![]() and its allies to back away from the conflict if nuclear holocaust loomed above it. His goal would be to intimidate the Ukrainian government and force the U.S. You will change the face of war unlike anything since World War II.”Īlthough remote, Pentagon and intelligence officials believe the most likely nuclear scenario would be if, faced with overwhelming conventional military force that pushed the Ukraine advance into Russian territory, Putin could reach for a smaller tactical nuke. When asked about the potential of Putin using chemical or tactical nuclear weapons during a “60 Minutes” interview on Sept. Rather than enter the war, he’s opted for a muted, dual-track strategy of providing arms to Ukraine’s military, while pounding Russia’s economy with crippling sanctions. He’s postponed an intercontinental ballistic missile test, nixed a plan to provide Ukraine with fighter jets, and has refused to match Putin’s heated rhetoric with threats of his own. Speaking at the United Nations General Assembly in New York on Wednesday morning, President Joe Biden said Putin was making “reckless” and “irresponsible” nuclear threats and accused Russia of violating the defining tenets of UN membership in its unprovoked invasion of Ukraine.īiden has taken various steps to avoid escalating tensions with Russia. There were no immediate details on what the lower figure would have mandated.A senior Administration official told reporters Wednesday that Putin’s latest round of “playing the nuclear card” is based on a new “legalistic” construct he is presenting: if these “sham” referendums pass, then any attempts by Ukraine to retake those territories will be seen as an attack on Russia itself-thus allowing Moscow to go nuclear under the terms of the 2020 decree. The Pentagon argued that the uncertainty serves as a deterrent to would-be aggressors.Īdministration officials said the proposals for more radical reductions, advocated by Aspin’s staff and by some members of the National Security Council, were rejected by military leaders, who campaigned vigorously to head off any significant cutbacks.Īnd Pentagon officials said Perry himself moved to alter an earlier version of the plan in order to increase the number of warheads that the United States would retain. * The United States will continue to refuse to pledge that it will not be the first to launch a nuclear strike, even though Moscow has announced a no-first-use policy. The study calls for retaining 14 Trident submarines, four fewer than present levels, 66 B-52 bombers instead of the 94 planned, and 450 to 500 of the 600 Minuteman III missiles with single warheads now on hand. * The strategic nuclear force will be reduced at the current pace. Some analysts had suggested that the Administration destroy all its land-based missiles because they are so vulnerable. * The nation will continue its nuclear “triad,” in which some nuclear warheads are carried by bombers, submarines and intercontinental ballistic missiles. nuclear weapons will continue on its current schedule, with Washington cutting its 6,000-warhead arsenal to about 3,500 under the START II treaty-enough to destroy some 2,500 Russian targets. Here are the major elements of Clinton’s decision: ![]() He added that Moscow was visibly behind schedule in reducing its nuclear arsenal. The Natural Resources Defense Council issued a statement branding the policy “Cold War lite.” If Clinton really fears Russian instability, it said, he should speed up weapons destruction, not slow it.īut Perry insisted that the policy is on target, asserting that it was only prudent to provide some hedges in the face of current uncertainties. Extending-and possibly strengthening-the treaty is one of Clinton’s key goals.Īrms-control advocates reacted sharply to the President’s decision. Third World countries have warned that they plan to insist that the current nuclear powers take additional steps to reduce their nuclear armaments before they will support a renewal. arsenal further would have in the push to win renewal of the international Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty in March. Unclear for the moment was what impact the Administration’s refusal to reduce the U.S. Arms-control issues are high on the agenda. White House officials speeded up the study so that the decision would be completed in time for the summit meeting Clinton is to hold Tuesday and Wednesday with Russian President Boris N.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |