http://www.therecord.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=record/Layout/Arti cle_Type1 <http://www.therecord.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=record/Layout/Art icle_Type1&c=Article&cid=1168296613329&> &c=Article&cid=1168296613329&
call_pageid=1024322168441&col=1024322596091 Russians grow wary of U.S. nuclear strategy Twenty-five years ago, an official with the Ronald Reagan administration asked my opinion on whether America was facing a clear and present danger from Russia. I said no. Despite the heated rhetoric on both sides, the Russians never intended to initiate an attack on the West, their strategic objective being to split Europe from the U.S. On the other hand, their fear of being attacked was countered, even in the face of Reagan's hostility, by their faith in America's common sense. Why should the richest nation on earth invite horrific devastation upon itself without a logically compelling reason? Today, I am no longer that optimistic. Washington's unwarranted presumption of global nuclear superiority -- the mainstay of this administration's National Security Strategy from the beginning -- has taken an alarming twist. And the Russians, still capable of destroying America with a nuclear strike, are seriously worried. Too little attention has been given to a plan the George W. Bush administration is considering. It calls for certain strategic delivery systems, previously solely designated for nuclear war, to be put to use with conventional warheads. About $50 million has been allocated to three studies of placing conventional weapons on submarine-launched ballistic missiles. Who cares that there is no technology to tell which kind of warhead has been launched? Russia will have to trust Washington that it is not the target of a first-strike nuclear attack. This idea comes in the wake of an article earlier this year in Foreign Affairs, titled The Rise of U.S. Nuclear Supremacy, that contains these statements: "The current and future U.S. nuclear force seems designed to carry out a pre-emptive disarming strike against Russia or China.'' "It will probably soon be possible for the United States to destroy the long-range nuclear arsenals of Russia or China with a first strike.'' "If U.S. submarines were to fire missiles from areas in the Pacific, Russian leaders probably would not know of the attack until the warheads detonated.'' If Russian leaders have read these statements and taken them as an expression of administration policy, they may have reached some very unpleasant conclusions. Washington's intention to legitimize the use of first-strike strategic delivery systems, expecting no retaliatory move by Russia, provoked Col. Viktor Litovkin to write for the Russian news agency Novosti (and reflecting Moscow's official view): "Any nuclear power will be sorely tempted to launch a retaliatory strike after detecting incoming strategic ballistic missiles. A retaliatory nuclear strike seems to be the only way to stop an all-out ballistic-missile attack involving nuclear and conventional warheads.'' Disingenuously, then-Defence Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, meeting in August with his Russian counterpart, Sergei Ivanov, suggested that Russia could do the same thing. "Russia has some misgivings about such preliminary plans,'' Ivanov replied. "I am not ready to say that Russia agrees to join this initiative.'' This gobbledygook in no way implies indecision on Russia's part. Rather, it reflects the traditional Soviet-style presumption that any unambiguous rejection of U.S. terms by Russia may be misconstrued as a sign of fear and weakness. Rumsfeld, however, interpreted these words in line with Washington's wishful thinking, telling a news conference that the Russian defence minister would probably phone him from Moscow and call the U.S. proposal a good idea. No such luck. Should Washington unilaterally proceed with this insane plan, and eventually an intercontinental ballistic missile launch is made -- whether intended against Iran or anybody else -- a Russian retaliatory nuclear strike against the United States could follow, triggering the unthinkable. The United States is facing a clear and present danger, compared to which the worst nightmares of the "war on terror'' will pale. It's time to start paying attention. Alexander Artem Sakharov is a former fellow of the Institute of U.S.A. and Canada Studies in Moscow. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] -------------------------- Want to discuss this topic? Head on over to our discussion list, [EMAIL PROTECTED] -------------------------- Brooks Isoldi, editor [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.intellnet.org Post message: [email protected] Subscribe: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Unsubscribe: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** FAIR USE NOTICE. This message contains copyrighted material whose use has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. OSINT, as a part of The Intelligence Network, is making it available without profit to OSINT YahooGroups members who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information in their efforts to advance the understanding of intelligence and law enforcement organizations, their activities, methods, techniques, human rights, civil liberties, social justice and other intelligence related issues, for non-profit research and educational purposes only. We believe that this constitutes a 'fair use' of the copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the U.S. Copyright Law. If you wish to use this copyrighted material for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use,' you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/osint/ <*> Your email settings: Individual Email | Traditional <*> To change settings online go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/osint/join (Yahoo! ID required) <*> To change settings via email: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
