A number of states have proclaimed the idea of a “complete nuclear disarmament and a universal ban on nuclear weapons”. What is your attitude to this idea? Is it realistic?
Nobody can deny the fact that the mere existence of nuclear weapons creates additional threats and challenges to international security. There is always a risk that these weapons will be used one day – intentionally or accidentally, as a result of a human error or of an inadvertent escalation. However, at each...
Beginning with the signing of the Partial Nuclear Test Ban Treaty in 1963, an international arms control regime has limited existing nuclear arsenals and prevented further proliferation of nuclear weapons. But that entire system could soon unravel. Nearly all negotiations on nuclear arms reduction and nonproliferation have come to a stop, while existing treaty structures are eroding due to political and military-technological developments and may collapse in the near future. These strategic and technical...
... problems it may face.
Top Priority
The most survivable component of the nuclear triad,
the naval strategic nuclear force
is the backbone of the U.S. nuclear juggernaut.
According to the Congressional Research Service
, by 2018 implementation of the
START III Treaty
will see SSBNs account for about 35 percent of total launchers and deployed launchers (280 out of 800 and 240 out of 700 respectively), as well as 70 percent of total warheads (1090 out of 1,550). SSBNs accounted for about 50 percent ...
How will the strategic balance of power change after START-III and US ABM system deployment?
The reduction of nuclear arsenals of the two leading global powers is in the interests of maintaining strategic stability and international security. However, the disarmament process under START-III cannot bring about changes in the balance of forces in the area of strategic weapons in favor of one side, simultaneously creating a threat to national security of the other.
The reduction of strategic offensive...
