Why should we worry about nuclear weapons? What makes it so important?

The nuclear arsenals now available for immediate use by the United States and Russia have the potential to destroy civilization and humanity and all of the most complex forms of life on Earth. This supreme act of destruction can only be carried out within a few minutes after the American or Russian President will give the order to launch hundreds of long-range ballistic missiles with thousands of nuclear warheads.

How powerful can a weapon be to destroy civilization and humanity?

Nuclear weapons are millions of times more powerful than “conventional” high-explosive charges used by armies in modern warfare. The largest “conventional” bomb in today's US arsenal has an explosive yield of up to 11 tons (about 22 thousand pounds) of trinitrotoluene (TNT). The smallest nuclear warhead possessed by the United States and Russia is 100 thousand tons (or 200 billion pounds) of TNT.

The heat or thermal energy released during a nuclear explosion cannot be compared with what happens on Earth under natural conditions. When a nuclear warhead explodes, it is like the birth of a small star. The explosion creates a temperature that is similar to that found at the center of the Sun, i.e. on the order of hundreds of millions of degrees Celsius.

The resulting huge fireball emits deadly heat and light that will start fires in all directions if the explosion occurs over areas with big amount flammable materials, such as large cities. These fires will quickly join together to form a monstrous single conflagration, or firestorm, covering tens, hundreds, and even thousands of square miles or kilometers. earth's surface.

America and Russia each have many thousands of large, modern strategic nuclear warheads available for immediate launch and use. Just one medium-sized nuclear warhead detonated over a city will immediately create fires above the surface with with total area 40 to 65 square miles (or 105 to 170 sq. km).

Large strategic charges can create fires over much large areas. A one-megaton (1 million tons of TNT) charge would cause fires over an area of ​​100 square miles (260 sq km). The detonation of a 20-megaton charge could immediately start fires over an area of ​​2,000 square miles (5,200 sq. km).

The total energy released during a firestorm and completely burning the city surface is, in fact, a thousand times greater than the energy initially released directly from the nuclear explosion itself. The incredibly lethal environment created by a firestorm will destroy virtually all life and produce enormous amounts of toxic and radioactive smoke and soot.

In a major war between the United States and Russia, thousands of strategic nuclear weapons could be detonated over cities within one hour. Many large cities will likely be hit by not one but several nuclear weapons each. All these cities will be completely destroyed.

Within an hour, a nuclear firestorm would engulf hundreds of thousands of square miles (kilometers) of urban areas. Everything that can burn will be burned in fire zones. In less than a day, up to 150 million tons of smoke from these fires will quickly rise above cloud level into the stratosphere.

As noted on the home page, the smoke would quickly form a global smoke layer in the stratosphere that would block sunlight from reaching Earth. This would destroy the protective ozone layer and led to devastating climate change, lowering within a few days the average global temperature at the earth's surface to a level significantly lower than that which took place in Glacial period. Minimum daily temperatures in continental areas northern hemisphere would remain below zero for years.

Such catastrophic changes environment, along with the massive release of radioactive and industrial toxins, would lead to the collapse of the earth's ecosystems on land and sea, which are already under great stress. Many, if not most, complex life forms would not be able to withstand such a test.

It would happen mass extinction similar to what happened when the dinosaurs and 70 percent of other living things disappeared 65 million years ago. People live at the top the food chain, and we would probably die along with other large mammals.

Even the most powerful leaders and richest people having super-shelters equipped nuclear power plants, hospitals and supplies of food and water for many years, would hardly survive after a nuclear war in a world devoid of complex life forms. Those who can press buttons should know that in a global nuclear holocaust there is no escape from the ultimate destruction.

If nuclear explosions in cities will lead to darkness and disastrous climate change, then why did this not happen after Hiroshima and Nagasaki were destroyed by nuclear bombing at the end of the Second World War?

Fires in two mid-sized Japanese cities did not create the amount of smoke needed to create a global smoke layer that could cause disastrous changes to the Earth's climate. In other words, to affect the global climate, millions of tons of smoke must rise into the stratosphere, but the burning of Hiroshima and Nagasaki did not produce that much.

But new research suggests that 100 Hiroshima-sized nuclear warheads detonated in major cities in India and Pakistan could create enough smoke to cause catastrophic climate change. The power of this number of charges is only half a percent of the total power of the operationally deployed nuclear warheads of the United States and Russia.

In a major nuclear war, in which American and Russian nuclear weapons were detonated, between 50 and 150 million tons of smoke would be released into the stratosphere. It's enough to close sunlight from the earth's surface for many years.

Why are you sure that computer studies predicting climate change in the event of a nuclear war are correct? How can you check this if a nuclear war never happened?

To carry out repeated checks, American scientists used the latest climate model developed by NASA to space research(NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies, Model IE, in collaboration with the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change). This model is capable of simulating the entire troposphere, stratosphere and mesosphere from the earth's surface to an altitude of 80 km. The same methods and climate models that predicted global warming were used to justify global cooling due to nuclear war.

Although it is true that it is impossible to be accurate in assessing the results of a nuclear war without actually carrying it out, it is nevertheless obvious that this is a method of research that we must avoid. However, the application of the above climate models has been very successful in describing the cooling effect of volcanic clouds. This was done through both intensive US analyzes and international intercomparisons carried out as part of the Fourth Assessment of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Models of this type have also successfully assessed the cooling effect of dust storms on Mars (dust blocks access to sun rays to the surface of Mars, just as smoke in our stratosphere might prevent them from illuminating the Earth).

This research is also being intensively conducted by other scientists around the world as part of a general scientific process called “peer review.” To ensure that such research is verifiable, that it can be repeated, and that it is free from error, all important and widely accepted scientific methods are used.

In other words, studies that predict climate change due to global warming or global cooling, made in the best and most respected traditions scientific method and are tested by scientists around the world. This process provides us with the majority scientific discoveries and achievements over the past few centuries. There is a strong consensus in the global scientific community that these findings should be taken seriously and that they should lead to action.

If a nuclear war can destroy humanity, then why do states continue to preserve and modernize nuclear weapon? Do nuclear weapons prevent war?

Nations that retain nuclear weapons as the cornerstone of their military arsenals (the United States, Russia, England, France, China, Israel, India, and Pakistan) do so because they are committed to nuclear deterrence. That is, they believe that having nuclear weapons will deter other countries from attacking them. Conversely, they think that if they did not have nuclear weapons, then there would be a greater likelihood of attack from countries that do have them.

So, nuclear deterrence remains the key operational strategy of the United States and Russia—and every other nuclear weapons state.

The US Department of Defense Military Dictionary states: “Deterrence is the perception of the existence of a credible threat of unacceptable opposition.” Today's “credible threat” created by the rapidly deployed nuclear weapons of the United States and Russia is a thousand times greater in total power than all the warheads detonated by all armies in World War II. It is clear that a “credible threat” based on such an arsenal would mean the destruction of most of the people on the planet.

The same leaders who rely on nuclear deterrence also believe that there is no real path to eliminating nuclear weapons. The question they cannot ask themselves is, after some time, what will be the likely choice of these two action alternatives? Should we stubbornly maintain extremely dangerous nuclear arsenals as the basis of a policy of deterrence, or should we sincerely strive for a world free of nuclear weapons?

Those who believe indefinite retention of nuclear weapons as a viable and legitimate option often tend to frame the idea of ​​eliminating nuclear arsenals as a “destabilizing” goal, and apparently believe that deterrence will always prevent nuclear war. However, such long-term optimism is not confirmed by either logic or history.

Containment will only work as long as all parties remain rational and fear death. However, for many extremist groups, the credible threat of retaliation is not a deterrent, no matter how strong it might be. History is replete with examples of irrational leaders and decisions that led to war. Nuclear weapons, coupled with human fallibility, not only make nuclear war possible, but ultimately make it inevitable.

Suicide is not a way of defense.

If the ultimate goal of the policy national security is to ensure the survival of the nation, then the attempt to achieve this goal through nuclear deterrence must be considered an utter failure. Because deterrence does not set rational limits on the size and structure of nuclear forces, tens of thousands of nuclear weapons have been created. They continue to be on alert and patiently waiting to destroy not only our nation, but every other nation on Earth.

So, the consequence of just one failure of the containment system could be the end of human history. A major nuclear war will make our planet uninhabitable. Even a conflict between India and Pakistan, in which only half a percent of the global nuclear arsenal was detonated, would, according to forecasts, lead to catastrophic disruption of the global climate.

Leaders who choose to defend their nation with nuclear weapons must face the fact that nuclear war is suicide and not a way to save their citizens. Suicide is not a way to protect yourself.

If we accept the statement that “there is no realistic path to a nuclear-free world,” then we are condemning the world's children to a truly bleak future. Instead, we need to reject the 20th century mentality that still continues to lead us towards the abyss, and understand that nuclear weapons pose a threat to the human race.

To the question "Do nuclear weapons exist"

Fact
August 30, 2007 A US Air Force B-52 bomber flew over American territory with nuclear weapons on board. This caused a stir in the American media. The Pentagon reassures: there was no danger.
The B-52 carried five cruise missiles with nuclear warheads. It turns out that nuclear charges remained on decommissioned carriers sent from storage for disposal...by mistake.

Conclusions:
1) They are still installed on decommissioned American missiles combat units, as if they might be needed at any moment.
2) Unloaded and loaded missiles are stored together, otherwise they would not be mixed up.
3) There is no control over the installation and removal of warheads and there is no instrumental control using sensors that record the removal of radioactive materials outside the storage facility.

Other facts:
1) On February 5, 1958, near the mouth of the Savannah River (Georgia), a B-47 bomber, damaged after a collision with another aircraft, dropped from the ground on command hydrogen bomb"Mark-15" with a power of about 100 "Hiroshima". The bomb has not yet been found.

2) A few weeks later, another B-47 mistakenly dropped a hydrogen bomb on South Carolina. The TNT charge of the fuse detonated, but only the release of plutonium followed.

3) On January 17, 1966, a B-52 and a tanker aircraft collided over the Spanish village of Palomares. The fuses of two of the four dropped bombs detonated, resulting in the spraying of 20 kg of plutonium and uranium.

4) On January 21, 1968, a B-52 bomber caught fire in flight near Thule Air Base (Greenland). The plane crashed into the sea. The bombs crashed on the ice, causing significant radioactive contamination of the area. One bomb was never found.

Speculative reasoning:
1) It is possible that nuclear bombs and warheads are only dummies, imitation or containers with radioactive waste.

2) During testing at test sites they exploded nuclear reactors. Only in a “heated” reactor can conditions for a nuclear chain reaction be created.

3) Nuclear weapons, with a certain degree of assumption, can be considered atomic submarines, surface nuclear cruisers and nuclear deep-sea stations.
They can be detonated in the immediate vicinity of enemy ports and large coastal cities.

4) A nuclear reactor can be placed on a powerful cargo ship, tanker or barge.
It can also be lifted into the air on a modern large transport aircraft. Raise the reactor using ballistic missile Most likely it is impossible, since overloads that occur during startup will damage the reactor.

5) A nuclear power plant, including a floating nuclear power plant, can explode.

6) There are no compact nuclear weapons that can be quickly delivered to enemy territory.

7) What then happened in Hiroshima and Nagasaki?
It is possible that nuclear reactors located on specially equipped and camouflaged ships were blown up there.
Under the flag of some neutral country, they entered the commercial ports of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
At H-hour, dummy bombs were dropped from American planes and the pilots recorded nuclear explosion on film. It turned out believable.

IN last days The Korean Peninsula has become the center of attention of the entire world community. The US and North Korea threaten each other with preventive measures nuclear strikes, Japan puts its Self-Defense Forces on alert, and the President of the United States promises that he will not let his brilliant comrade go down. has collected all the information necessary for those who are seriously interested in the prospects of a nuclear conflict.

What is the “nuclear club” and who is included in it?

“Nuclear Club” is the unofficial name of a group of states that possess nuclear weapons. The USA was the pioneer here. In June 1945, they were the first to detonate an atomic bomb. According to the American father nuclear project Robert Oppenheimer, when he looked at this, a quote from the Bhagavad Gita came to his mind: “If hundreds of thousands of suns were to rise at once in the sky, their light would be comparable to the radiance emanating from the Supreme Lord... I am death, the destroyer of worlds.” Following the Americans, the USSR, Great Britain, France and China acquired their atomic arsenals - in 1949, 1952, 1960, 1964, respectively. These five states made up the “nuclear club,” entry to which was closed in 1970, when the vast majority of countries in the world signed the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons.

Does anyone else have nuclear weapons?

Yes. The Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty was not signed by Israel, India, North Korea and Pakistan. These countries became unofficial members of the “nuclear club”. India first secretly tested nuclear weapons in 1974, and did so openly in 1998. That same year, India's rival Pakistan detonated an atomic bomb. North Korea acquired nuclear weapons in 2006. India tried to protect itself from China in this way, Pakistan from India, and North Korea from everyone around, and primarily from the United States.

Photo: U.S. Library of Congress / Handout via Reuters

Israel has a special status. This state neither confirms nor denies the existence of nuclear weapons. However, experts are almost unanimous: Israel has an atomic bomb.

Corresponding developments were carried out in South Africa, but in 1991 the country abandoned them under pressure from the international community. Their military nuclear programs existed in different time in Sweden, Brazil, Switzerland and Egypt. Iran has repeatedly been accused of seeking to build a nuclear bomb, but the Islamic Republic insists its research program has always been purely peaceful.

Why are India, Israel, Pakistan and North Korea not part of the official nuclear club?

Because the world is unfair. The countries that were the first to acquire nuclear weapons reserved for themselves the right to possess them. On the other hand, their political regimes are stable, which makes it possible to at least partially guarantee that nuclear weapons will not fall into the hands of terrorists. During the collapse of the Soviet Union, for example, there was great concern about this among the entire world community. In the end, the Soviet atomic arsenal went to Russia as a successor state to the USSR.

What types of nuclear weapons are there?

In general, all such munitions are divided into two large groups: atomic, in which the fission reaction of heavy uranium-235 or plutonium nuclei occurs, and thermonuclear - in which the nuclear fusion reaction of light elements into heavier ones occurs. On this moment Most countries of both the official and unofficial nuclear club possess thermonuclear weapons as they are more destructive. The only known exception is Pakistan, for which the creation of its own thermonuclear bomb turned out to be too costly and complicated.

What is the volume of nuclear arsenals of the nuclear club countries?

Russia has the most warheads - 7290, the United States is in second place, they have 7 thousand. But the Americans have more warheads on combat duty - 1930 versus 1790 for Russia. The remaining countries of the nuclear club follow by a wide margin: France - 300, China - 260, Great Britain - 215. Pakistan is believed to have 130 warheads, India - 120. North Korea there are only 10 of them.

What level of uranium enrichment is needed to create a bomb?

The minimum is 20 percent, but this is quite ineffective. In order to make a bomb from this material, hundreds of kilograms of enriched uranium are needed, which must somehow be stuffed into the bomb and sent to the enemy’s head. It is believed that optimal level enrichment of weapons-grade uranium - 85 percent or higher.

What is easier - to create a bomb or to build a peaceful nuclear power plant?

It's much easier to make a bomb. Of course, to produce weapons-grade uranium or plutonium, a fairly high technological level is required, but to create a uranium bomb, for example, you don’t even need a reactor - gas centrifuges are enough. But uranium or plutonium can be stolen or bought, and then it’s a matter of technology - in this case, even a moderately developed country will be able to make its own bomb. To build and maintain a nuclear power plant, much more effort is required.

What is a "dirty bomb"?

The goal of a “dirty bomb” is to spread a radioactive isotope over as wide an area as possible. Theoretically, a “dirty bomb” can be either nuclear (for example, cobalt) or non-nuclear - say, an ordinary container with isotopes that is detonated by an explosive device. Until now, no country, as far as is known, has created “ dirty bombs", although this plot is often used in feature films.

How big is the risk of nuclear technology leakage?

Big enough. The greatest concern now is Pakistan - the “nuclear supermarket,” as head ElBaradei once called it. In 2004, it turned out that the head of the weapons development program, Abdul Qadir Khan, was selling nuclear technology left and right - in particular, to Libya, Iran and the DPRK. IN last years However, security measures in Pakistan's nuclear arsenal have been seriously strengthened - as the Islamic State, banned in Russia, has threatened to acquire its own bomb by bribing Pakistani scientists and military personnel. But the risk remains - while technology leaks from Islamabad can still be controlled, those from Pyongyang cannot.

Where did North Korea's nuclear weapons come from?

Work on the nuclear program in the DPRK began in 1952 with the support of the USSR. In 1959, the Soviet assistants were joined by the Chinese. In 1963, Pyongyang asked Moscow to develop nuclear weapons, but Soviet Union refused, and Beijing did the same. Neither the USSR nor China wanted the emergence of a new nuclear power: moreover, Moscow in 1985 forced the DPRK to sign the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty in exchange for the supply of a research reactor. It is believed that its nuclear bomb Koreans have been doing this since the second half of the 1980s in secret from the IAEA.

Where can North Korean missiles reach?

Hard to tell. South Korea and Japan are definitely within range, but it is unclear whether the US missiles can reach them. Official Pyongyang traditionally states that its missiles will hit the enemy anywhere on Earth, but until recently these threats were perceived by experts with a certain skepticism. Even the successful launch of a satellite into orbit did not mean that North Korean missiles were actually capable of hitting large targets on the American coast. However, the demonstration of the Hwasong-13, also known as KN-08/KN-14 missiles, at a parade in October 2016 indicates that Pyongyang appears to be literally one step away from creating a truly intercontinental ballistic missile. And it is possible that this step has already been taken over the past six months.

Are nuclear weapons a deterrent?

Definitely yes. In 1962, during the Cuban Missile Crisis, it was the prospect of a nuclear apocalypse that prevented war between the USSR and the United States: Khrushchev and Kennedy had enough common sense not to cross the “red line” and not strike ahead of the curve. Nevertheless, at least two cases of conflict between nuclear powers are known: in 1969 between the USSR and China over Damansky Island and in 1999 between India and Pakistan (formally, militants from the quasi-state Azad Kashmir participated on the Pakistani side) over the border heights in the state of Jammu and Kashmir. In the first case, the possibility of using atomic bomb was not considered at all, in the second both sides led fighting as carefully as possible so as not to provoke the enemy to use nuclear weapons.

Big nuclear game in the 21st century: disarmament or war?

Radchuk Alexander Vasilyevich – Candidate of Technical Sciences, Professor of the Academy of Military Sciences, Advisor to the Chief General Staff RF Armed Forces.

Today in the world there are about 40 states with technical capabilities for the production of nuclear weapons. And if in the twentieth century. possession of weapons of mass destruction was the privilege of strong states, then in the 21st century. a reverse trend is emerging. These weapons attract weak states that hope to use them to compensate for their military-technological lag. Therefore, it is quite natural that, although the role of nuclear deterrence in relations between great powers is declining, none of them will ever give up their nuclear status.

And how I would like to be accepted

into this game! I even agree to be a Pawn,

If only they would take me... Although, of course, more

I would like nothing more than to be Queen!

Lewis Carroll. Alice in the Wonderland

After in August 2009, Russian President D.A. Medvedev sent a message to V.A. Yushchenko on a wide range of problems of Russian-Ukrainian relations and suspended his visit Russian ambassador to Kyiv before the election of a new president of Ukraine, Ukrainian nationalist organizations Crimea turned to official Kyiv with an appeal, proposing to urgently collect 15–20 nuclear warheads, put them on tactical missiles and thereby give Moscow a response to its diplomatic demarche. This seemingly anecdotal incident clearly showed how firmly and deeply nuclear weapons have penetrated into our lives.

In the lives of not only politicians and military men, but also ordinary people, who consider it quite natural to use nuclear threats to resolve any issues. Indeed, almost two generations have been living in a world in which there is the most destructive weapon in the entire history of mankind, capable of destroying not only cities and armies, but the entire planet. In a world in which two interrelated processes have been developing in parallel for six decades - the strategic offensive arms race and nuclear disarmament.

Nuclear weapons today

Today, the issue of possessing nuclear weapons (NW) is inevitably considered by every state from the perspective of national interests. After all, in conditions when world economy clearly fails, often it is military force that becomes the determining factor international status states. At the same time, the subjective nature of modern politics, in which the personal qualities of some leaders begin to prevail not only over political expediency, but even over common sense, really makes us think about the advisability of achieving nuclear zero.

For many years now, many politicians and scientists have been trying to open the window of opportunity for nuclear disarmament as wide as possible. And recently heavy artillery entered the battle.

In early 2007, in the article “A World Without Nuclear Weapons,” George Shultz, William Perry, Henry Kissinger and Sam Nunn stated that today nuclear weapons pose a huge danger and it is necessary to move to a firm universal agreed renunciation of them, and in the future eliminating the threat emanating from him to the world, since with the end cold war The Soviet-American doctrine of mutual deterrence is a thing of the past. This statement suddenly became the center of attention of the entire progressive world community, which showed great interest in the idea of ​​nuclear disarmament. It would seem that today, in the midst of global economic crisis, issues of economics and finance, identifying ways of mutually beneficial economic cooperation, the need to create new reserve currencies and other economic problems that can be addressed by the efforts of many countries should be at the center of public discussion both in Russia and abroad. However, even Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad spoke at General Assembly UN in September 2008 with a proposal to create an independent committee to monitor the disarmament of nuclear powers.

Ahead of United States President Barack Obama's visit to Moscow, the group famous politicians and militaries from around the world, united under the Global Zero initiative, presented a plan for the phased complete elimination of nuclear weapons on the planet by 2030. It includes four stages:

· Russia and the United States agree to reduce their arsenals to 1,000 nuclear warheads each.

· By 2021, Moscow and Washington are lowering the threshold to 500 units. All other nuclear powers (China, Great Britain, France, India, Pakistan, Israel) agree to freeze and subsequently reduce their arsenals of strategic weapons.

· From 2019 to 2023 – conclusion of a “global zero agreement”, with a schedule for a step-by-step verifiable reduction of all nuclear arsenals down to a minimum.

· From 2024 to 2030 – the process must be finally completed, and the verification system will continue to operate.

And already on April 5, 2009, the US President gave a speech in Prague on the problems of reducing nuclear potentials and said: “The Cold War has become a thing of the past, but thousands of weapons from the Cold War remain. History took a strange turn. The threat of global nuclear war has decreased, but the risk of nuclear attack has increased. As the only nuclear power to use nuclear weapons, the United States has a moral responsibility to act. We cannot succeed alone, but we can lead the fight to achieve success. So today I declare with clarity and conviction America's commitment to achieving peace and security without nuclear weapons."

He also said that nuclear non-proliferation should be mandatory for everyone, and proposed a summit in 2010 to adopt a new international law or rule that would ban all nuclear testing and even the production of fissile materials.

June 12, 2009 Secretary General UN Ban Ki-moon delivered a message on the occasion of the start of preparations for International Day peace. In it, he announced the launch of a campaign called "We must get rid of weapons of mass destruction." He asked governments and people around the world to focus their attention on addressing issues of nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation. It was noted that without vigorous measures, humanity will continue to be threatened by existing stockpiles of nuclear weapons.

Finally, the visit of the President of the United States of America Barack Obama to Moscow in early July 2009 gave new impulse the process of further reduction and limitation of strategic offensive weapons of Russia and the United States. As a result of the visit, a document was signed entitled “Joint Understanding on Further Reductions and Limitations of Strategic Offensive Arms,” which defined the general parameters of a new “legally binding agreement” that should replace the START Treaty (START), which expired in December 2009. 1). It is stated that new agreement will have to operate for the next 10 years and will determine the maximum levels of strategic offensive arms of the parties as follows: for strategic delivery vehicles - 500-1100 units and for related warheads - 1500-1675 units.

Let’s assume that the New START treaty has taken place and these reduction levels will be achieved in 10 years. What's next? New ten-year negotiations followed by microscopic cuts? Expanding the circle of negotiators? Extending restrictions to non-strategic nuclear weapons? Or a sudden turn in the plot and either the development of fundamentally new agreements or a complete rejection of them?

To some extent, the American vision of the prospects for bilateral nuclear disarmament is revealed by an interview with US Vice President John Biden, published on July 25, 2009 in The Wall Street Journal, in which he stated that growing economic difficulties will force Moscow to come to terms with the loss of its former geopolitical role , which will entail a weakening of Russian influence in the post-Soviet space and a significant reduction in Russian nuclear potential. In his opinion, it was the inability of the Russian side to maintain its nuclear potential that became its main motive for resuming negotiations on its reduction with President Barack Obama. At the same time, Mr. Biden made it clear that the United States should play the role of a senior partner of a “weakening Russia.”

At the same time, Georgetown University professor Edward Ifft, the last US representative at the negotiations on the ABM treaty, proposes the following further steps in the Russian-American arms reduction process:

· Reduce the nuclear weapons of the parties to the level of approximately 1,000 deployed strategic warheads. “There is nothing special about the number of 1000 warheads. It’s just that 1000 is a nice round number.” (Strong argument!) At the same time, the deterrence system will continue to function unchanged, the triad of nuclear forces and existing system verification.

· With deeper cuts, “quantitative changes will turn into qualitative ones” and “the concept of deterrence, including extended deterrence, may have to be reconsidered.” At the same time, “containment is a fundamental aspect international security, and the need for it will remain even if all nuclear weapons are eliminated.” However, “as the role of nuclear weapons diminishes, the deterrence system will increasingly depend on conventional weapons. … Conventional forces will play a comprehensive role in deterrence.”

The last thesis fully fits into the ideology of the new US strategic triad. And everything would be fine, but, apparently, Russia does not fit into it, since it is asked to “treat the replacement with greater understanding small quantity nuclear warheads to non-nuclear warheads,” and also “begin to address the issue related to the vast arsenal of tactical and sub-strategic nuclear warheads.” True, Edward Ifft does not express any thoughts on how conventional weapons, in which the United States has overwhelming superiority, will be reduced and limited.

What is the reason for such increased attention to nuclear disarmament issues today? With traditional concerns about the nuclear arsenals of Russia and the United States, which could, as during the Cold War, lead to a nuclear conflict between them with catastrophic consequences for the whole world? Or with the same traditional views on strategic offensive weapons as the locomotive of Russian-American relations, which should lead to the resolution of other issues of bilateral dialogue? Or maybe this is the hope that new decisions will somehow influence other nuclear powers, both de jure and de facto? Or simply an inability to take a fresh look at the situation and really assess the role and place of nuclear weapons in the modern world in general and in Russian-American relations in particular?

It is unlikely that all these questions can be answered unambiguously.

All programs for the transition to a nuclear-free world, all the proposed steps in this direction, the list of specific activities that need to be carried out, still look quite scholastic. And this happens because they do not solve the essence of the problem. But the bottom line is that in the modern world, no matter how sad it may sound, only nuclear weapons, which are the extreme embodiment military power, serves as a reliable guarantor of the security of any state.

Indeed, today, in a period of global civilizational changes, there is no answer to the main question, without which it hardly makes sense to talk about the prospects for nuclear disarmament: what are nuclear weapons at the present time and in the future - just the most formidable embodiment of the military power of a bygone era or a prototype and the basis of the weapons of the future century? Have military methods of resolving interstate conflicts been exhausted, and if not, will nuclear weapons, and therefore nuclear deterrence, remain? effective way resolving contradictions and protecting national interests? Will forceful deterrence of opponents and competitors disappear from the arsenal of foreign policy tools?

There is no talk about the real, not fictitious, role and place of nuclear weapons in the 21st century. About the meaning military force. On effective international security mechanisms. About whether there is at least one other state attribute of such status as nuclear weapons in the world? And why do so many countries strive to possess it? Why did it turn out that the list of official (under the NPT) nuclear powers coincides with the list of permanent members of the UN Security Council? And in general, what is the role and place of nuclear weapons and nuclear deterrence in the modern world?