#8
Rossiiskaya Gazeta
No. 233
November 28, 2001
[translation from RIA Novosti for personal use only]
RUSSIA'S SATAN ICBMs CAN BREACH ANY ABM SYSTEM
The Presidents of Russia and the United States discussed quite a few highly important issues during their latest summit. Their list included strategic nuclear-arms cuts and the future of the 1972-vintage ABM (Anti-Ballistic Missile) Treaty.
Col.-Gen. Nikolai CHERVOV (Ret.), who used to head the contractual-legal department of the General Staff of the Soviet Armed Forces, speaks his mind on this issue. By the way, Chervov conducted virtually all strategic-arms reduction talks and other related talks over the 1978-1990 period.
I closely followed the Washington summit; and I must say that both Presidents still voice well-nigh the same positions on the ABM issue, Chervov noted. President George Bush Jr. said that the ABM Treaty was obsolete; in his opinion, this treaty hinders Russian-US relations, as well as the creation of a new collective security system. Bush insisted that the Treaty be renounced, trying to talk our President into doing this.
However, Vladimir Putin stated unequivocally that Russia's position remained unchanged. The ABM Treaty is the corner-stone of present-day stability and security, also serving as a basis for tackling the issue of strategic offensive arms because defensive and offensive arms are something inter-linked in line with the Treaty.
That's why the Russian side sees no alternative to this document for the sake of preserving international stability and security.
Moreover, nearly 20 "nuclear" treaties, e.g. the nuclear weapons non-proliferation treaty, the treaty on the non-deployment of nuclear weapons in outer space, on sea-beds and ocean-beds, etc., are closely linked with the ABM Treaty.
Naturally enough, the entire international-law system, which curbs the arms race, would virtually crumble to dust, if we renounce the ABM Treaty.
Question: Then why does Washington insist stubbornly that the ABM Treaty be shredded?
Answer: You see, the incumbent US Administration strives to launch its NMD (National Missile defense) program as quickly as possible. That system would be expected to guarantee US national security, also enabling the Washington Administration to steer toward global domination. Washington strives to control outer space and to dictate its own rules of the game in this sphere. LBJ (Lyndon Baines Johnson) used to say that anyone, who controls outer space, controls the world.
Apart from specific concepts, President Bush already boasts a substantial potential for implementing the Star Wars program. That potential makes it possible to deploy a large-scale or area ABM system that would destroy 200-500 enemy missiles. One should keep in mind that the United States has been working actively to implement Ronald Reagan's SDI (Strategic Defense Initiative) ever since 1983. The US side can now conduct full-scale tests outside specific testing sites. Meanwhile the ABM Treaty's article 5 is the only thing, which still prevents this from happening.
One should not harbor any illusions because Washington has already opted for the NMD system. The United States will continue to pressure Putin, trying to persuade Moscow to renounce the ABM Treaty on a par with Washington. I'm not sure whether our leaders will stand firm.
Question: Why?
Answer: The thing is that President Putin has already said that Russia won't become hysterical in case of a possible US decision to abrogate the ABM Treaty. For his own part, Russian Foreign Minister Igor Ivanov said later on that the treaty could be renounced only if present-day stability and security are guaranteed.
Doesn't this highlight our unstable positions?
Question: How can Russia react, if the United States deploys its NMD system?
Answer: As of today, this country has quite a few SS-18 Satan heavy ICBMs; each Satan ICBM carries 10 warheads, as well as approximately 30-40 decoys, which look exactly like the real thing. US experts estimate that it will take 10-15 warheads to effectively destroy one incoming enemy warhead. Therefore, it will take quite a few warheads to cope with only one SS-18 missile. Right now, this country has nearly 140 such missiles on combat duty.
President Putin said last year that Satan missiles would remain on combat duty till 2006; according to Russian experts, they can guarantee our security well until 2015.
The US side understands perfectly well that nothing can cope with Satan ICBMs at this stage. That's why Washington is trying to persuade Moscow to scrap its SS-18 missiles as fast as possible.
Question: What part of its arsenal does the United States intend to scrap?
Answer: First of all, one would like to ask Bush Jr. why Washington doesn't ratify the START-II treaty, which was signed by his father January 3, 1993. Russia ratified that document May 4, 2000. Meanwhile the US side continues to mark time. How can this be explained? Well, you see, the START-II treaty favors Washington to a greater extent; that's why the United States finds it profitable to delay the treaty's ratification. Our missiles continue to age with every passing year; at the same time, the cash-strapped Russia is in no position to modernize its strategic nuclear forces.
We intended to field about 300 new Topol-M heavy missiles in line with the START-II treaty. However, that program hasn't been translated into life; consequently, Russia now boasts only 30 Topol ICBMs. This number is not enough to guarantee our security.
Strange as it may seem, but no one mentions the so-called replaceable nuclear potential. Right now, the Pentagon has stockpiled 8,000-9,000 nuclear warheads, which are not covered by the START-II treaty. This is no good. Besides, approximately 100 B-52 and B-2 strategic bombers can carry nuclear weapons. However, the US side says that these bombers will rank among other conventional warplanes. In the meantime their nuclear warheads will be stored 100 km away from specific air-force bases (in line with the START-II treaty). Each bomber can carry up to 20 long-range cruise missiles. Consequently, the United States boasts an impressive 2,000 replaceable warheads.
Furthermore, SSBN (Strategic Submarines Ballistic Nuclear) missiles can carry 10 warheads each; the same can be said about heavy MX and Minuteman-3 ICBMs. According to the START-II treaty's provisions, such missiles should carry four warheads each. The warheads have been removed; but the missiles still remain. It will take just a few hours to replace such warheads.
SSBN missiles alone can be fitted with 2,000 warheads. Add to this 4,000 SLCMs (Sea-Launched Cruise Missiles), which are not covered by the START-II treaty. Mind you, they also fit into the strategic offensive arms category.
Incidentally, this was accomplished by former Russian foreign minister Andrei Kozyrev, who agreed to heed US proposals, after receiving a letter from US state secretary James Baker, who suggested that the sides should not take all redundant warheads into account. Kozyrev did this, without asking anyone's advice.
True, the United States, which can retain up to 1,750-2,250 nuclear warheads, doesn't consider this to be a principled issue. Nonetheless, President Putin suggested trimming our nuclear arsenals down to 1,500 warheads a year ago. Another thing worries me -- we have reduced the overall number of nuclear warheads in line with the START-I and START-II treaties; however, we know nothing about the number of remaining launch vehicles.
Transcript by Vladimir BOGDANOV.
Next Article