It looks like rookie president Obama is about to attempt to drop our nuclear arsenal down significantly. Admirable goal right? Perhaps.
link
I don't know a lot about nuclear weapons, but I do know that most people think if a nuclear war happens, a big button is pushed, a bunch of nukes fly, and civilization if not mankind ends.
From what little I know I'd say that is accurate up to a point. But in reality things aren't that simple. In order to avoid nuclear war, you pretty much have to guarantee M.A.D., or mutually assured destruction. Everyone from the USA to Russia to China to Iran need to know that if they start lobbing nukes, their ENTIRE population will be destroyed.
Here is the danger. Bad guys, like China, Russia, and Iran, tend to be willing to sacrifice people "for a greater good". I'll leave this as a self evident truth, do a quick history lesson if you doubt me. If there is any doubt that they might survive a nuclear attack, their past willingness to sacrifice good chunks of their populations might in some far out but possible scenarios might lead the leaders of these nations to be willing to bluff more, and possibly even risk a nuke war if there is a reasonable chance that at least the elites of these nations will survive to conquer whatever wreckage of the world is left after the war.
Plus these bad guys have for a long time had low tech nukes. So since they were inaccurate, they tended to build their nukes big. The U.S. on the other hand had pretty accurate weapons, so we tend to build our nukes smaller since they are accurate. The bad guys have decided to put their command and control centers way under ground, so in order to guarantee that these command centers will be destroyed in a nuclear war, U.S. planners often target these sites with many multiple nuke strikes, and with differing types of nuclear weapons (yeah, they aren't all just one type, some are designed to penetrate deep, others are designed to blow up big areas like cities, etc...).
Well, now the bad guys have stolen enough U.S. know how to make their weapons accurate. So here is the bad scenario that Obama is setting up. If we cut our nuclear arsenal down to a certain point, we will be left with a bunch of small but accurate nukes. The bad guys will be left with a bunch of big accurate nukes. American command and control centers tend to be very vulnerable to nuke strikes. The bad guys have put their command and control centers very deep and very well protected. If we drop below x number of nuclear weapons, we can no longer guarantee that we can achieve M.A.D. against Russia or China, while they, with their bigger nukes and easier targets, can guarantee our destruction.
What does this do to the geopolitical process of bluffing? I don't think Russia or China would attempt to engage in a nuclear war with us in the future, but with the knowledge that they possibly could survive, might change the whole dynamic of how they deal the rest of the world politically, how eager they are to use conventional forces, and how much they are willing to push the boundaries of what other nations will accept from them as they project power.
So, for the moderate cost of maintaining a fairly robust nuclear arsenal, and ensuring M.A.D. against all comers, the U.S. helps keep the world more, well, stable. If Obama in his glee to make a historical name for himself cuts our nuclear arsenal too thin, Obama may unwillingly pave the way for more instability and more war, and possible even increase the possibility of "the big one", a nuclear Armageddon, taking place sometime in the future.
-----
Update: The weekly standard makes a good point about Obama giving up our two biggest bargaining chips, the polish missile shield and the size of our nuclear arsenal, before renegotiating START with the Russians which expires in December. Brilliance.
Link
Showing posts with label Russia. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Russia. Show all posts
Monday, September 21, 2009
Friday, August 14, 2009
Monday, July 13, 2009
The Price of Doing Business
Well, it is becoming clear that the United States is ceding back to the former Soviet Union its "sphere of influence". Millions of people once again must defer to the motherland when deciding their political futures in the former Soviet sphere of influence. This latest indicator of the truth of this comes from Kyrgyzstan, where Obama has no problem with the Russians building another base there, as long as we can do our thing in A'stan.
http://www.spacewar.com/reports/US_does_not_object_to_Russian_base_in_Kyrgyzstan_diplomat_999.html
http://www.spacewar.com/reports/US_does_not_object_to_Russian_base_in_Kyrgyzstan_diplomat_999.html
Wednesday, October 22, 2008
Missile Defense
I'm a conservative. I don't like to criticize the Bush administration. There is one thing that has troubled me though more so then Iraq, terrorism, Iran, Afghanistan...etc. It is America's/NATO's policies towards Russia.
I feel that we expanded into Russia's back yard too fast. Don't get me wrong. I believe America is a special nation. I believe that we are a super power so that we can do good in the world. I believe that we should be involved in helping former Soviet client states reach their hightest potential as states where freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom of the press, and the potential to better oneself are maximized. But we sometimes need to be pragmatic too. Especially when such a slighly different approach would have created I believe much more long lasting results.
1) Why the hell are we putting up a missile shield near Russia? To stop Iran from nuking something? If you can sneak millions of tons of narcotics accross the U.S. border per year, you can sneak a nuke across. The missile shield does nothing to prevent this. The missile shield does invoke paranoia in Russia. Russia has money now. Russia is letting us know their displeasure by making their military more active. Bad bad bad.
2) We should have been more active in Russia after the fall of the Soviet Union. Here is when we should have been more engaged. Corruption ran rampit, and that allowed for the likes of Putin to sieze power. Both should have been resisted through soft power and foreign assistance to a much greater degree then they were by former administrations.
3) We over played our hand in Georgia and elsewhere. We should have been in Georgia and other places like Estonia and Latvia helping their democracies along. But the Russian Federation should have been there with us all along. We should have cut a democratic Russia a role in the shapping of its former client states on some level. There would have been a lot of distrust and fear, but I think some relationships could have been worked out between Mother Russian and her former slav children. This would have alleved some Russian fears, which in turn would have made anti-wester sentiment in Russia lesson.
4) I think the Georgian conflict was about Israel, tacitly backed by the U.S., making a move to redirect how oil flowed in Russia's sphere of influence. Russia rightfully said "No" to us and occupied the areas where a new pipe line was going to be built. All the other politics was window dressing. We shouldn't have allowed oil interest to get that far along. The Russians are very aware that petro dollars (or more likely Euros in the case) will fuel the Russian economy. Putin didn't want the west redirecting the flow away from Russia and costing the Russian state a precious source of hard currency. This sounds like something America would do to Russia in the cold war (and did do so with the Saudis...causing them to lower oil prices so the Soviets wouldn't get enough cash to live on). The Russian's rightly countered with a cold war type act (invading one of their former client states). Should we have expecting differently?
So with these four mistakes, we are once again brissling at each other. In looking at the young Georgians and Russians fighting, I don't want our soldiers one day killing the sh*t out of a bunch of poor slavs (cause in a conventional war, we would kill the sh*t out of them). This means no disrespect to the Russians, they have some very good military equipment and some very intelligent warfighters. But until the U.S. goes broke, we will be the dominant warfighting culture. Doesn't mean we aren't unbeatable, but if you take on America head on you will get your rear handed to you. Plus why would I want this? I probably have more in common with your average Russian then I do with your average European now a days. Plus I'm sure once Russia got into a conflict with us it would go nuclear and it would be lights out for the western world. Get your football shoulder pads, leather, and mad max car because the apocalypse would be upon us.
So the question is, how do we go from where we are back to friendly relations? Can we go back? More on my thoughts there later. To be honest I'm pretty stumped, as if we back peddle to much we look weak, which will embolden the Russians. But if we don't change course we will end up in some sort of, well maybe not cold war, but definately a cool war.
I feel that we expanded into Russia's back yard too fast. Don't get me wrong. I believe America is a special nation. I believe that we are a super power so that we can do good in the world. I believe that we should be involved in helping former Soviet client states reach their hightest potential as states where freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom of the press, and the potential to better oneself are maximized. But we sometimes need to be pragmatic too. Especially when such a slighly different approach would have created I believe much more long lasting results.
1) Why the hell are we putting up a missile shield near Russia? To stop Iran from nuking something? If you can sneak millions of tons of narcotics accross the U.S. border per year, you can sneak a nuke across. The missile shield does nothing to prevent this. The missile shield does invoke paranoia in Russia. Russia has money now. Russia is letting us know their displeasure by making their military more active. Bad bad bad.
2) We should have been more active in Russia after the fall of the Soviet Union. Here is when we should have been more engaged. Corruption ran rampit, and that allowed for the likes of Putin to sieze power. Both should have been resisted through soft power and foreign assistance to a much greater degree then they were by former administrations.
3) We over played our hand in Georgia and elsewhere. We should have been in Georgia and other places like Estonia and Latvia helping their democracies along. But the Russian Federation should have been there with us all along. We should have cut a democratic Russia a role in the shapping of its former client states on some level. There would have been a lot of distrust and fear, but I think some relationships could have been worked out between Mother Russian and her former slav children. This would have alleved some Russian fears, which in turn would have made anti-wester sentiment in Russia lesson.
4) I think the Georgian conflict was about Israel, tacitly backed by the U.S., making a move to redirect how oil flowed in Russia's sphere of influence. Russia rightfully said "No" to us and occupied the areas where a new pipe line was going to be built. All the other politics was window dressing. We shouldn't have allowed oil interest to get that far along. The Russians are very aware that petro dollars (or more likely Euros in the case) will fuel the Russian economy. Putin didn't want the west redirecting the flow away from Russia and costing the Russian state a precious source of hard currency. This sounds like something America would do to Russia in the cold war (and did do so with the Saudis...causing them to lower oil prices so the Soviets wouldn't get enough cash to live on). The Russian's rightly countered with a cold war type act (invading one of their former client states). Should we have expecting differently?
So with these four mistakes, we are once again brissling at each other. In looking at the young Georgians and Russians fighting, I don't want our soldiers one day killing the sh*t out of a bunch of poor slavs (cause in a conventional war, we would kill the sh*t out of them). This means no disrespect to the Russians, they have some very good military equipment and some very intelligent warfighters. But until the U.S. goes broke, we will be the dominant warfighting culture. Doesn't mean we aren't unbeatable, but if you take on America head on you will get your rear handed to you. Plus why would I want this? I probably have more in common with your average Russian then I do with your average European now a days. Plus I'm sure once Russia got into a conflict with us it would go nuclear and it would be lights out for the western world. Get your football shoulder pads, leather, and mad max car because the apocalypse would be upon us.
So the question is, how do we go from where we are back to friendly relations? Can we go back? More on my thoughts there later. To be honest I'm pretty stumped, as if we back peddle to much we look weak, which will embolden the Russians. But if we don't change course we will end up in some sort of, well maybe not cold war, but definately a cool war.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)