When I wrote of the ‘pattern’ of parallels I assumed a symmetrical response but here the Russians make it clear the response will be asymmetrical yet following the pattern of parallels.
-Am
Russia’s Defence Minister Sergei Ivanov said in December 2003 that he would inform President Vladimir Putin about specific aspects of developing the country’s strategic nuclear forces in 2004 early this year. “We intend to streamline all strategic nuclear forces still further, enhancing the quality and efficiency of our nuclear triad, first and foremost”, Ivanov told a traditional conference involving the President and Government members. As far as national pride is concerned, the Minister’s statement makes one quite optimistic. But how will the implementation of these plans influence global strategic stability?
US plans First of all, it should be noted that Russia’s decision to enhance its nuclear potential in the obtaining military-political situation is an entirely justified and essential step. The decision is motivated by specific US plans to deploy new national missile defence system’s first echelon in late 2004.
The shield’s weapons and infrastructure components are to be sited in the United States, as well as in Western Europe, Scandinavia and South Europe, i.e. Great Britain, Norway and Hungary, while other components will be based in Japan and Israel. Moreover, the United States is now establishing a joint global data-exchange and reconnaissance network that will feature satellite clusters.
The US Administration’s special memorandum, which was published in early May 2003 and deals with the national ABM (anti-ballistic missile policy), notes that the projected system should shield the United States and their allies from accidental missile launches, as well as single terrorist-launched missiles. This system cannot threaten the security of other countries, including Russia, the document reads.
Advanced systems
However, Alexei Arbatov, director of the Centre of Political and Military Forecasts (Russian Academy of Sciences), believes that the advanced US ABM system is, in reality, spearheaded against Russia and China because it will apparently shield the entire US territory. This was previously forbidden by Article 1 of the 1972 Soviet-US ABM Treaty. Washington admits that Russia and China are just about the only countries that could launch a hypothetical nuclear strike against North America in the coming decades. The Russian leadership has repeatedly stated that it will opt for an asymmetrical response if the United States goes ahead with its ABM programme. In other words, Russia does not intend to deploy new ABM-system elements immediately. On the contrary, Moscow will attach priority to strategic offensive arms, enhancing their anti-ABM capabilities all the same, while new combat options will also be chosen. Moreover, this country will prepare to conduct active operations against the most vulnerable “enemy” ABM-system components to neutralise them. Sergei Ivanov and Vladimir Putin will discuss all these aspects in early 2004.
Strategic offensive and defensive arms are inter-dependent, constituting an integral system of strategic arms. It is no coincidence that the SALT-I Treaty and the ABM Treaty were both signed on 26 May, 1972. Russia continues to believe that the ABM Treaty considerably slowed down the arms race and enhanced strategic stability. This document had great significance because any potential aggressor, which lacked a territorial ABM system, was bound to suffer grievously as a result of a retaliatory, albeit limited, nuclear strike. Consequently, anyone who launched first was going to die second. This was the gist of the MAD (Mutual Assured Destruction) concept, which minimised the chances of an all-out nuclear war.
Readiness
Russia will now have to rely on the retaliatory strike concept more actively than before, while it will also have to maintain considerable part of its nuclear forces in a state of permanent readiness. These forced measures will not enhance nuclear security, nor will they rule out any accidental nuclear conflict.
It is an open secret that no country can build a safe world for itself to the detriment of other countries. This was proved by the horrendous 11 September, 2001 terrorist attacks in New York and Washington. Consequently, Russia and the United States must launch a constructive dialogue, discussing strategic-stability issues in line with the START-ABM format. This is the only way to prevent another round of the arms race and to cut the available nuclear arsenals to reasonable levels.
Market Data 
Markets 
AI
