Russia Has 4,279 Strategic Nuclear Warheads
August 2, 2006 :: Interfax :: News
As of January 1, 2006, Russia had 4,279 strategic nuclear warheads and 927 offensive weapon delivery systems, according to Lieutenant General Nikolai Artyukhin, head of the Russian Defense Ministry’s department for contract compliance control. “The information was received under the 2002 Strategic Offensive Reductions Treaty (SORT), which is a working instrument in the reduction of strategic offensive weapons,” Artyukhin said at a briefing in Moscow on Monday, July 31. He noted that the U.S. had 5,966 warheads and 1,225 carriers. (Article, Link)
» More stories on: Nuclear Weapons, Russia
Baluyevsky Criticizes U.S. Defensive Posture
August 1, 2006 :: RIA-Novosti :: News
General Yuri Baluyevsky, Russia’s Chief of Staff and First Deputy Defense Minister, published a lengthy and important article in the Voyenno-Promyshlenny Kurier on July 26 criticizing steps by the U.S. to move toward a more defensive posture. Balueyvsky criticizes in particular recent discussions about deploying missile defense assets in Eastern Europe. The Chief of Staff accuses Washington of attempting to achieve “absolute supremacy in the military sphere” and condemns its “brute force in dealing with complicated international issues.” Baluyevsky notes that while the U.S. might appear to be deploying missile defenses to protect against strikes from Iran and North Korea, its real enemies are Russia and China, against whom the systems are allegedly designed to defend.
Baluyevsky writes that “the world is essentially back to square one—that latter being the situation of America’s nuclear monopoly of the 1940’s.” The U.S. plan to deploy interceptor missiles and early warning radars in Central and Eastern Europe would “disrupt the existing Russian-American parity in strategic delivery means.” He lists three reasons for Russia’s concern:
First, silos of the ballistic missile defense system may be easily converted for ICBMs that will reach targets in European Russia wherever they are. Effective control over the use of silos is a sheer impossibility. As a matter of fact, any such control is going to be impossible even for central governments of the countries where the silos will be built.
Second, deployment of active components of the American national ballistic missile defense system in European countries may be interpreted as an attempt on the part of the U.S. to leave Europe facing the music i.e. consequences of a conflict where ballistic missiles were used. Europe will essentially become an advanced line of defense of US territory. From the military standpoint, the logic is impeccable—bring the troops (and therefore the hostilities) as close as possible to the positions of the potential enemy and set up several more lines of defense. The world nowadays is so complicated and interdependent, however, it is so exposed to terrorism as to make these advanced outposts or whatever you might want to call them the prime targets for terrorist attacks. Russia cannot be blasé about it because it itself is a part of Europe.
Third, intercept of ballistic missiles carrying weapons of mass destruction (nuclear, germ, chemical) will cause ecological catastrophes in the European countries above whose territories the ICBMs will be killed. Fragments of the missiles and killer missiles may even fall on the territories of neutral countries (or at least the regions that are not involved in the conflict under way). Russia is particularly concerned by vulnerability of the Kaliningrad region to this threat.
Baluyevsky adds, menacingly, that such defensive deployments would “compel Moscow to revise its approach to reduction of these weapons.” He warns that Russia will be ready with “the necessary academic and technological solutions that will at least minimize negative consequences of these actions on Washington’s part.” He reminds his readers that Russia has tested new strategic arms capable of piercing the existing U.S. missile defense systems as well as those other countries may come up with in the near future, a reference to the Topol-M (SS-27) intercontinental ballistic missile.
The audience of this carefully crafted piece would seem to be less Baluyevsky’s fellow Russians, and more Americans and Europeans. Baluyevsky seemingly believes that Americans can be intimidated with cheap threats, and even more that Europeans, in particular the Poles and Czechs with whom missile defense talks continue, can be manipulated to remain themselves defenseless against not only threats from rogue states such as Iran, but also Russia itself.
The complete text from Voyenno-Promyshlenny Kurier: (More »»»)
» More stories on: Allies, Analysis, Nuclear Weapons, Russia
» Missile details: SS-N-6
NORAD to Leave Cheyenne Mountain
July 29, 2006 :: Washington Post :: News
The North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD) will transfer its surveillance operations from Cheyenne Mountain Operations Center in Colorado Springs, Colorado, to an office building near Peterson Air Force Base several miles away. The Washington Post reports that Cheyenne Mountain will be placed in “warm standby,” which means that it could be reopened in hours should the need arise. Despite the fact that the Pentagon spent about $700 million in early warning upgrades to Cheyenne Mountain following the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, Navy Admiral Timothy J. Keating, commander of NORAD and the U.S. Northern Command, created a group in February 2006 to consider moving the NORAD surveillance operation to Peterson AFB. The study recommended the move for operational and budgetary reasons, said a Northern Command statement yesterday. The purpose for housing the NORAD center underground was of course to shield the vital center from strategic attack.
According to The Washington Post, “the military concluded that it no longer needed to be concerned about an intercontinental nuclear missile”—a remarkable statement. (Article, Link)
» More stories on: Budget, Nuclear Weapons, Policy
Britain Backs Off from Replacing Trident Fleet
July 27, 2006 :: The Guardian :: News
The British government indicated on Wednesday, July 26, that it will maintain its existing fleet of Trident submarines rather than invest in a new nuclear missile system. The remarks were in response to a report by the Commons defense committee which chastised the government for not explaining “the purpose and continuing relevance of nuclear deterrence.” The government replied that it “would be possible” to continue operating the existing submarines beyond the original timescale. The submarines were designed to last approximately 25 years, which means they would start being withdrawn from service late in the next decade. The government said yesterday that the vessels could be kept on until the mid-2020s, “albeit with gradually increasing cost and some increasing risk of reduced availability.” The alternative would be to replace the Trident missile system and four submarines, which could cost as much as £25 billion. (Article, Link)
» More stories on: Allies, Nuclear Weapons
» Missile details: Trident C-4
Lettow on Reagan Legacy on Nuclear and Missile Defense Policies
July 21, 2006 :: The Heritage Foundation :: Analysis
Paul Lettow, author of Ronald Reagan and His Quest to Abolish Nuclear Weapons (New York: Random House, 2005), delivered a speech yesterday at the Heritage Foundation on the legacy of Ronald Reagan on the subject of U.S. nuclear weapons policy. Lettow discussed the former President’s central role as leader, visionary, strategist, diplomat, and negotiator. In particular, he touched on Reagan’s unrivalled championing of the 1983 Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI), which proposed to use ground-based and space-based systems to protect the U.S. from ballistic missile attack. An excerpt:
Reagan saw SDI as a means of accomplishing his objective of a nuclear-free world. An effective missile defense, he believed, could render ballistic missiles “impotent and obsolete.” In his eyes, such a defense would make not just ballistic missiles but all nuclear weapons negotiable, and would spur talks, first with the Soviet Union and then with the other nuclear powers, that would result in the elimination of all nuclear arms. He thought that the United States could then share a defense system, and that an “internationalized” defense would serve to guarantee security in a nuclear-free world. None of Reagan’s advisers adhered to his vision of SDI as the catalyst for and guarantor of a world without nuclear weapons. But from the inception of the initiative through the rest of his presidency, Reagan held unwaveringly to that vision of SDI.
(Article, Link)
» More stories on: Analysis, Nuclear Weapons, Policy
Refurbished B61 Nuclear Weapons Delivered by DOE National Nuclear Security Administration
July 4, 2006 :: UPI :: News
The U.S. Department of Energy’s National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) has delivered the first refurbished B61 nuclear bomb, reports the UPI. The program, which has been ongoing for six years, is part of a larger effort to ensure that the U.S.’s aging nuclear weapons stockpile is capable of meeting current defense requirements. The U.S. has not produced any new nuclear weapons since the end of the Cold War and over time the warheads deteriorate, even when kept in storage. The NNSA has been addressing this problem by extending the lifetime of the U.S. warheads, in the case of the B61 Mod-7 and Mod-11 strategic bombs by 20 years. The B61 bombs are the oldest weapons in the U.S. nuclear stockpile, many having been originally produced in the late 1960s and early 1970s. The NNSA intends to refurbish all B61 Mod-7 and Mod-11s by fiscal year 2009. (Article, Link)
» More stories on: Nuclear Weapons
Overall Status and Numbers of Russian Forces
October 11, 2005 :: News
Russianforces.org reports on the recent START exchange data supplied by Russia on its ballistic missiles still in service:
In October 2005 the Russian strategic forces included 815 strategic delivery platforms, which can carry up to 3479 nuclear warheads.
[The] Strategic Rocket Forces have 545 operational missile systems that include missiles that can carry 1955 warheads. These include 85 R-36MUTTH and R-36M2 (SS-18) missiles, 129 UR-100NUTTH (SS-19) missiles, 291 road-mobile Topol (SS-25) systems, and 40 silo-based Topol-M (SS-27) systems.
There are, besides these, a number of sea-based missiles. (Article, Link)
» More stories on: Nuclear Weapons, Russia
» Missile details: SS-19 Mod 2, SS-20, SS-21 B, SS-N-5, SS-N-6
Analysis of North Korean Announcement
February 11, 2005 :: Analysis
On February 10, North Korea announced publicly for the first time what it had previously only stated in veiled terms, that it possesses nuclear weapons and has the intention to increase such capabilities.
Ben Johnson and Lieutenant Colonel Gordon Cucullu analyze the meaning of such an announcement, and its accompanying pull-out from negotiations, in today’s FrontPage Magazine. (Article, Link)
» More stories on: North Korea, Nuclear Weapons
Claim: Iran Developing Nuclear Trigger
February 4, 2005 :: LA Times :: News
An Iranian exile group recently alleged that the country, which publicly disavows the ambition to acquire nuclear weapons, has been conducting tests of a nuclear triggering mechanism. Speaking at a news conference in Paris, the National Council of Resistance of Iran asserted that Iran “is getting very close to the point of industrial production” of a neutron initiator. (Article, Link)
» More stories on: Iran, Nuclear Weapons
Report: North Korea Purchased Nuclear Weapon
January 31, 2005 :: Reuters :: News
Reuters reports that North Korea may have purchased a complete nuclear weapon from either Pakistan or a former Soviet Union state, citing Washington and South Korean sources. (Article, Link)
» More stories on: North Korea, Nuclear Weapons
 |
| Total Records: 52 |
«
1
2
[3]
4
5
6
»
|
