#7
Nezavisimaya Gazeta
December 19, 2002
ARMS RACE RENEWED
The US and Russia seem to have launched a new arms race
Author: Sergey Sokut
[from WPS Monitoring Agency, www.wps.ru/e_index.html]

PRESIDENT BUSH HAS ANNOUNCED PLANS FOR A GLOBAL MISSILE DEFENSE SYSTEM. ALTHOUGH TECHNICALLY THIS SYSTEM IS A MATTER OF THE REMOTE FUTURE, RUSSIA IS ALREADY MAKING PLANS TO RESTORE THE STRATEGIC NUCLEAR BALANCE. IT HAS CHANGED ITS NUCLEAR MISSILE PROGRAMS TO RAISE THE NUMBER OF WARHEADS.

President George W. Bush has officially announced plans for a missile defense system meant to protect the US, as well as its friends and allies. The statement of President Bush contains a number of fundamentally new elements.

First, it is clear that it is dictated by purely political considerations, as technically the system is not ready to be deployed that soon. This, for example, was shown by a recent failure test of the system's experimental segment.

Second, the president's statement implies the US is by no means creating a "national missile defense", but a global comprehensive system which in future must cover every area on the planet where ballistic missiles threaten America's interests. Washington is not going to confine itself to the most missile-dangerous - North Asian - direction. This is said by the address to the UK and Denmark which are wished to give consent for using the facilities existing on their territories in behalf of the missile defense system.

Announcing the missile defense system deployment, Bush demonstrated that the US is not going to adjust or even discuss with Moscow its steps in the missile defense area. It is not by chance that aide of the Russian president Marshal Sergeyev said yesterday that Russia was not provided "any weighty arguments that the missile defense system deployment will not lead to decline in the efficiency of Russia's strategic nuclear forces".

The official response of Russia's Foreign Ministry was restrained and boiled down to expressing "regret" in connection with "the activation of the US attempts to create the so-called "global missile defense". However, analysis of the real steps of the two sides shows that, evading public confrontation which would be out of place against the background of joint fight with terrorism, Washington and Moscow launched a new round of arms race about a year ago.

Such conclusions can in particular be drawn from the development plans of the Strategic Missile Troops (SMT) which this week have been made public by Colonel-General Nikolay Solovtsov, commander of this combat arm that makes the basis of Russia's nuclear forces (3,115 out of 5,517 warheads). These plans most drastically disagree with the decisions made in 2000. Bitter debate between Defense Minister Igor Sergeyev and Chief of the General Staff Anatoly Kvashnin entailed then a decision on a radical reduction of the SMT. In particular, it was assumed to completely liquidate or disarm multiple-charge missiles. The program which is accomplished currently notably exceeds Sergeyev's maximal version.

No missile or warhead will be liquidated before their warranty periods expires, General Solovtsov says. At the same time, these periods will be maximally increased. Heavy RS-20 missiles (SS-18 "Satan" according to the western classification) will remain in arsenals until 2015-2020. Owing to their 10 warheads with individual guidance, these missiles are the most effective means to overcome that missile defense system which the US will be able to deploy in the remote future. The present plan yields the previous one only in the rates of putting new Topol-M missiles into operational deployment (6- 10 missiles a year instead of 10-20).

Moscow is not even confused with the fact that the plans to preserve multiple-charge missiles in its arsenals will have to be adjusted with the obligations for the Treaty on Strategic Offensive Reductions. That document prescribes to have 1700-2200 strategic nuclear warheads by December 2012. Meanwhile, 1480 and 900 warheads are deployed only at the multiple-charge RS-20 and RS-18 ICBMs respectively. In theory, at least half of them can be preserved by 2012.

It is of interest that the real strategy of the two sides that claim partnership and even allied relations was made public practically simultaneously, which is hardly a simple coincidence.

To close the topic, which, no doubt, is yet to be discussed in every aspect, let's ask ourselves a question: why did Russia announce unilateral cuts in 2000-01, in the period of bargaining with Americans over the ABM and START treaties, but after the case has been lost it is now trying to restore the cracked strategic balance? Or is the point really that the debates of 2000 were invented only for the sake of fighting for top jobs in the Armed Forces? (Translated by P. Pikhnovsky )

BACK TO THE TOP    #236 CONTENTS    NEXT ARTICLE