Latest news with #Anti-BallisticMissileTreaty
Asia Times
3 days ago
- Politics
- Asia Times
Trump's Golden Dome will make US – and world
President Donald Trump's idea of a 'Golden Dome' missile defense system carries a range of potential strategic dangers for the United States. Golden Dome is meant to protect the US from ballistic, cruise and hypersonic missiles, and missiles launched from space. Trump has called for the missile defense to be fully operational before the end of his term in three years. Trump's goals for Golden Dome are likely beyond reach. A wide range of studies makes clear that even defenses far more limited than what Trump envisions would be far more expensive and less effective than Trump expects, especially against enemy missiles equipped with modern countermeasures. Countermeasures include multiple warheads per missile, decoy warheads and warheads that can maneuver or are difficult to track, among others. Regardless of Golden Dome's feasibility, there is a long history of scholarship about strategic missile defenses, and the weight of evidence points to the defenses making their host country less safe from nuclear attack. I'm a national security and foreign policy professor at Harvard University, where I lead 'Managing the Atom,' the university's main research group on nuclear weapons and nuclear energy policies. For decades, I've been participating in dialogues with Russian and Chinese nuclear experts – and their fears about US missile defenses have been a consistent theme throughout. Russian President Vladimir Putin and Chinese leader Xi Jinping have already warned that Golden Dome is destabilizing. Along with US offensive capabilities, Golden Dome poses a threat of 'directly undermining global strategic stability, spurring an arms race and increasing conflict potential both among nuclear-weapon states and in the international arena as a whole,' a joint statement from China and Russia said. While that is a propaganda statement, it reflects real concerns broadly held in both countries. Golden Dome explained. Experience going back half a century makes clear that if the administration pursues Golden Dome, it is likely to provoke even larger arms buildups, derail already-dim prospects for any negotiated nuclear arms restraint, and perhaps even increase the chances of nuclear war. My first book, 35 years ago, made the case that it would be in the US national security interest to remain within the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, which strictly limited US and Soviet – and later Russian – missile defenses. The United States and the Soviet Union negotiated the ABM Treaty as part of SALT I, the first agreements limiting the nuclear arms race. It was approved in the Senate 98-2. The ABM Treaty experience is instructive for the implications of Golden Dome today. Why did the two countries agree to limit defenses? First and foremost, because they understood that unless each side's defenses were limited, they would not be able to stop an offensive nuclear arms race. If each side wants to maintain the ability to retaliate if the other attacks – 'don't nuke me, or I'll nuke you' – then an obvious answer to one side building up more defenses is for the other to build up more nuclear warheads. For example, in the 1960s and 1970s, the Soviets installed 100 interceptors to defend Moscow – so the United States targeted still more warheads on Moscow to overwhelm the defense. Had it ever come to a nuclear war, Moscow would have been even more thoroughly obliterated than if there had been no defense at all. Both sides came to realize that unlimited missile defenses would just mean more offense on both sides, leaving both less secure than before. In addition, nations viewed an adversary's shield as going hand in hand with a nuclear sword. A nuclear first strike might destroy a major part of a country's nuclear forces. Missile defenses would inevitably be more effective against the reduced, disorganized retaliation that they knew would be coming than they would be against a massive, well-planned surprise attack. That potential advantage to whoever struck first could make nuclear crises even more dangerous. Unfortunately, President George W Bush pulled the United States out of the ABM Treaty in 2002, seeking to free US development of defenses against potential missile attacks from small states such as North Korea. But even now, decades later, the US has fewer missile interceptors deployed (44) than the treaty permitted (100). The US pullout did not lead to an immediate arms buildup or the end of nuclear arms control. But Putin has complained bitterly about US missile defenses and the US refusal to accept any limitation at all on them. He views the US stance as an effort to achieve military superiority by negating Russia's nuclear deterrent. Russia is investing heavily in new types of strategic nuclear weapons intended to avoid US missile defenses, from an intercontinental nuclear torpedo to a missile that can go around the world and attack from the south, while US defenses are mainly pointed north toward Russia. Russia maintains a large force of nuclear weapons like this mobile intercontinental ballistic missile. Photo: Russian Defense Ministry Press Service via APPEAR / The Conversation Similarly, much of China's nuclear buildup appears to be driven by wanting a reliable nuclear deterrent in the face of the United States' capability to strike its nuclear forces and use missile defenses to mop up the remainder. Indeed, China was so angered by South Korea's deployment of US-provided regional defenses – which they saw as aiding the US ability to intercept their missiles – that they imposed stiff sanctions on South Korea. Now, Trump wants to go much further, with a defense 'forever ending the missile threat to the American homeland,' with a success rate 'very close to 100%.' I believe that this effort is highly likely to lead to still larger nuclear buildups in Russia and China. The Putin-Xi joint statement pledges to 'counter' defenses 'aimed at achieving military superiority.' Given the ease of developing countermeasures that are extraordinarily difficult for defenses to overcome, odds are the resulting offense-defense competition will leave the United States worse off than before – and a good bit poorer. Putin and Xi made clear that they are particularly concerned about the thousands of space-based interceptors Trump envisions. These interceptors are designed to hit missiles while their rockets are still burning during launch. Most countries are likely to oppose the idea of deploying huge numbers of weapons in space – and these interceptors would be both expensive and vulnerable. China and Russia could focus on further developing anti-satellite weapons to blow a hole in the defense, increasing the risk of space war. Already, there is a real danger that the whole effort of negotiated limits to temper nuclear arms racing may be coming to an end. The last remaining treaty limiting US and Russian nuclear forces, the New START Treaty, expires in February 2026. China's rapid nuclear buildup is making many defense officials and experts in Washington call for a US buildup in response. Intense hostility all around means that for now, neither Russia nor China is even willing to sit down to discuss nuclear restraints, in treaty form or otherwise. In my view, adding Golden Dome to this combustible mix would likely end any prospect of avoiding a future of unrestrained and unpredictable nuclear arms competition. But paths away from these dangers are available. It would be quite plausible to design defenses that would provide some protection against attacks from a handful of missiles from North Korea or others that would not seriously threaten Russian or Chinese deterrent forces – and design restraints that would allow all parties to plan their offensive forces knowing what missile defenses they would be facing in the years to come. I believe that Trump should temper his Golden Dome ambitions to achieve his other dream – of negotiating a deal to reduce nuclear dangers. Matthew Bunn is professor of the practice of energy, national security and foreign policy, Harvard Kennedy School This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article. Thanks
Economic Times
01-06-2025
- Politics
- Economic Times
Russia Ukraine war: Will Vladimir Putin order nuclear attack against Volodymyr Zelenskyy-headed nation after Sunday's drone strikes?
Vladimir Putin and Volodymyr Zelenskyy Synopsis Vladimir Putin's Russia was attacked by Ukraine in shocking cross-border drone strikes deep into the Russian territory targeting key military installations. Russia and Ukraine have stepped up the war on eve of Istanbul peace talks even as there are apprehensions over whether Sunday's drone attacks deep into the Russian territory could provoke President Vladimir Putin to use nuclear weapons against President Volodymyr Zelenskyy-headed country or not. Russia and the United States, by far the biggest nuclear powers. ADVERTISEMENT Russian Defence Ministry on Sunday confirmed that five air bases were attacked by Ukrainian drones damaging an unspecified number of aircraft. Ukraine claimed that it has destroyed about 40 Russian aircraft including nuclear capable TU-95 and Tu-22 strategic bombers in Sunday's massive drone strikes on Russian bases in an operation prepared by Ukrainian Security Service - SBU during 11 months. International Observers speculate that Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy wants to pressurise Moscow on the eve of second round of peace talks in Istanbul scheduled for June 2. The Russian delegation led by Kremlin aide Vladimir Medynsky has already reached Turkey for Monday's talks. However, experts opine that there is little hope of an immediate ceasefire in Ukraine. That led to the million-dollar question will the Russian President take the catastrophic nuclear route? Earlier on May 4, Putin said in comments broadcast that the need to use nuclear weapons in Ukraine had not arisen and that he hopes it will not. In a preview of an interview with Russian state television, published on Telegram, Putin said Russia has the strength and the means to bring the conflict in Ukraine to a "logical conclusion."On May 4, Putin said: "There has been no need to use those (nuclear) weapons ... and I hope they will not be required." "We have enough strength and means to bring what was started in 2022 to a logical conclusion with the outcome Russia requires," he said, AP in November 2024, Putin signed a revamped version of Russia's nuclear doctrine, spelling out the circumstances that allow him to use Moscow's atomic arsenal, the world's largest. That version lowered the bar, giving him that option in response to even a conventional attack backed by a nuclear power, AP reported. ADVERTISEMENT Meanwhile, the United States blames Russia for the collapse of agreements such as the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty and the 1987 Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty. The United States formally withdrew from the INF Treaty in 2019, citing Russian violations which Moscow denied. The United State withdrew from the ABM treaty in 2002, Reuters reported. ADVERTISEMENT Q1. Who is President of Russia?A1. President of Russia is Vladimir Putin. Q2. Who is President of Ukraine? A2. President of Ukraine is Volodymyr Zelenskyy. (You can now subscribe to our Economic Times WhatsApp channel) (Catch all the US News, UK News, Canada News, International Breaking News Events, and Latest News Updates on The Economic Times.) Download The Economic Times News App to get Daily International News Updates. NEXT STORY
Yahoo
21-05-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Kremlin suggests 'Golden Dome' could lead to resumption of Russia-U.S. arms control contacts
MOSCOW (Reuters) -The Kremlin indicated on Wednesday that President Donald Trump's "Golden Dome" missile shield plans could force the resumption in the foreseeable future of contacts between Moscow and Washington about nuclear arms control. Asked about Trump's announcement that he had selected a design for the $175-billion Golden Dome missile defense shield, Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov said it was a sovereign matter for the United States. The so-called "Golden Dome", inspired by Israel's land-based Iron Dome defense shield, is an ambitious project aimed at blocking threats from China and Russia, which the United States views as its two biggest geopolitical competitors. Peskov, asked if Russia saw the project as a threat to Russia's nuclear parity with the United States, said that there was no detail about the U.S. project and many nuances remained. "In the foreseeable future, the very course of events requires the resumption of contacts on issues of strategic stability," Peskov said. Russia and the United States, by far the biggest nuclear powers, have both expressed regret about the disintegration of the tangle of arms control treaties which sought to slow the arms race and reduce the risk of nuclear war. The United States blames Russia for the collapse of agreements such as the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty and the 1987 Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty. The United States formally withdrew from the INF Treaty in 2019, citing Russian violations which Moscow denied. The United State withdrew from the ABM treaty in 2002. "Now that the legal framework in this area has been destroyed, and the validity period has expired, or deliberately, let's say, a number of documents have ceased to be valid, this base must be recreated both in the interests of our two countries and in the interests of security throughout the planet," Peskov said.
NDTV
21-05-2025
- Politics
- NDTV
Trump's 'Golden Dome' May Resume Arms Control Contacts: Kremlin
Moscow: The Kremlin indicated on Wednesday that President Donald Trump's "Golden Dome" missile shield plans could force the resumption in the foreseeable future of contacts between Moscow and Washington about nuclear arms control. Asked about Trump's announcement that he had selected a design for the $175-billion Golden Dome missile defense shield, Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov said it was a sovereign matter for the United States. The so-called "Golden Dome", inspired by Israel's land-based Iron Dome defense shield, is an ambitious project aimed at blocking threats from China and Russia, which the United States views as its two biggest geopolitical competitors. Peskov, asked if Russia saw the project as a threat to Russia's nuclear parity with the United States, said that there was no detail about the U.S. project and many nuances remained. "In the foreseeable future, the very course of events requires the resumption of contacts on issues of strategic stability," Peskov said. Russia and the United States, by far the biggest nuclear powers, have both expressed regret about the disintegration of the tangle of arms control treaties which sought to slow the arms race and reduce the risk of nuclear war. The United States blames Russia for the collapse of agreements such as the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty and the 1987 Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty. The United States formally withdrew from the INF Treaty in 2019, citing Russian violations which Moscow denied. The United State withdrew from the ABM treaty in 2002. "Now that the legal framework in this area has been destroyed, and the validity period has expired, or deliberately, let's say, a number of documents have ceased to be valid, this base must be recreated both in the interests of our two countries and in the interests of security throughout the planet," Peskov said.
Straits Times
21-05-2025
- Politics
- Straits Times
Kremlin suggests ‘Golden Dome' could lead to resumption of Russia-US arms control contacts
Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov said the design for the Golden Dome missile defence shield was a sovereign matter for the United States. PHOTO: REUTERS MOSCOW - The Kremlin indicated on May 21 that President Donald Trump's 'Golden Dome' missile shield plans could force the resumption in the foreseeable future of contacts between Moscow and Washington about nuclear arms control. Asked about Mr Trump's announcement that he had selected a design for the US$175-billion (S$226 billion) Golden Dome missile defence shield, Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov said it was a sovereign matter for the United States. The so-called 'Golden Dome', inspired by Israel's land-based Iron Dome defence shield, is an ambitious project aimed at blocking threats from China and Russia, which the United States views as its two biggest geopolitical competitors. Mr Peskov, asked if Russia saw the project as a threat to Russia's nuclear parity with the United States, said that there was no detail about the US project and many nuances remained. 'In the foreseeable future, the very course of events requires the resumption of contacts on issues of strategic stability,' Mr Peskov said. Russia and the United States, by far the biggest nuclear powers, have both expressed regret about the disintegration of the tangle of arms control treaties which sought to slow the arms race and reduce the risk of nuclear war. The United States blames Russia for the collapse of agreements such as the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty and the 1987 Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty. The United States formally withdrew from the INF Treaty in 2019, citing Russian violations which Moscow denied. The United State withdrew from the ABM treaty in 2002. 'Now that the legal framework in this area has been destroyed, and the validity period has expired, or deliberately, let's say, a number of documents have ceased to be valid, this base must be recreated both in the interests of our two countries and in the interests of security throughout the planet,' Mr Peskov said. REUTERS Join ST's Telegram channel and get the latest breaking news delivered to you.
