US takes tougher stance on Russia nuclear threat
Moscow denounces bellicose, anti-Russian nature of new policy
Concerned about Russia’s growing tactical nuclear weapons, the US will expand its nuclear capabilities, a policy document released on Friday said, a move some critics say could increase the risk of miscalculation between the two countries.
It represents the latest sign of hardening resolve by President Donald Trump’s administration to address challenges from Russia, at the same time he is pushing for improved ties with Moscow to rein in a nuclear North Korea. The focus on Russia is in line with the Pentagon shifting priorities from the fight against Daesh to “great power competition” with Moscow and Beijing.
“Our strategy will ensure Russia understands that any use of nuclear weapons, however limited, is unacceptable,” the document, known as the Nuclear Posture Review, said. The rationale for building up new nuclear capabilities, US officials said, is that Russia currently perceives the US nuclear posture and capabilities as inadequate.
Moscow denounced the “bellicose” and “anti-Russian” nature of the policy, warning it would take necessary measures to ensure its own security.
“The bellicose and anti-Russian nature of this document is obvious,” the foreign ministry said, adding that it was “deeply disappointed”. “We must take into account the approaches that are now circulating in US and take necessary measures to ensure our security,” the ministry said. — Agencies
The Pentagon released a new nuclear arms policy Friday that calls for the introduction of two new types of weapons, effectively ending Obama-era efforts to reduce the size and scope of the US arsenal and minimise the role of nuclear weapons in defence planning.
Secretary of Defence Jim Mattis said in an introductory note to the new policy — the first update since 2010 — that the changes reflect a need to “look reality in the eye” and “see the world as it is, not as we wish it to be.”
Russia as a foe
The Obama administration’s policy hinged on what the former president called a moral obligation for the United States to lead by example in ridding the world of nuclear weapons. But officials in the Trump administration and the US military argue that the former president’s approach proved overly idealistic, particularly as Russia re-emerged as a foe, and failed to convince US nuclear adversaries to follow suit.
“Over the course of the last several years, Russia and China have been building new types and kinds of nuclear weapons, both delivery systems and actual warheads,” Air Force Gen. Paul Selva, vice-chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told journalists earlier this week. “We have not, which means the capability of Russian and Chinese nuclear arsenals is actually getting better against ours.”
The new nuclear weapons policy follows on President Donald Trump’s promise before taking office to expand and strengthen US nuclear capabilities. Trump also vowed during his State of the Union address Tuesday to build a nuclear arsenal “so strong and powerful that it will deter any acts of aggression.”
The threats have changed dramatically since the last time the Pentagon updated its nuclear weapons policy, with Russia re-emerging as a geopolitical foe and both Moscow and Beijing investing in their nuclear arsenals. North Korea, meanwhile, has edged closer to possessing a missile capable of striking the US mainland with a nuclear warhead, bringing the prospect of nuclear war back to the forefront of the American psyche for the first time since the Cold War.
Ballistic missiles
The policy unveiled on Friday envisions the introduction of so-called “low-yield nukes” on submarine-launched ballistic missiles.
Russia possesses a large arsenal of small nuclear weapons that the United States mostly lacks.
The Pentagon worries that Moscow could seize part or all of a US ally state and then detonate a small nuclear weapon to prevent American troops from coming to the rescue. Washington would be forced to choose between launching a much larger scale nuclear attack on Russia or responding with less serious conventional arms that would make Washington look weak. The Pentagon says it wants a proportionate weapon to match.