Nuclear Weapons Talks: An Unwinning War

One of the meager results that the recent meeting between Presidents Biden and Putin in Geneva has been a “dialogue on strategic stability”.

Both sides want to begin with this in the coming week.

So far, it has not been possible to find out what is to be discussed in detail.

Nikolas Busse

Responsible editor for foreign policy.

• Follow I follow

The spirit in which the talks should take place, however, was named in a statement to the Geneva meeting: "We reaffirm the principle that a nuclear war can never be won and must never be waged." This is a quote from Ronald Reagan and Mikhail Gorbachev , from a time when people were trying to relax.

And the first work orders were indicated: The dialogue, it was said, should lay the basis for future measures for arms control and risk reduction.

That sounds abstract, but it has very real backgrounds.

The world of nuclear armaments, in which the general public is hardly interested, has changed significantly since the end of the Cold War - and not in the direction of peace policy that so many, especially in Germany, had hoped for.

More nuclear weapon states than before

The two former superpowers have disarmed but still have huge arsenals: the United States 5,550 warheads, Russia 6,255. The number of nuclear-armed states has risen to nine; two of them, namely India and Pakistan, have already waged war against each other, even if “only” with conventional weapons. Above all, however, the systems are being modernized everywhere, especially those of the two great nuclear powers.

In nuclear armaments, “strategic stability” means a state in which one country has no decisive advantage over another.

Classic instruments to achieve this are arms control treaties.

Washington and Moscow have stated in Geneva and before that they want to talk about how things will go on with the New START treaty, which they recently extended to 2026.

He limits the number of missiles and bombers for each side to 700 and those of operational warheads to 1,550 each.

The fact that the treaty survived the many tensions that existed between Russia and America in recent years shows that the two countries do not want to pursue their growing rivalry in this field, which is about existential issues.

Nevertheless, there are concerns on both sides that individual developments could be to their own disadvantage.

For years, Russia has distrusted American missile defense because it is seen as a possible weakening of its own deterrence.

In fact, most experts believe that America would be largely shielded by interception systems, such as those once envisaged by Reagan's failed SDI project, to be unrealistic.

"New and dangerous weapons"

The current American systems are also only designed to launch individual missiles from countries like North Korea or Iran. But there are reports that the Russian leadership does not want to lower the number of their weapons below the New START limits because of American missile defense. On the American side, on the other hand, the Russian efforts in this area are being observed, such as the new S-500 defense system, which could also be used against ICBMs.

In Geneva, Biden mentioned that his government was interested in "new and dangerous and sophisticated weapons" that would shorten response times and increase the risk of accidental wars. He did not say which systems he meant, but some are publicly known which it should be about. Russia is developing an underwater drone with nuclear weapons ("Poseidon") and a strategic cruise missile ("Sturmvogel") with supposedly global reach. In addition, there are new types of hypersonic weapons such as the Russian gliding missile “Awangard” or the ballistic missile “Kinschal”, which can be launched from airplanes.

In Russia, on the other hand, there is concern about the new American system “Prompt Global Strike”. It is conventional, but it can deliver precision strikes over long distances as quickly as was previously only possible with ballistic ICBMs. The Russians also want to talk about American plans to deploy new conventional medium-range cruise missiles in Europe and Asia after the INF contract has been terminated.

It is unclear whether these systems would really upset the strategic balance.

Hypersonic weapons, for example, are considered progress because they fly even faster than ballistic missiles and at the same time can be guided like only cruise missiles have been in the past.

But it does not seem certain that they could tempt their owners to attack, because they would still have to reckon with a devastating counterstrike.

Rose Gottemoeller, who negotiated the New START treaty under Obama and later was Deputy Secretary General of NATO, wrote recently that both sides are still struggling to understand the effects of new technology.

She took an example from space that is becoming increasingly militarized.

A satellite that carries out repairs could also damage or destroy satellites in other countries.

Both sides are also interested in including the other nuclear powers in arms control. Washington is thinking primarily of China, Moscow also of France and Great Britain. These countries have much smaller arsenals than America and Russia. China, which currently has 350 warheads, is ready to talk, but traditionally takes the position that the two major nuclear powers should first disarm.