China announced a no-first-use policy almost half a century ago. Then India took the same position. Even North Korea - and she adheres to a similar position. One of the main objections to adopting the no-first-use doctrine, writes the American Foreign Policy magazine, is that the enemy can "act dishonestly" and strike first. However, there is no answer to the simple question of retribution. Why would an enemy arrange a nuclear catastrophe for himself? After all, the threat of guaranteed retaliatory destruction remains a very strong deterrent.

One can, of course, call Obama's policy logical. The same doctrine of 2010 was adopted at a time of growing concerns about terrorism. But what if nuclear bombs fall into the hands of terrorists? The President of the United States said in 2010: “The Concept recognizes that the greatest threat to the United States and global security is no longer nuclear war between states, but nuclear terrorism carried out by extremists and the process of nuclear proliferation ...”

Therefore, the current proposed reduction in nuclear arsenals is logically combined with the "taming" of what was called 3 years ago "the greatest threat to the United States and global security." The fewer nuclear weapons, as Foreign Policy magazine rightly notes, the less likely they are to fall into the hands of terrorists.

To create a perfectly clear logical picture, the White House lacks only one point. By declaring its right to be the first to use nuclear weapons, the United States is likening its artificially nurtured enemy, Al-Qaeda. The latter does not declare nuclear rights for obvious reasons. But, for even more understandable reasons, in case of "need" and with the appropriate opportunity, it will be the first to explode (it is not necessarily about a bomb: there is also a nuclear power plant). The right to a first, albeit “preventive,” nuclear strike puts America precisely in the ranks of those who threaten peace. Like Al Qaeda.

Reducing the number of nuclear warheads does not improve the security situation in the world. Experts from the Swedish International Peace Research Institute found that the reduction in the number of nuclear weapons has led to a significant increase in the quality of the remaining arsenals. The fear of observers caused the emergence of a new type of military conflicts.

Despite the countries' declared desire for nuclear disarmament, the reduction in the number of weapons of mass destruction is successfully offset by an increase in their quality.

Such conclusions are contained in the annual report released on Monday by the International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI). 19,000 nuclear weapons, which is about 1,500 less than in 2011.

At the same time, 4,400 nuclear weapons are ready for use, half of which are on high alert.

Quantitative and Qualitative Parameters of Limitations on Strategic Offensive Arms of Russia and the United States in the START-1 and START-3 Treaties

The institute's analysts see the main reasons for the reduction of nuclear warheads in the steps taken by Russia and the United States under the START treaty. Recall that the treaty provides that each of the parties reduces strategic offensive weapons in such a way that seven years after its entry into force and in the future, their total numbers will not exceed: 700 units for deployed ICBMs, SLBMs and HBs; 1550 units for warheads on them; 800 units for deployed and non-deployed ICBM, SLBM and HB launchers.

According to official data as of April this year, Russia had 1,492 nuclear warheads deployed, while Washington had 1,737. destroyed 45 warheads, and the United States - 63. However, the reduction in the number of warheads, SIPRI experts state, only led to the improvement of the remaining arsenals. The five officially recognized nuclear powers - China, France, Russia, the United Kingdom and the United States - are either deploying new nuclear delivery systems or have announced similar programs, the report says.

India and Pakistan continue to develop new nuclear delivery systems. According to the Stockholm Institute, the former has between 80 and 110 nuclear warheads, in Pakistan their number may vary from 90 to 110, and about 80 more units are in Israel.

The latter, in particular, as the German media wrote the other day, intends to place nuclear warheads on submarines bought in Germany.

"Despite the world's renewed interest in disarmament efforts, no nuclear-weapon state has so far shown more than rhetorical readiness to give up its nuclear arsenals," said Shannon Kyle, one of the report's authors.

However, both Russia and the United States, when signing the START treaty in 2010, made no secret of their intentions to modernize their nuclear potential. In particular, this right was assigned to Moscow during the ratification of the document in the State Duma. Moreover, as Defense Minister Anatoly Serdyukov noted at the time, after the entry into force of the treaty de facto, Russia will not eliminate a single missile, since the country will not be able to reach the level of warheads indicated in the treaty until 2018. installations, we will only reach the level set out in the treaty by 2028. As for warheads, by 2018 we will reach the level of 1.55 thousand units. Once again I say that we will not cut a single unit, ”he emphasized.

Another point that SIPRI specialists pay attention to in their report was the emergence of a new type of military conflicts in general. Experts made this conclusion on the basis of recent events in the Middle East and North Africa.

The Arab Spring, the report notes, demonstrated the growing complexity of armed conflict. “The events of the past year are not isolated, if we talk about the tendencies of the modern conflict. In fact, they echoed the changes that have taken place during armed conflicts for decades. All these changes allow us to talk about the emergence of a new type of conflict, which is increasingly complicating international intervention,” explained Neil Melvin, program director of the Institute for Armed Conflicts in this regard.

The final figures were achieved by the United States not only thanks to real arms reductions, but also due to the re-equipment of some of the Trident-II SLBM launchers and B-52H heavy bombers, the Russian Foreign Ministry said in a statement. At the same time, the Russian department clarifies that it cannot confirm that these strategic weapons have been rendered unusable, as provided for by the treaty.

How many charges are left

- 527 units for deployed ICBMs, deployed SLBMs and deployed heavy bombers;

- 1,444 warheads on deployed ICBMs, warheads on deployed SLBMs and nuclear warheads counted for deployed heavy bombers;

— 779 units for deployed and non-deployed launchers of ICBMs, deployed and non-deployed launchers of SLBMs, deployed and non-deployed heavy bombers.

The United States, according to the State Department on September 1 last year, had:

- 660 units for deployed ICBMs, deployed SLBMs and deployed heavy bombers;

- 1,393 warheads on deployed ICBMs, warheads on deployed SLBMs and nuclear warheads counted for deployed heavy bombers;

— 800 units for deployed and non-deployed launchers of ICBMs, deployed and non-deployed launchers of SLBMs, deployed and non-deployed heavy bombers.

Invitation to Negotiate

State Department spokeswoman Heather Nauert, in a statement on the implementation of the START treaty, noted that "the implementation of the new START increases the security of the United States and its allies, makes the strategic relations between the United States and Russia more stable,<...>critical at a time when trust in relationships has declined and the threat of misunderstandings and miscalculations has risen.” The United States, Nauert said, will continue to fully comply with New START. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs in its statement also confirmed its commitment to the treaty.

However, politicians and experts draw attention to the fact that it is time to start discussing the future of the treaty. “We must now decide what to do with the treaty,<...>it seems to be ending soon. We must think about how to extend it, what to do there,” Russian President Vladimir Putin drew attention to on January 30 this year at a meeting with proxies. There was no direct answer from US President Donald Trump to this question.

The current START expires in 2021, by agreement of the parties, as indicated in the text, it can be extended for five years. If the treaty is not extended or a new document is not signed instead, the United States and Russia will lose a unique instrument of mutual control, American experts draw attention. According to the State Department, since the beginning of the agreement, the parties have exchanged 14.6 thousand documents on the location and movement of weapons, conducted 252 on-site inspections, and 14 meetings within the framework of the commission on the agreement.

In order to extend START-3 for another five years, as the text of the agreement implies, it is enough for Moscow and Washington to exchange diplomatic notes. The chairman of the Council of the PIR Center, Lieutenant General of the Reserve Evgeny Buzhinsky, told RBC that due to the current political differences between Russia and the United States, it would be extremely difficult for the parties to agree on a fundamentally new agreement, so the extension of START-3 for five years looks like a much more possible scenario. .

Preparing a new agreement is a realistic and even desirable option if there is political will in Moscow and Washington, but if there is no political will, the parties will agree to extend the current version, Alexei Arbatov, head of the Center for International Security at IMEMO RAS, assures.

What to negotiate

Russia and the United States have been reducing strategic weapons for three decades, but the implementation of the terms of the START treaty is likely to put an end to the process of reducing nuclear arsenals, writes The New York Times. The priorities for the development of nuclear weapons and the creation of new low-yield nuclear weapons, indicated in the US Nuclear Forces Review adopted on February 2, will lead to a new nuclear arms race, but countries will now compete not in their number, but in tactical and technical characteristics, the newspaper writes.

The new American nuclear doctrine proclaims the concept of selective nuclear strikes and the introduction of systems of reduced explosive power and high accuracy, potentially setting the stage for an escalation of a nuclear conflict, Arbatov warns. That is why, the expert believes, a new, comprehensive agreement is needed that would address the problems of developing high-precision non-nuclear systems.

Even during the preparation of the current treaty, experts from both sides pointed out that the treaty base between Russia and the United States should be expanded to include non-strategic nuclear weapons, missile defense and other sensitive issues.

Until now, she is in charge of arms reduction issues in the State Department with the rank of acting. Assistant Secretary of State Anna Friedt said back in 2014 that the United States, together with NATO, should, in the future, when political conditions allow, develop and propose to Russia its position on non-strategic nuclear weapons. Non-strategic (tactical) weapons are characterized by low power, such weapons include aerial bombs, tactical missiles, shells, mines and other local range ammunition.

For Russia, the issue of non-strategic nuclear weapons is as fundamental as the issue of missile defense for the United States, Buzhinsky notes. “There are mutual taboos here, and none of them is ready to give in in areas where one of the parties has an advantage. Therefore, in the foreseeable future, we can only talk about further quantitative reduction. Discussion of the qualitative characteristics of weapons in the negotiation process is an old proposal, but in the current conditions it borders on fantasy,” he says.

Former US Secretary of Defense William Perry told RBC that the next START treaty should introduce restrictions on all types of nuclear weapons - not only strategic, but also tactical: “When people talk about what a nuclear arsenal is today, they mean about 5,000 warheads in service, which is already pretty bad. But we have a couple of thousand more nukes in stock in the US that can be used as well. And there are such shells not only in the United States, but also in Russia, the so-called tactical nuclear weapons.”

The expansion of the number of parties participating in the reduction of nuclear arsenals, according to Buzhinsky, is unlikely, since other nuclear powers - Great Britain, France, China - will logically require Moscow and Washington to first reduce the number of warheads to their level before entering into any agreements. .

The new agreement, according to Arbatov, should take into account topics that the drafters of START-3 bypassed. First of all, these are missile defense systems and the development of high-precision long-range non-nuclear systems. “Three years is enough for diplomats to prepare a new agreement on the basis of an existing one: START-3 was agreed upon in a year, START-1 was signed in 1991 after three years of work practically from scratch,” Arbatov sums up.

July 31, 1991 Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachev And US President George W. Bush The Treaty on the Reduction and Limitation of Strategic Offensive Arms (START-1) was signed. Despite the considerable efforts that have been made by the countries in this direction, the problem of mutual nuclear threat has not yet been resolved and is unlikely to be resolved in the near future. According to Russian military experts, this is due to the actions of the United States, which are pushing the world towards a new arms race.

On the brink of war

The nuclear race between the USSR and the USA has become a true attribute of the Cold War, which began in the late 50s. The world powers fiercely competed in military power, sparing neither money nor human resources on it. It is a paradox, but, perhaps, it was the super-efforts in this race that did not allow any of the countries to unambiguously surpass the “potential adversary” in terms of armament, which means they maintained parity. But in the end, both superpowers were armed even beyond measure. At some point, the talk turned to the reduction of strategic arms - but also on a parity basis.

The first talks to limit nuclear stocks were held in Helsinki in 1969. This period includes the signing of the SALT-1 treaty by the leaders of the countries. It limited the number of ballistic missiles and launchers on both sides to the level at which they were at that moment, and also provided for the adoption of new ballistic missiles strictly in the amount in which obsolete ground-based missiles were previously decommissioned. The second agreement - SALT-2 (essentially continuing the first one) - was signed 10 years later. It introduced a restriction on the placement of nuclear weapons in space (R-36orb orbital missiles) and although it was not ratified by the US Senate, nevertheless, according to experts, it was carried out by both sides.

The next stage of negotiations on the need to reduce strategic weapons took place in 1982, but did not lead to anything. Negotiations were repeatedly suspended and resumed again.

In October 1986, at the Soviet-American summit in Reykjavik, the USSR put forward a proposal for a 50% reduction in strategic forces and agreed not to take into account the strategic weapons available to US NATO allies. However, the proposals of the Soviet Union were linked to the obligation not to withdraw from the ABM Treaty signed in 1972. Perhaps that is why these proposals remained unanswered.

In September 1989, the USSR decided not to link the issue of missile defense with the conclusion of an agreement on the reduction of strategic arms, and also not to include sea-based cruise missiles in the scope of the new treaty. It took about two years to finalize the text. After the collapse of the USSR, Russia, Belarus, Kazakhstan and Ukraine recognized themselves as his successors under the treaty, on whose territory nuclear weapons were deployed. By signing the Lisbon Protocol in May 1992, Belarus, Kazakhstan and Ukraine pledged to eliminate or transfer nuclear weapons under Russian control. Soon, as non-nuclear states, they acceded to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT).

The Treaty on the Reduction and Limitation of Strategic Offensive Arms (START-1) was signed on July 31, 1991 in Moscow by the presidents of the USSR and the USA, Mikhail Gorbachev and George W. Bush. It forbade the development and deployment of air-launched ballistic missiles, heavy ballistic missiles, underwater launchers of ballistic and cruise missiles, means of high-speed reloading of launchers, increasing the number of charges on existing missiles, and converting "conventional" nuclear weapons delivery vehicles. True, the document entered into force only on December 5, 1994, becoming the first (ratified) arms control treaty to provide a real reduction in deployed strategic weapons and establish a strict regime for verifying its implementation.

How much was and how much became

The system for monitoring the implementation of the START-1 treaty included conducting mutual checks at the base sites, notification of the production, testing, movement, deployment and destruction of strategic offensive weapons. At the time of the signing of START-1, as of September 1990, the USSR had 2,500 "strategic" carriers, on which 10,271 warheads were deployed. The US had 2,246 carriers with 10,563 warheads.

In December 2001, Russia and the United States announced that they had fulfilled their obligations: Russia had 1,136 carriers and 5,518 warheads left, while the United States had 1,237 and 5,948, respectively. Moscow on January 3, 1993. In many respects, he relied on the basis of the START-1 treaty, but assumed a sharp reduction in the number of ground-based missiles with multiple warheads. However, the document did not enter into force, since the United States did not complete the ratification process, in 2002 withdrawing from the 1972 ABM Treaty, to which START-2 was linked.

Proposals for the development of START-3 began to be discussed in March 1997 during consultations Russian and US Presidents Boris Yeltsin And Bill Clinton in Helsinki. This treaty was planned to establish "ceilings" at the level of 2000-2500 strategic nuclear warheads, there was also an intention to give the treaty an indefinite character. However, at that time the document was not signed. The initiative to restart a new negotiation process in June 2006 was made by Russian President Vladimir Putin.

But the development of the document began in April 2009 immediately after the meeting President Dmitry Medvedev And Barack Obama in London as part of the G20 summit. Negotiations began in May 2009, and ended 11 months later with the signing of an agreement by the presidents of Russia and the United States on April 8, 2010 in Prague (START-3, the "Prague Treaty"). Its official name is the Treaty between the United States and the Russian Federation on measures to further reduce and limit strategic offensive arms. In February 2011, it entered into force and will be valid for 10 years.

During the development of the document, Russia was armed with 3897 nuclear warheads and 809 deployed carriers and launchers, while the United States was armed with 5916 nuclear warheads and 1188 carriers and launchers. As of June 2011, when Russia and the United States first exchanged data under START-3, Russia had 1,537 warheads, 521 deployed carriers, and, together with non-deployed ones, 865 warheads. The United States has 1,800 warheads, 882 deployed carriers, with a total number of 1,124. Thus, even then Russia did not violate the threshold established by the treaty for deployed carriers of 700 units and lagged behind the United States in all respects.

“I can hardly evaluate the signing of the disarmament treaty, because the parity was violated by the United States, which is now headed by the fighter for peace, the Nobel laureate comrade Obama. In fact, then the Americans deceived us. They never told us the truth. When the USSR collapsed, they clapped their hands. They promised that NATO would not expand, but it has already approached the borders of Russia to such an extent that it is within easy reach, ”says Head of the State Duma Defense Committee Vladimir Komoyedov, hinting at the unreliability of partnership with America.

Military expert Igor Korotchenko I agree that the termination of the military race of the USSR was the right decision, but at the same time it was completely uneven.

“Nuclear weapons in the days of the USSR were redundant with us. In the same way as it was redundant among the Americans. Therefore, it was necessary to reduce objectively. But we just got really into it. We first began to reduce nuclear forces, then agreed to the elimination of the Warsaw Pact without any clear compensation from the West. After that, the well-known events related to the collapse of the USSR took place, ”Igor Korotchenko explained to AiF.ru.

Not quantity, but quality

At the moment, experts say that parity has been restored.

“It was achieved a very long time ago. But the quality was up to the US, which has about two-thirds of its nuclear-tipped missiles in submarines that are constantly on the move. And we have them all on stationary launchers, which are easier to hit. Therefore, the Americans came up with the concept of a lightning strike and, plus, today they are building an additional missile defense system, but in fact this is a surveillance system, and fire support, and the line itself. Plus, they installed a ship line in the English Channel and strengthened the continental industrial region of New York, ”Komoedov explained to AiF.ru.

According to him, the United States today wants to intimidate Russia and dictate its terms to it, but “they need to hide these emotions and ambitions somewhere” and instead start negotiating.

In 2014, for the first time since the beginning of the 21st century, Russia caught up with the United States both in terms of the number of deployed and non-deployed launch vehicles and the number of warheads (including in connection with the adoption of new Project 955 nuclear submarines equipped with Bulava missiles with several warheads; in addition, the Topol-M intercontinental ballistic missiles with one warhead were replaced by Yars missiles with three warheads). So, as of September 1, 2014, the United States had 794 deployed carriers, and Russia - only 528. At the same time, the number of warheads on deployed carriers in the United States is 1642, in Russia - 1643, while the number of deployed and non-deployed installations in the United States - 912, Russia has 911.

According to the data of the US State Department on the implementation of START-3 dated January 1, 2016, the United States has 762 deployed carriers of nuclear warheads, Russia has 526. and non-deployed launchers of ICBMs, SLBMs and HBs in the USA - 898, in Russia - 877.

According to Korotchenko, first of all, the parity is based on the implementation of the existing restrictions under the START-3 treaty, which is a strategic further step in reducing nuclear weapons.

“Today, the renewal of the Russian strategic nuclear forces is taking place, primarily due to the receipt of new solid-propellant intercontinental ballistic missiles RS 24 Yars of silo and mobile basing, which will form the basis of the grouping of strategic missile forces for a period of 30 years. A decision was also made to start developing a combat railroad missile system, plus a new heavy liquid-fuel intercontinental ballistic missile is being developed. These are the main directions associated with maintaining parity in terms of the Strategic Missile Forces (Strategic Missile Forces). With regard to our naval nuclear forces, Borey-class submarine missile cruisers with Bulava sea-based intercontinental ballistic missiles are now being serially built and handed over to the fleet. That is, there is parity in naval nuclear forces, ”says Korotchenko, noting that Russia can respond to the United States in the airspace as well.

But as for the proposals that come from the United States on further reduction of nuclear weapons or on nuclear zero in general, Russia, the expert believes, will not respond to these proposals.

“For the United States, the role of nuclear weapons is declining every year, due to the fact that they develop conventional strike precision weapons that achieve the same effect as with the use of nuclear weapons. Russia, on the other hand, stakes on nuclear forces as the basis of our military power and maintaining balance in the world. Therefore, we will not give up nuclear weapons, ”the expert says, emphasizing the inexpediency of further reductions in nuclear weapons.

According to him, America is now pushing the world to resume the arms race by all its actions, but this should not be succumbed to.

“We need to maintain a self-sufficient defense balance,” Korotchenko said.

According to the United States interpretation, the strategic arms reduction treaty reduces the number of deployed warheads that are mounted on launch vehicles and ready to launch. The common arsenal of nuclear weapons in Russia and the United States contains other types of weapons. In addition to deployed strategic nuclear weapons, both countries use tactical nuclear weapons, which are designed for use in ground military operations, have a smaller yield and a shorter range.

At present, the total stockpile of US nuclear weapons is about 11,000 warheads, including nearly 7,000 deployed strategic warheads; more than 1,000 tactical nuclear weapons and nearly 3,000 strategic and tactical warheads that are not mounted on delivery systems. (The US also possesses thousands of nuclear warhead components that can be assembled into full-fledged weapons.)

Currently, the Russian nuclear arsenal includes about 5,000 deployed nuclear weapons, about 3,500 operational tactical nuclear weapons, and more than 11,000 strategic and tactical warheads in stock. All this makes up a total stockpile of 19,500 nuclear warheads. Unlike the United States, Russia only partially owns these stocks, as dismantling warheads is very expensive. Also unlike the US, Russia continues to produce a limited number of new nuclear warheads, mainly because its warheads have a much shorter lifespan and must be replaced more frequently.

Treaties on the control of strategic nuclear weapons

OSV-1

Starting in November 1969, negotiations on limiting strategic offensive weapons led in 1972 to a treaty on the limitation of anti-missile defense systems (ABM), which prohibits the creation of an anti-missile defense of the country's territory. An Interim Agreement was also signed, according to which the parties undertake not to start building additional stationary launchers of land-based intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs). The parties also undertake to limit the number of launchers for ballistic missiles of submarines (BRS) and the number of modern ballistic missile submarines to the number in service and under construction at the date of signing the agreement. This agreement does not touch upon the topic of strategic bombers and warheads and allows both countries to make their own decisions about increasing the number of weapons used by adding warheads to ICBMs and submarine-launched ballistic missiles. Under this treaty, the United States may not have more than 1,054 ICBM silo launchers and 656 submarine-launched ballistic missile launchers. The Soviet Union was limited to 1607 silo ICBMs and 740 submarine launchers.

OSV-2

In November 1972, Washington and Moscow agreed to conclude a treaty, which is a continuation of SALT 1. The SALT-2 treaty, signed in June 1979, initially limited the number of Soviet and American launchers of ICBMs, submarine submarines, and heavy bombers to 2,400.

Various restrictions on deployed strategic nuclear forces were also identified. (In 1981, the treaty proposed to reduce the number of launch vehicles to 2250). The terms of this treaty required the Soviet Union to reduce the number of launch vehicles by 270 units. At the same time, the amount of US military capacity was below the established norm and could be increased.

President Jimmy Carter withdrew the Treaty from the Senate, where it was in the process of being ratified after Soviet troops entered Afghanistan in December 1979. This Treaty has never entered into force. Nevertheless, since the parties did not declare their intention to refuse to ratify the Treaty, Washington and Moscow continued to generally comply with its provisions. However, on May 2, 1986, President Ronald Reagan said that future decisions on strategic nuclear weapons would be based on the emerging threat, not on the terms of the SALT treaty.

START-1

The Strategic Weapons Reduction Treaty was first proposed in the early 1980s by President Reagan and finally signed in July 1991. The main provisions of the START-1 Treaty are to reduce the number of strategic delivery vehicles to the level of 1,600 units and the number of warheads deployed on these delivery vehicles to 6,000 units. The treaty obligated to destroy the rest of the carriers. Their destruction was confirmed through site inspections and regular exchange of information, as well as through the use of technical means (eg satellites). The entry into force of the treaty was delayed for several years due to the collapse of the Soviet Union and efforts to concentrate nuclear weapons from Belarus, Ukraine and Kazakhstan on Russian territory. Armament reductions under the terms of the START-1 treaty were carried out in 2001. This agreement is valid until 2009, unless the parties renew it.

START-2

In July 1992, Presidents George W. Bush and Boris Yeltsin agreed to amend the START I treaty. The START II treaty, signed in January 1993, obliged the parties to reduce their strategic arsenals to 3,000-3,500 warheads and banned the use of land-based missiles with multiple warheads. START 2 dealt with warheads on the same principle as START 1, and, like the previous treaty, required the destruction of launch vehicles, but not warheads. Initially, January 2003 was set as the contract execution date. In 1997, the date was moved to December 2007 because Russia was unsure of its ability to meet the original deadline. The treaty never entered into force, as Russia tied its ratification to the approval of the New York Protocols to the START-2 and ABM treaties, signed in 1997. In 2001, the Bush administration took a firm course in deploying a massive anti-missile defense system in the United States and abandoning the ABM Treaty.

The structure of the START-3 treaty

In March 1997, Presidents Clinton and Yeltsin agreed on the structure of the START-3 treaty for subsequent negotiations, the terms of which included the reduction of strategic warheads to the level of 2000-2500 units. The essential point is that this treaty stipulated the destruction of strategic nuclear warheads to ensure the irreversibility of the arms reduction process, including the prerequisites for preventing a sharp increase in the number of warheads. Negotiations were supposed to start after START II came into force, which never happened.

Moscow Treaty on the Reduction of Strategic Offensive Arms (SORT).

On May 24, 2002, Presidents George W. Bush and Vladimir Putin signed an agreement under which the United States and Russia are to reduce their strategic arsenals to between 1,700 and 2,200 warheads. Although the parties did not agree on rules for counting warheads, the Bush administration made it clear that the US would only reduce warheads deployed on launch vehicles and would not count warheads decommissioned from active service and stored as reduced. Russia did not agree with this approach to interpreting the treaty and hopes for negotiations on the rules for counting reduced warheads. The restrictions under the treaty are the same as under START III, but SORT does not require the destruction of launch vehicles, unlike START I and START II, ​​or the destruction of warheads, as prescribed in START III. This treaty has yet to be approved by the Senate and the Duma.

strategic arms control treaties.
Number of warheads used	Limits the number of missiles, not warheads	Limits the number of missiles and bombers, does not limit warheads
Number of launch vehicles used	USA: 1,710 ICBMs and ballistic missiles on submarines; USSR: 2,347 ICBMs and ballistic missiles on submarines;			Does not stipulate	Does not stipulate	Does not stipulate
	Expired	Not in force		Not in force	Not considered	Signed, awaiting ratification.
date of signing					Not applicable
Effective Date		Not applicable		Not applicable	Not applicable
Period of execution	Not applicable
Expiration date					Not applicable

Measures to control non-strategic nuclear weapons

Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty

Signed on December 8, 1987, this Treaty requires the United States and Russia to accountably destroy all ground-based ballistic and cruise missiles with a range of 500 to 5,500 kilometers. Distinguished by its unprecedented verification regime, the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty formed the basis of the verification component of the subsequent START I treaty on the reduction of strategic nuclear weapons. The Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty entered into force on June 1, 1988, and both sides completed reductions by June 1, 1992, when a total of 2,692 missiles remained. The Treaty became multilateral after the collapse of the Soviet Union, and today the parties to the Treaty are the United States, Russia, Belarus, Kazakhstan and Ukraine. Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan are also parties to the agreements, but do not participate in Treaty meetings and site inspections. The effect of the ban on medium-range missiles is unlimited.

Presidential Nuclear Security Initiatives

On September 27, 1991, President Bush announced the US intention to phase out almost all US tactical nuclear weapons so that Russia would do the same, thereby reducing the risk of nuclear proliferation when the Soviet Union collapsed. Bush specifically stated that the US would destroy all artillery shells and short-range nuclear ballistic warheads and remove all non-strategic nuclear warheads from the surface of ships, submarines and land-based naval aircraft. Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev retaliated on October 5th by promising to destroy all nuclear artillery equipment, nuclear warheads for tactical missiles, and all nuclear explosives. He also promised to phase out all Soviet tactical naval nuclear weapons. However, serious questions remain about the fulfillment of these promises on the Russian side, and there is great uncertainty about the current state of the Russian tactical nuclear forces.