China’s military doctrine puts a high premium on concealment, deception and surprise. Gen. Viktor Esin, a former commander of Russia’s Strategic Rocket Forces, told officials and journalists in the U.S. on a visit in December that he had concluded China might have 850 nuclear warheads ready to launch, while others were kept in underground tunnel storage for use in an emergency. He estimated the total size of the Chinese nuclear arsenal at between 1,600 and 1,800 warheads.Sponsored Ads
Esin, now a professor at the Russian Academy of Military Science, said that Moscow was so concerned that it would consider abandoning the Intermediate-range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty signed with the U.S. in 1987 if the Chinese build-up did not stop. The INF Treaty bans the U.S. and Russia from having missiles with ranges of up to 5,500 km, as well as their launchers and related support facilities. The ban covers short-, medium- and intermediate-range missiles.
Despite all the signs to the contrary, an Israeli operation is hardly off the table – and as Ben-Yishai hinted, it may not be off the table next year, either. The Israeli military doctrine emphasizes the element of surprise, and in the past the Jewish State has been able to achieve it even in situations where war has been long in the making. In this way, at least, the situation prior to the Six-Day War in 1967 paralleled the one today, while the Israelis could perhaps afford to make a new appointment or two if this would soften the watchfulness of their enemies.
Haunted by these and other shortcomings, the U.S. intelligence community is now engaged in long-term comprehensive research projects such as Global Trends 2030, a large strategic forecasting report the National Intelligence Council will release later this year. Global Trends 2025, released in November 2008, described long-term demographic, economic, environmental, and institutional trends and discussed their implications. With money increasingly short, policymakers will be under pressure to prioritize defense spending, and they will look to the intelligence community to help them identify the threats that matter and those they can safely ignore. However, the Global Trends reports show the cultural gap between policymakers and intelligence analysts; while the report was undoubtedly insightful to its authors, it is hard to find any connection between reports such as Global Trends and changes policymakers have made to actual policies and programs.
… According to the Pentagon’s 2011 report on China’s military power, China’s military doctrine emphasizes surprise, deception, and offensive operations. …
Russia may have to boost its nuclear potential in future amid emerging nuclear proliferation threats, Anatoly Antonov, Russia’s deputy defense minister and a negotiator on the European missile shield, said on Monday.
“New challenges emerge, including missile and nuclear proliferation. Look at how unstable the situation in the Middle East is. That’s why Russia’s military doctrine envisages the use of nuclear weapons in specific cases. I do not rule out than under certain circumstances we will have to boost, not cut, our nuclear arsenal,” Antonov said in an interview with the Kommersant daily.
Obama wants to cut the American nuclear arsenal while the Russians wants to increase their nuclear arsenal. What is wrong with this picture?
How China’s ‘no first use’ of nuclear weapons does not imply no first use of nuclear weapons. If China feels the slightest threat then it may initiate the first use of nuclear weapons in self-defense.
China’s professed military doctrine of “Counter attack” only if China is attacked is delusive. India is a victim of this deceptive strategy. Attack against India (1962), the Soviet Union (1969) and Vietnam (1979) were described as “Self-Defence Counter Attacks” by the Chinese. That is, it translates to the doctrine of “Forward Defence”-attack if it is perceived that the enemy may be planning an attack or deal it a psychological blow before it can even think of really challenging China. The 2011 paper finally acknowledged that the doctrine of “Active Defence” or “Forward Defence” does not mean a passive position of reacting following an attack, but an attack well outside its borders at a time of its choosing to debilitate a potential enemy even before an enemy has planned an attack. This can be applied to China’s official stance “no first use” of nuclear weapons.
US Military Security Paper On China – Analysis
Removing American nukes from European soil won’t make the Continent safer.
The underreported and underappreciated fact is that, since the end of the Cold War, Russian military doctrine has grown more, not less, reliant on nuclear forces.There is a logic to this that we in the West should understand. America’s early Cold War doctrine of “massive retaliation” was an implicit admission of the USSR’s long term conventional superiority and a threat to use our own nuclear might to counteract it. A congenitally weak Russia is simply taking a page from that book. Its enormous arsenal is one reason the Kremlin feels free to bully not just erstwhile Soviet states and formerly captive Warsaw Pact nations, but even countries at the heart of the EU.
Russia’s strategic missile forces today launched a three-day drill expected to simulate the use of nuclear weapons, RIA Novosti reported (see GSN, Sept. 9, 2009).
Russian military personnel would follow procedures in the nation’s recently adopted military doctrine for dealing with nuclear and conventional conflict, said strategic missile forces spokesman Col. Vadim Koval (see GSN, Feb. 9).
In the immediate aftermath of President Dmitry Medvedev signing the new Russian military doctrine most attention focused on the fact that a first preemptive nuclear strike was not mentioned in the document and on the attention given to NATO as the chief source of “danger” to the security of the Russian Federation. Comments by NATO’s leadership that the doctrine was not a realistic portrayal of NATO were reported by the press, but there was no strong criticism of that aspect of the doctrine. Instead, Russian authors drew attention to the gap between Russia’s conventional military capabilities vis-a-vis NATO and its reliance on nuclear weapons in a conventional conflict.
The Russian doctrine reflects the real world just fine. It’s NATO that is living in another world.
Russia is the enemy of the West, including NATO. That means NATO is the enemy of Russia. Enough said.
NATO said on Saturday a new Russian military doctrine identifying NATO expansion as a threat did not reflect the real world and undermined efforts to improve ties between the Western military alliance and Moscow.
The document says Russia reserves the right to use nuclear force in response to a nuclear attack or one of equivalent magnitude.
Russia’s conventional military forces are in dilapidated shape, increasing Moscow’s dependence on its Cold War-era nuclear arsenals.