... may therefore still be needed by policymakers should they one day face the dilemma of whether to “push the button” or refrain. Second—and somewhat paradoxically—these debates concern far more than nuclear deterrence alone.
Ivan Timofeev:
Can Nuclear Weapons Help Avert a Russia-NATO War?
Should We Take Our Own Cities Hostage?
Forty years ago, it was possible to assert with confidence that the world still operated under a stable Yalta–Potsdam order. Over the past three decades, however, debates have intensified not only ...
... of the Russian Federation on Nuclear Deterrence. This updated version—the previous written in June 2020—is notable in that it significantly expanded the scope of application for the use of nuclear weapons.
In addition, both the United States and Russia have spread nuclear weapons to their allies. NATO is a nuclear alliance, and it adheres to the policy that nuclear deterrence is the cornerstone of NATO. The expansion of NATO also means the extension of the nuclear alliance to new member states, and it does not ...
... warhead, there is no reliable evidence to confirm this.
In addition, China is also notably expanding its arsenal of land-based nuclear weapons. In 2021, a group of US analysts led by M. Korda, studying commercial satellite images, discovered two positional ... ... submarines continuously at sea.
However, Chinese submarine propulsion is generally considered noisier than that of comparable Russian and US boats, and for that and other reasons these SSBNs are thought incapable of operating far from Chinese territorial ...
... (ELSA) program and intermediate- and shorter-range missiles that have already entered or will soon enter the arsenals of South Korea and Japan. Berlin intends to acquire U.S. Typhon launchers as a stopgap measure until ELSA is ready.
What will happen in Russia
Ivan Timofeev:
Can Nuclear Weapons Help Avert a Russia-NATO War?
By the end of 2025, new rocket regiments and/or brigades with appropriate weapons are likely to be formed and then deployed (probably in limited numbers) with an eye to deterring threats from both the West ...
... strategic nuclear weapons, something that guarantees annihilation by a retaliatory strike.
Aleksey Arbatov:
Nuclear Doctrine and Strategic Stability
This paradigm's inherent danger lies in fostering NATO's illusion of impunity—the conviction that Russia would refrain from nuclear weapons use due to fears of inevitable retaliation. Such perceptions render gradual conventional escalation feasible, potentially expanding from Ukrainian war theatre to a broader regional conflict, necessitating the abandonment of Cold War-era ...
... policy based on the principle that no one can be stronger than all the others. Now the situation is different - two countries are so much stronger than all the others in military terms, that nobody can even think about defeating them.
These countries, Russia and the United States, have nuclear weapons stockpiles sufficient to theoretically destroy all of humanity, which significantly devalues any political rationality of war in relations between them. Soon, as predicted, China will join them and become the world’s third key power,...
... not perceive its relations with Beijing as a firm military alliance (and it is hard to imagine that it will in the future), meaning that the authorities cannot rely on China’s strategic nuclear forces to strengthen Russia’s own deterrence.
Because Russia kept its nuclear weapons complex going through the 1990s and then developed it further, the country is surely
capable
of expanding its strategic nuclear forces at a pace comparable to that of the U.S. (where the industry collapsed, delaying the resumption of ...
... substantial retaliatory strikes. The new Oreshnik missile system was deployed for the first time in a non-nuclear configuration. In 2024, significant revisions were made to Russia’s nuclear doctrine, adjusting the conditions for nuclear weapon use. Russian nuclear weapons have also been stationed in Belarus. Despite these developments, the Russian leadership has exercised restraint in escalation. Proposals from some experts for pre-emptive strikes against NATO countries, including nuclear options, have ...
... threaten the Americans with consequences where they would not be able to use their economic and other advantages.
They would be faced with either an ignominious defeat or nuclear strikes on their allies and their overseas bases.
At first they said that Russia would never use nuclear weapons, so they could continue the war to the last Ukrainian and to the exhaustion of Russia. Then, after receiving signals from Russia, they stopped talking about that and started talking about the need to avoid World War III, the need to stop ...
... weapons in Ukraine, we are talking only about conventional weapons.” Former Defense Minister Sergey Shoigu
noted
: “From a military point of view, there is no need to use nuclear weapons in Ukraine to achieve the set goals. The main purpose of Russian nuclear weapons is to deter a nuclear attack.”
Meanwhile, Western reactions to the nuclear debate in Russia grew increasingly harsh. While NATO’s potential response was discussed in rather vague terms, the administration’s officials and experts ...
