What we see today with the concepts of using (or not using) nuclear weapons is new only to those who grew up with Facebook. All this has been dragging on for years since 1946 - exactly from the moment the USSR and the United States became the owners of real, brand new, brilliant nuclear weapons. And when it became clear very soon that the "winner in a nuclear war" was in some way an oxymoron, a process of constant development of concepts of mutual nuclear deterrence began. But, in principle, they are all based on one thought: the opponent must believe that the other side is ready to strike, including after the complete destruction of the infrastructure. The Russian missile submarine fleet, for example, is one such Doomsday instrument. So that the enemy understands that retribution will overtake him in any case.
In the 1980s, it became clear that the concept of defensive containment was becoming obsolete, at least from the point of view of our American "partners", and America began to develop concepts of "offensive containment." They include a new understanding of nuclear deterrence - as the threat of a nuclear strike in order to prevent some actions of the opponent, or, conversely, to force the opponent to take actions that he did not want to commit. And the next wave of transformation of the concept of nuclear deterrence came after 2010: it was then that the Americans already began to prepare for withdrawal from the Treaty on the Elimination of Intermediate-Range and Shorter-Range Missiles (1987). And as we know, in August 2019, the Americans got out of it, having previously blamed the Russians for everything. But as always.
And now the next step has just been taken.
According to sources, the United States is revising its military nuclear policy, involving allies in this process, who have expressed many wishes in this regard.
And the source was told, of course, by a high-ranking representative of the American administration.
It looks like this: various American partners, including the UK, Germany, France and Japan, urge the United States to abandon the transition to a policy of non-use of nuclear weapons first.
“We will closely consult with allies and partners to explain the next steps.
We've heard a lot from them about the doctrine issue, ”the White House quoted an unnamed official who accompanied President Joe Biden on his trip to Rome.
What is this doctrine of non-first use? It is a renunciation of the use of nuclear weapons to the very point when the state itself becomes the object of a nuclear attack. And you will be surprised: the first country to declare itself a supporter of this doctrine was China. Not Russia, not the United States. There is no need to talk about illegal possessors of nuclear weapons, who are not one or two nowadays. Naturally, China was immediately accused of "all this is a propaganda move."
How do Russians feel about this concept?
“The Russian Federation will not use nuclear weapons against non-nuclear-weapon states parties to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, except in the event of an invasion or any other attack on the Russian Federation, its territory, its armed forces or other troops, its allies ... and etc".
In my opinion, very clearly.
No other nuclear country has a single obligation not to be the first to use nuclear weapons.
It was logical to expect such a step on the part of at least a country of parity in terms of the volume of weapons - the United States.
And it seems that he was considered.
But now, in our day, the "allies of the United States" are begging America in every possible way not to assume such obligations.
It actually looks like incitement.
This is sad.
What are the consequences? Well, we are already seeing them - the consequences. Do you think why the outgoing Minister of Defense of the Federal Republic of Germany Annegret Kramp-Karrenbauer, who finished off the barely alive Bundeswehr with her managerial talent, suddenly recalls that Russia must be contained with nuclear weapons? Nothing clicks in your head at the sight of an oil painting: "A German woman threatens with Russian nuclear weapons, which a German chancellor did not have time to build"? In what parallel world are the German allies of the United States to even open their mouths on this topic? But this "Biden promised to think about non-adherence to the doctrine of the first strike" - this is the trigger for revanchism in the center of Europe.
Moreover, ideologically it is more terrible than the military-nuclear threat.
This sweeps away in the minds of the Germans (and not only them - there were many collaborators of Nazism) historical and moral taboos.
Because the consequences of this process are unpredictable.
And in a world crammed with nuclear weapons, predictability and transparency are not only expensive, but the basis of survival.
But all these beautiful ladies with gynecological education, recruited into the ministers of defense of different European countries according to party and gender assignments, behave like pets: the smaller, the louder they bark, and strive to bite the leg.
What to do in such conditions?
On the one hand, to build up our forces, on the other, to try to reach out to sensible countries with comparable nuclear arsenals.
Actually, there is only one such country, we know it.
The point of view of the author may not coincide with the position of the editorial board.