Bombe Surprise (Did Russia Pwn Zero at Nuke Talks?)

Aviation Week Ares Blog ^ | March 30, 2010 | Bill Sweetman

[Yo-Yo]

The New START Treaty agreed by President Barack Obama and Russian President Dmitri Medvedev - to be signed in Prague next month - leaves the door open to an increase in nuclear weapon numbers, arms control veteran Keith Payne noted on Monday at a forum hosted by the Brookings Institution.

Noting that long-range bombers are counted as a single weapon in the treaty - equivalent to a single missile warhead - National Institute for Public Policy President Payne asked: "Who has announced a requirement for a strategic bomber? Who is working on a long-range cruise missile?"

The answer in both cases is Russia, where Prime Minister Vladimir Putin reaffirmed a military requirement for a PAK-DA bomber weeks ago, and the Kh-101/102 cruise missile, bigger than the earlier Kh-55 and with a greater range, has been tested on the Tu-95MS16. Each side is permitted a total of 800 missile launchers and bombers, so aggressive deployment of bombers could increase the total of long-range nuclear weapons to 3,000-3500 - well over the limit of 1550 "warheads".

The same point's being made over at the Federation of American Scientists blog by Ivan Oelrich: "If we define corn as a type of tree, then suddenly Iowa would be covered in forests. If we define a bomber with 20 bombs as a single bomb, then suddenly we get a substantial reduction in the nuclear of weapons."

Payne and fellow panelist Tom Donnelly from the American Enterprise Institute were both skeptical about the effect of the administration's "nuclear zero" doctrine and rhetoric on arms negotiations. Donnelly argues that nuclear posture should be a subset of US strategic goals and that nuclear weapons "have been recognized as a useful tool of statecraft."

Even the Brookings' own Michael O'Hanlon argues that "a very low state of readiness" is a more realistic goal than "zero" - as a hedge against cheating, as a deterrent against conventional force build-ups, and as a deterrent against non-nuclear weapons such a pathogens.

Payne goes further, saying that many nuclear powers see Global Zero "as a trick" designed to render them vulnerable to US conventional superiority, "and if that seems improper and unfair, it's because US officials have said just that."

[Yo-Yo]

Each side is permitted a total of 800 missile launchers and bombers, so aggressive deployment of bombers could increase the total of long-range nuclear weapons to 3,000-3500 - well over the limit of 1550 "warheads".

To be fair, we do have our own bomber fleet of B-52s, B-1s and B-2s that also up the "warhead" count. But the press has hailed the "reduction" in warheads as Zero's master stroke of foreign policy.

[silverleaf]

Come now, who really believed that Medvedev and the Generals would deal with the magic Won as an equal, much less sign onto a treaty that reduced Russian military strength? pshaw

Soon after this is signed, Look for Russians in uniform and in KGB suits, running around over here in America in VIP caravans, demanding entry to our sub bases, hangars, and missile silos to “verify” the number of warheads we have

[wally_bert]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a2GHL8VhMjo

[norton]

We've converted most B52 and B1 to drop conventional weapons.
I'm not sure but reconversion might be a stretch.

I also didn't see submarines listed in the report; is a multi-tube SSN one unit in the treaty count?

[Yo-Yo]

I knew that conventional weapons capabilities have been gradually added to the B-1B, but I didn't know that the nuclear capability had been removed. The Wiki B-1B article says it was removed in 1995.

[GonzoGOP]

I'm not sure but reconversion might be a stretch.

If it can shoot conventional cruise missiles it can shoot nukes. No difference in the launch equipment. Down side is we no longer have a air launched nuclear cruise missile. Russia of course has a large number in many different flavors.

America has been virtually disarmed. Our puny and outdated stockpile of nukes is sufficient to deter a country that cares about its population, but it is no longer capable of extincting our adversaries. If we fired off our total nuclear inventory at China we would kill less people than some of Mao's failed agricultural projects. Sure we could exterminate all 142 million Russians. But killing 142 million Chinese would only be a 5% loss. A little more than we suffered in the Civil War. Bad but in every way survivable. And as for the Iranians, they just don't care if 99% of them get killed so long they get some of us.