In recent years there has been a tendency to refer to “nuclear umbrella” as the main guarantee of military security of Russia. However, whether correct this approach? Whether nuclear weapons are a guarantee against possible military threats for Russia? Is it possible to ensure the military security of the Russian Federation, relying mainly on nuclear weapons, not having a sufficiently developed non-nuclear General purpose forces?
To answer this question it is necessary to understand what factors limit the use of nuclear weapons and to assess its real effectiveness in various military conflicts.
First of all, it should be noted that a nuclear weapon is a tool of last frontier, as they say — the last argument of kings. Its use should be duly justified in ethical and legal terms.
This is due to the fact that the use of nuclear weapons, especially in cities, will be associated with enormous casualties among the civilian population and the emergence of large zones of radioactive contamination. That is, it is extremely “dirty” weapon, both environmentally and morally / psychologically.
Therefore, the use of nuclear weapons in limited scale military conflict, if it will be solved, the Russian leadership is facing imminent military defeat, will be considered by the majority of the population, as a monstrous crime against humanity.
This will inevitably lead to Russia’s isolation on the international arena, and the Russian government will be treated as international criminals.
Is unlikely to last long, the euphoria possible inside the country, if at all. After all, most citizens will eventually realize that the use of nuclear weapons in such circumstances is not a force but a manifestation of the weakness of the leadership. The result is growing social instability, reinforced by the inevitable sanctions from other countries. The collapse of the ruling elite may become inevitable.
In such conditions, even very determined and independent from external forces, the political elite would be extremely difficult to decide on the use of nuclear weapons in low-intensity conflicts. An example is the Nazi elite in Germany — with huge stocks of chemical weapons, she did not dare to use it, even in the face of impending defeat.
The current Russian elite, from the point of view of determination and free choice of means, not Soviet. It is well known that it is very seriously connected with the elites of other States and transnational community and to a large extent dependent on them. Its members have considerable financial assets in foreign banks and foreign real estate. Therefore, it is very dependent on foreign actors and deciding on actions to ensure Russia’s security, will inevitably focus on the limitations of this dependence.
She does not have enough determination to go on such a terrible from an ethical point of view, a step as the use of nuclear weapons. Because until now the Americans use of atomic bombs against Japan in 1945 is regarded as one of the most disgusting acts of that terrible war. So there is no reason to believe that the current political elite of Russia will dare to use nuclear weapons in low-intensity conflict, even in the face of possible defeat.
It can be noted and another reason why the use of nuclear weapons in low-intensity conflict is unacceptable. Country, who decided on an open military aggression against Russia, will not act independently. It definitely will support allies comparable in potential with Russia or exceeding its. Even the United States, in the war against Russia will act in the coalition.
Thus, even if the state itself-the non-nuclear aggressor, among its allies (given the nuclear status of Russia) will definitely be a nuclear state. Accordingly, the transition of Russia to use nuclear weapons will result in a response similar or even larger nuclear strikes. In these circumstances, the losses from defeat in a local conflict may be less pronounced than from retaliatory nuclear strikes. The use of nuclear weapons in local conflicts lose meaning.
Here in a large-scale war – is another matter. Here the use of nuclear weapons would be justified. Against a giant of victims and monstrous destruction, limited nuclear strikes will look quite natural stage of development of such a war.
From the above it follows that the use of nuclear weapons can be justified only in large-scale wars, in the reflection of open aggression of large coalitions of States against Russia. In all other cases, the use of nuclear weapons highly unlikely for political, ethical or environmental reasons.
There are considerations and purely military, who make very careful about absolutization of nuclear weapons. We are talking about its striking features. Yes, no doubt, the effectiveness of nuclear weapons in strikes on cities and other human settlements, military bases, airfields, large enterprises and other fixed-site facilities infrastructure of the country is great. This is well demonstrated strikes on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
But whether it will be equally effective against groups of troops (forces) of the enemy? Will the very fact of its application in armed confrontation to ensure their defeat, if its use will not be supported effective action sufficiently powerful General purpose forces? Is it possible only nuclear weapons to defeat the enemy?
The analysis shows that this is not so — a nuclear weapon does not allow complete defeat of the enemy without success forces.
First of all, its application is not always possible. So, if the use of nuclear weapons poses a threat of military defeat, leading to the loss of territorial integrity of the country, it means that the enemy troops are already operating in Russia. In these conditions, the nuclear attacks on such groups of troops, especially located in the settlements, will inevitably lead to huge casualties among our civilian population, radioactive contamination of vast territories (remember Chernobyl), making them unsuitable for human habitation. The futility of such attacks is obvious.
Makes sense, and the use of nuclear weapons against groups of special operations forces and irregular units, operating guerrilla methods. And it is today one of the most effective tools of warfare.
Have good security and units of the land forces in the field. The radius of a standard tactical nuclear warhead covered manpower or the vehicle is at least three to four kilometers. Accordingly, to suppress or destroy, the division may require several nuclear weapons. And to quickly achieve significant results against the army or the corps will need to have several dozen nuclear weapons. Strategic outcome will require the consumption of even more nuclear weapons, and hundreds more. Effects of radioactive contamination from such a massive impact will be huge.
Still more doubtful becomes the expediency of the use of nuclear weapons against groups of ground troops, advancing in dispersed combat formations that will be quite common for modern war.
Gives relatively little use of nuclear weapons at sea targets. Modern missiles with warheads with conventional warheads of 300-500 kg, guaranteed to incapacitate or destroy virtually all classes of warships (excluding aircraft carriers) at the first contact. With the transition to the use of nuclear weapons ship connections are rebuilt in the anti-nuclear order, precluding the possibility of destruction of two ships, one nuclear warhead. In these circumstances, the firing of nuclear missiles on ships of cruiser class and smaller just does not make sense.
The use of nuclear weapons on aircraft carrier connections as well does not lead to a substantial increase in combat effectiveness, as to avoid mutual destruction of missiles in nuclear equipment have to greatly increase the scope of a rocket salvo, which in turn significantly increases the system capabilities of air defense ship connections. That is, the increase in destructive capabilities of missiles kompensiruet reduction of the probability of their income to target.
Very effective is the use of nuclear weapons for “punching” holes in the air defense system and suppression of enemy aircraft on airfields. However, there is merit in its application only in the event if their results will be consolidated by the actions of groups of aircraft.
Finally, note that the forces and means of nuclear attack will always be the enemy’s priority sites of the lesions be exposed to in the first strikes. Therefore, without effective means of defense nuclear weapons they will be impossible to use — they will simply be destroyed.
In addition, nuclear weapons are stored on a separate specialized arsenals. Feeding them to the troops will proceed in the face of opposition and subversive groups of the enemy from the forces of special operations. Being deployed in advance in areas of combat mission, they challenge the failure of the delivery of nuclear munitions to forces can solve very effectively, if not there would be adequate protection of nuclear weapons forces.
From the foregoing raises one important conclusion — undoubtedly, nuclear weapons are an important argument and it is restrained and restrains the large-scale aggression against our country. However, in addition to direct large-scale war, there are many other forms of military aggression, against which nuclear weapons were useless. Yes, and to apply it without proper comprehensive support will be very problematic.
Therefore, without strong, sufficiently numerous and well-equipped General purpose forces, relying only on nuclear deterrence, Russia’s security is not ensured.
