[ad_1]
Nuclear multi-piece puzzle
The New START Treaty, which originally came into force in 2011, is part of a global and interlocking armaments formation system, which aims to limit and, where possible, reduce military competition, including arms competition. It includes agreements on conventional and nuclear capabilities and, depending on the number of participants, bilateral and multilateral agreements. A good example of the latter is the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) or the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), which seeks to curb the proliferation of nuclear capabilities. Some result in the removal of entire weapon categories (such as the recently launched INF treaty, which removed medium- and long-range missiles, which are particularly troublesome for Europe). Others are in the service of transparency and confidence-building, such as the Open Skies Convention, which also recently affected Europe with Washington’s withdrawal.
The New START belongs to the elite category within the system: it is among the largest nuclear powers and deals with the most important (nuclear) issues.
Aim for symmetry between opposing armories. That is, for both parties to be sure that they will initiate an attack, the other’s response will be devastating for him. The key to strategic stability is therefore the doctrine of mutual deterrence, the technical condition being the continual provision of the possibility of mutual destruction. In Hungarian: In the event of an attack, the defendant must be able to measure a nuclear response sufficient to be able to breach the attacker’s defense with absolute certainty, causing unacceptable damage and destruction. This immediately quells all adventure cravings.
Play question and exclamation marks
It is not a coincidence that the spectacular starting point for the disintegration of the arms control system over the last two decades was precisely the unilateral termination of the ABM Treaty, which restricts defense against ballistic missiles, in 2002. The logic of deterrence Mutual, which sounds bad but the most reliable, was fundamentally undermined by the design of the US missile defense system, which had already been launched under the presidency of Bill Clinton. However, it seems to reflect a very peaceful attitude, as it simply assures us against a possible attack by an aggressor. But the situation is more complicated than that. Robert Bowman, who served as head of the US space program under Presidents Ford and Carter, called ballistic missile defense “the missing link necessary to launch the first strike.” Kenneth N. Waltz, founder of the Neorealist School of International Relations, said:
the shield allows to use the sword.
Anyway, after twenty years and more than $ 200 billion spent, the system is not working well. Ground-mounted interceptor missiles have performed around 50 percent in previous tests. In other words, they either caught the enemy strike missile or not. In addition, Moscow is working on developing a wide variety of targeting devices to circumvent missile defense, which US expert Jeffrey Lewis refers to as “Putin’s nuclear zoo.” In any case, in the field of hypersonic missiles (which fly at more than five times the speed of sound), for example, the United States has so far lagged behind Russia. Of course, Washington is not resting either. It is also working on how to gain technological superiority, for example in terms of warhead modernization, precision and missile speed.
The Russian-American talks are overshadowed by the fact that both sides are paying close attention to Beijing.
Both Moscow and Washington are concerned that as they try to reach each other’s vineyards, the basket of concessions could include something that could reduce their advantage over China. Not so much in the field of nuclear capabilities in the traditional sense: here China’s arsenal is approx. one-tenth separate from the two “large” arsenals, but combining nuclear capabilities with other types of technologies. Today, it is still difficult to assess how the increasingly important role of cyberspace and outer space will affect nuclear strategies. However, two things are for sure. First, interoperability between areas is increasing, the boundaries are becoming more and more blurred. Second, these developments clearly increase the risks. Simulation exercises have shown that a party that loses eyes, mouth, ears (i.e. leadership, communication, and intelligence) as a result of an attack on satellites or the information network legally assumes the worst … and stays with just the nuke launcher.
A defenseless Europe
Europe, as usual, watches events from the sidelines, being among the first, and many times, involved in the matter. Traditionally, our continent has been the “apple of contention” in the Russian-American confrontation, and more than a hundred American atomic bombs are still stationed on European soil. Within NATO, the so-called Thanks to Nuclear Exchange, European allies are an integral part of America’s nuclear strategy, in exchange for encouraging themselves to come under the protection of the American nuclear umbrella in the event of a confrontation. The day after the New START extension Emmanuel macron In an interview with the Atlantic Council, the French president stated: This bilateral mode of arms control between the United States and Russia is outdated and evokes the days of the Cold War. Instead, he called for a direct dialogue between the EU and Russia because, as he said, that is the key to European security.
But within the EU, the situation and perceptions of nuclear countries vary greatly from country to country. After Brexit, France remained the only nuclear power in the twenty weeks.. What worries him most is the credibility of his own nuclear strike force and strategy, and how the protection they provide could be extended to other European countries. The latter, on the other hand, officially believe in the fairy tale of “total disarmament” and, in practice, live under the American nuclear umbrella. Which basically has two problems. For one thing, it’s not free: Washington, of course, expects some kind of concessions in return. On the other hand, it is fundamentally frivolous: for it to work, one would have to believe, and be persuaded by opponents, that the United States is ready to risk its own annihilation for the sake of its allies across the ocean, many thousands of miles away.
At the 2020 Security Conference in Munich, President Macron signaled to German (and other European) partners that it was time to discuss military and nuclear issues, not just through the United States, behind the American screen, but now. to negotiate and face them as Europeans. Because it is at least uncomfortable that strategic decisions, such as when George W. Bush terminated the ABM agreement, Donald Trump’s INF treaty or the European missile defense deployments planned by President Obama in 2009, know nothing about the European allies in the Darling. a good case, they will be informed in the hours prior to notification. It is no coincidence that Paris realizes that the first step in breaking with Washington’s often “careless” behavior in the eyes of Europeans would be to actively participate in discussions about its own survival.
Useful futility
These conversations are at least as diplomatic as they are military in nature, as former US Secretary of State Henry Kissinger explained in his book, Nuclear Weapons and Foreign Policy, which still defines reflection on nuclear issues. Because let’s not get our hopes up: Each agreement does nothing more than fix the current balance of interests and power between the parties. Its greatest merit is that to create, maintain and renew … it is necessary to dialogue. It opens and maintains open communication channels through which the opposing parties can better understand the situation and the intentions of each one and keep in constant contact. And although a “random malar” is never ruled out, it is one of the most important elements of strategic stability, predictability, is growing significantly.
And Europe, if taken seriously, will be forced to learn the language of strategic negotiations, not to launder – or transfer – control of its own destiny.
All the more so because, as a result of geopolitical and technological changes, the previously familiar strategic formula is fundamentally transforming. In the multipolar world order, and with the development of cyber and space technology, all of this has become multi-actor and multidimensional. Consequently, the framework provided by the nuclear negotiations and conventions is even more essential. If one fails or fails, a new one must be started in its place, and care must be taken to ensure that the dialogue is never interrupted. Knowing that, as French President Charles de Gaulle said, “international treaties are like girls and roses: they last as long as they last.” In this case, exactly as long as the momentary interests of one of the great powers dictate otherwise.
This article reflects the views of the author and does not necessarily reflect the views of the Portfolio Editorial Committee.
If you would like to comment on this topic, please send your comments to [email protected].
The Opinion section of the portfolio, On the other hand, has been launched. We wrote about the column here, and the published articles can be read here.
Cover image: Getty Images
[ad_2]
