False denuclearization: USA and Russia step up cold rhetoric over Ukraine!

-Dr. Abdul Ruff Colachal

________________________

I

While the US super power focuses exclusively on Iranian nuclear program, the veto powers generally have not yet seriously approached the deadly issues like disarmament and denuclearization, and as a result high precision missiles, nuke enabled missiles, and WMD have spread faster than ever before.  While nuke powers just try to disallow other powers to go nuclear and they want to use their nuclear arsenals to threaten the weak nations.

Only those nations that have no nukes and do not want nukes or do not have the resources for nukes alone seek disarmament and denuclearization.

As a result, denuclearization has remained a useless myth since it is purely utopian to expect the big nuke powers with high ambitions like USA and Russia to renounce their arms arsenals, especially the weapons of mass destitution (WMD). While arms race is being propelled by these powers through sale of terror goods in very region, the bogus arms limitation talks are also going on, achieving literally nothing, while more and more nukes are being manufactured globally to terrorize the humanity on permanent basis.

Nukes or the weapons of mass destitution (WMD) are deadly weapons that do not smile but only laugh loudly like wild beasts; they just dismantle with world, living beings, nature and, if  humans still  remains, cause climatic disorder and change.

A nuclear weapon is defined as an explosive device that derives its destructive force from nuclear reactions, either fission or a combination of fission and fusion. Nuclear weapons are considered weapons of mass destruction, and their use and control have been a major focus of international relations policy since their debut.

Nukes are dangerous weapons even to maintain without using them. Nuclear powers do not switch on the nuke button in order to avoid huge mass murders. Nuclear weapons delivery—the technology and systems used to bring a nuclear weapon to its target—is an important aspect of nuclear weapons relating both to nuclear weapon design and nuclear strategy. Additionally, development and maintenance of delivery options is among the most resource-intensive aspects of a nuclear weapons program: according to one estimate, deployment costs accounted for 57% of the total financial resources spent by the United States in relation to nuclear weapons since 1940.

The countries known to have detonated nuclear weapons—and that acknowledge possessing such weapons—are the United States, Russia, the United Kingdom, France, the People's Republic of China, India, Pakistan, and North Korea. One state, South Africa, fabricated nuclear weapons in the past, but as its apartheid regime was coming to an end, it disassembled its arsenal, acceded to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, and accepted full-scope international safeguards. Israel is also widely believed to possess nuclear weapons, obtained mostly from USA and partially by espionage means, though it does not acknowledge having them.

Israel enjoys a very special privilege of maintaining and maybe manufacturing nukes as its prerogative without reporting to the relevant bodies that function as watch dogs over nuclear activities globally, especially the IAEA.

Israel is believed to be the only nuclear military power in Mideast. Neither America nor its ally Israel wants to tell the world the truth about secret Zionist nuclear programs. Since NATO and UNSC are effectively controlled by USA world has no right to know about Israeli nukes. USA maintains, albeit covertly, that Israel has a right to have to defend itself with nukes.

Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif began talks with US Secretary of State John Kerry and European Union envoy Catherine Ashton in Oman on November 09 to try to advance efforts to end a standoff over Iran’s nuclear program. The meetings come as UN atomic inspectors say that Iran’s stockpile of low-enriched uranium gas has grown by eight percent to nearly 8.4 tons in about two months. Iran continues to insist that its nuclear program is only for peaceful purposes while with illegal nuclear deals secretly, Israel and the USA maintain that Iran is trying to develop nuclear weapons. The deadline for reaching a deal is November 24, although there has been growing speculation that that deadline will be extended.

As Ukraine issue remains unsolved and explosive, Russia steps up arsenal upgrading to keep the US containment efforts at bay. Fragile nature of denuclearization talks makes Moscow all the more cautious about US intentions.

II

As of 2014, only two nuclear weapons have been used in the course of warfare, both times by the USA near the end of World War II. On 6 August 1945, a uranium gun-type fission bomb code-named "Little Boy" was detonated over the Japanese city of Hiroshima. Three days later, on 9 August, a plutonium implosion-type fission bomb code-named "Fat Man" was exploded over the Japanese city of Nagasaki. These two bombings resulted in the deaths of approximately 200,000 civilians and military personnel from acute injuries sustained from the explosions. The role of the bombings in Japan's surrender, and their ethical status, remain the subject of scholarly and popular debate. During the Cold War the USA had built approximately 70,000 nuclear warheads, more than all other nuclear-weapon states combined.

USA has got 2,104 / 7,315 active/total warheads, Russia possesses 1,600 / 8,000, UK has 160 / 225, France: 290 / 300, China has 250, India has a solid 90–110. Possessing 80 warheads, Israel thinks, as an ally of USA and supported by all colonialist nations world wide, it can manufacture nukes without informing even the IAEA; Israel hides the details about its nuclear arsenals, developed with US help.

The Federation of American Scientists estimates there are more than 17,000 nuclear warheads in the world as of 2012, with around 4,300 of them considered "operational", ready for use.

When India, in order to threaten its neighbors, especially Pakistan with which it has the Kashmir problem, blasted its first nuclear weapon with Russian/Canadian help, its neighbor Pakistan obviously become nervous and panicky and declared to make bomb for it protection saying even by eating just grass, Pakistanis would get a bomb as soon as possible and they got it, making the South Asian region a nuke flashpoint. India's nuclear program started on March 1944.  India's loss of territory to China in a brief Himalayan border war in October 1962, provided the New Delhi government impetus for developing nuclear weapons as a means of deterring potential Chinese aggression. India first tested a nuclear device in 1974 ("Smiling Buddha"), which it called a "peaceful nuclear explosion." India performed further nuclear tests in 1998 (“Operation Shakti"). The tests raised concerns that nuclear technology supplied for peaceful purposes could be diverted to weapons purposes. This also stimulated the early work of the Nuclear Suppliers Group. The USA and Japan imposed sanctions on India, which have since been lifted.

New Delhi does possess the scientific capability and infrastructure to launch an offensive BW program. In terms of delivery, India also possesses the capability to produce aerosols and has numerous potential delivery systems ranging from crop dusters to sophisticated ballistic missiles. However, in October 2002, Indian scientist turned President APJ. Abdul Kalam asserted that India "will not make biological weapons. It is cruel to human beings". India has a declared nuclear no-first-use policy and is in the process of developing a nuclear doctrine based on "credible minimum deterrence." In August 1999, the Indian government released a draft of the doctrine which asserts that nuclear weapons are solely for deterrence and that India will pursue a policy of "retaliation only". The document also maintains that India "will not be the first to initiate a nuclear first strike, but will respond with punitive retaliation should deterrence fail" and that decisions to authorise the use of nuclear weapons would be made by the Prime Minister (not by the President), India's Strategic Nuclear Command was formally established in 2003 is the custodian of all of India's nuclear weapons, missiles and assets. It is also responsible for executing all aspects of India's nuclear policy.

India is known to possess weapons of mass destruction in the form of nuclear weapons and, in the past, chemical weapons. Though India has not made any official statements about the size of its nuclear arsenal, recent estimates suggest that India has between 90 and 110 nuclear weapons, consistent with earlier estimates that it had produced enough weapons-grade plutonium for up to 75–110 nuclear weapons. In 1999 India was estimated to have 4,200 kg of separated reactor-grade plutonium, enough for approximately 1,000 nuclear weapons. India is not a signatory to the 1968 Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), which it argues entrenches the status quo of the existing nuclear weapons states whilst preventing general nuclear disarmament.

Despite the escalation of tensions between India and Pakistan in 2001–2002, India remains committed to its nuclear no-first-use policy.

III

Off and on the nuke powers talk about arms reduction as a pure gimmick. Even arms control mechanisms evolved by nuclear powers are in fact meant to get rid of only the outdated or those reached the acutely dangerous level without having used them for too long.  

Arms controlling mechanisms evolved so far by big powers have only promoted the powers concerned and not worked to advantage of the humanity since no nuclear power is interested in really give up its nuclear and conventional arsenals.  In 1968, the USA and the Soviet Union hashed out their first arms control measures at the Strategic Arms Limitation Talks (SALT), freezing the number of missiles in their arsenals.  At that time, the USA had 1,710 missiles, and the Soviet Union had 2,347. 

Although SALT attempted to curb the arms race, it did not address limitations on warheads. Both sides quickly realized that they could outfit their limited missile arsenals with multiple independently targetable reentry vehicles (MIRVs), allowing a single missile to deploy many nuclear warheads after launching. In 1986, President Ronald Reagan and Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev met in Reykjavik to talk arms reduction. On the table was a 50 percent reduction in nuclear arsenals and at one point Gorbachev even told Reagan he would eliminate all of the weapons if the USA were to ditch its missile defense plans. Reagan refused, and the arsenals survived, but the conference produced the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) treaty, which was the first to eliminate an entire class of nuclear weapons.  Today, the INF treaty is under fire, with USA accusing Putin's Russia of violating the treaty, and senior Russian officials openly mulling pulling out of the agreement.

In 1991, the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START) was signed, limiting nuclear arsenals to 1,600 delivery vehicles and 6,000 warheads.  Over the next two decades, attempts to work out a START II and III treaty never panned out, but in 2002 Presidents George W. Bush and Vladimir Putin agreed to reduce warhead arsenals to 2000 warheads under the Strategic Offensive Reductions Treaty (SORT, which is also known as the Treaty of Moscow).  New START brought the cap down by a further 450. 

However, these treaties have only applied to deployed weapons and as such mask the still massive arsenals both sides have shacked up in storage. According to data from the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists, a global nuclear watchdog, the total size of the US strategic nuclear arsenal peaked at 32,000 warheads in 1966. The Soviet Union surpassed the US in 1978 and hit a high of 45,000 warheads by 1986. It should however be noted that these figures ignore technical capabilities and differences and don't say much about the actual strength of each side. Russia still has 8,000 nuclear weapons, and the USA — 7,000.

Under the New START arms control treaty, which was signed into force in 2011 by Presidents Barack Obama and Dmitry Medvedev, the size of each nation's nuclear arsenal is reported every six months. Although the treaty sets a cap of 1,550 nuclear warheads, it counts weapons on bomber aircraft as being a single warhead — meaning that each side may have a few hundred warheads over the limit. That cap is a fraction of what Russia and the US once aimed at one another. 

Big powers sign treaties in order to fool the world but in reality they do precious little to reduce the risk levels of WMD.  Notwithstanding all treaties between USA and Russia, missile arsenals kept increasing in both countries. USA tops in warheads with 45000 warheads while Russia is second with about 40000 warheads and these arsenals are sufficient enough to destroy entire world in hours. 

Though both former Cold War adversaries claim to have massively cut their nuclear arsenals since 1991, however, the available data shows that over the past one year or so both nations have boosted their nuclear forces.  The period includes the latest crisis that has seen Russia-West relations dive bomb over the crisis in Ukraine. Although USA and Russia increased their deployments this year, over the past three years they have moved in different directions: In 2011, Russia had 1537 warheads deployed — 106 less than now. The USA claims three years ago it had 1,800 warheads deployed, meaning it has decommissioned 158. 

Since March, when Russia boldly annexed Crimea from Ukraine, ignoring all threats from USA and Europe, Moscow has upped the ante in both regards, increasing the number of launchers from 906 to 911 and its arsenal of warheads deployed from 1,512 to 1,643.  

According to US State Department report, with 1,643 nuclear warheads deployed, Moscow has now reversed 14 years of US superiority, and now has one more warhead in the field than the Pentagon. The report, which is released annually to monitor arms control efforts, has two key metrics — the number of individual nuclear warheads deployed, and the number of launchers and vehicles to deliver those warheads, such as intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) systems, submarines and bomber planes. 

The Kremlin is well aware of the western designs against Russia and it knows the containment policy of USA is permanent one. President Putin focuses on the ways and means to face the US containment practices. Over years of consistent efforts, Russia has been allowed to achieve parity with the USA, which has showed less zeal in deploying new weaponry, growing its deployment of its nuclear warheads from 1,585 to 1,642 since March. Washington has reduced the number of its launchers from 952 to 912. Last month, Deputy Prime Minister of Russia Dmitry Rogozin said Russia's nuclear forces — the backbone of its military might — would receive a complete overhaul by 2020 as part of the nation's massive $700 billion rearmament campaign.  Moscow is pressing forward with its troubled Bulava (Mace) submarine-launched missiles, and new Yars land based intercontinental ballistic missiles and the uptick in Russian deployment mirrors advances in weapons delivery systems. 

With a view to belittling Russia, the dominant US narratives tend to stress the anti-democratic features of Russian politics, Vladimir Putin’s so-called dictatorship, his heavy-handed leadership, and aggressive foreign policy. The picture drawn has hardened during the Ukrainian crisis. The narratives point to a Russia that stands apart from the international community and to a president who cares little about this isolation and its political, security, and economic ramifications for his country. 

However, US specialists do not compare Russian position as being very much equal to isolated Israeli position. They never questioned the illegal nukes Israel possesses and also ask the IAEA not raise the Israel’s illegal nukes or Israeli nuke crime plans for the future in public.

IV

Without effective denuclearization or verifiable arms control mechanisms, not only Ukraine issue cannot be resolved but more complex issues would crop up in future too.

Nuke powers know that nukes are a burden for them and maintaining the nukes for a long period of time is a big task.  The veto nations, having amassed huge piles of conventional and nuclear weapons do not want to disarm themselves but expect other powers to give up their nukes. On the other hand, those emerging nations that want to go nuclear are eager to somehow enter the veto regime so that they can share the global wealth.

Nevertheless, not many nations ask for dismantling the veto regime of UNSC so that credible peace could prevail on earth.

Every nation is fearful of other nations having nukes in their arsenals.  Several treaties have been signed by nuke powers, especially by former super powers USA and Russia, but have never been implemented.

Americans play dirty nuke politics as there is also no real US commitment to denuclearization globally. This is because neither USA nor Russia is keen to dismantle all its nuke arsenals.  USA wants all other powers to sacrifice their nukes and obey Washington.  Most Russians know that dismantling of the mighty Soviet Russia was the work of USA and its imperialist allies and they don’t want Russia to be ready to be fooled by Washington again. Under the US command circumstances, Russia needs to worry about US intentions and secret operations targeting the Kremlin.

There is no commitment to improving the US ability to understand Russia and interpret its policies. Because prevailing narratives impact foreign policies, it is imperative to get the basic narratives right and subject them to continued scrutiny.

The ever-growing rift between the USA and Russia is a concern throughout the foreign policy community.  The dire consequences of an escalation of conflict between the US and its allies and Russia call for a debate in the USA that examines the basic assumptions that shape American super power  ideas about, and policies toward, Russia. It is no less important that Russians examine the assumptions that underlie their views about the West.

Americans seem to enjoy US militarism policy to threaten the world at large. USA tries to force Arab leaders to use nukes if they have but it failed and so it could not invade Arab world with its deadly nukes to destroy Islamic world and Islam once for all. But it would continue to threaten them with other powerful weapons.

Although a nuclear war can dismantle all human made systems  in a matter of hours, both USA and Russia do not want to wage nuclear war and try to avoid it as long as possible. If that is so, why do they keep manufacturing more and nukes and terrorize the humanity? 

USA wants Russia to recognize America as its boss just like it wants Arab world to recognize a criminal state called Israel as their leader.

The Ukraine crisis has been obscured by a hardening of attitudes in Russia and the USA.

The current state of affairs in US-Russia relations that had gone through phases of ups and downs leading to Ukraine standoff is as distressing as it is alarming. By all accounts, this critical relationship has now reached a point of rupture which the former Soviet president calls as new Cold war. In the United States, much of the discourse is centered on how to repair its tainted image globally by pushing back against Russia and President Vladimir Putin in light of what is happening in Ukraine. The answers as Washington sees stem from a set of narratives about human rights record, Russia’s domestic trajectory, foreign policy objectives, and Putin’s personality. 

The dominant US narratives about Russia and Putin are not accurate and useful for guiding policy toward Russia. Americans are confused about what are Putin’s objectives toward Ukraine and other post-Soviet states. The West wants to believe that Moscow is heading towards a Soviet mode of existence for which it seeks to bring back all former Soviet republics under the Kremlin.  Here lies the American mindset problem.

Ukraine is only the recent issue between the Americans and Russians but there have been similar issues over which both reacted aggressively.