Latest news with #InternationalInstituteForStrategicStudies
The Independent
06-08-2025
- Politics
- The Independent
With only one nuclear arms pact left between the US and Russia, a new arms race is possible
For decades, the threat of nuclear conflict between the U.S. and the Soviet Union hung over humanity — and occasionally the superpowers edged toward the brink, as with the Cuban missile crisis. But beginning in the 1970s, American and Soviet leaders started taking steps toward de-escalation, leading to a handful of critical treaties, including the 1987 Intermediate-range Nuclear Forces Treaty that eliminated an entire class of nuclear-capable missiles. The pact was terminated in 2019 after the U.S. withdrew. On Tuesday, Russia announced it was ending self-imposed restrictions on the deployment of the missiles covered in the agreement. That leaves just one nuclear arms pact between Moscow and Washington still standing: New START, which experts say is on the ropes and set to expire in February in any case. While the end of nuclear weapons agreements between the U.S. and Russia does not necessarily make nuclear war more likely, 'it certainly doesn't make it less likely,' said Alexander Bollfrass, an expert on nuclear arms control at the International Institute for Strategic Studies. Moscow and Washington are still signatories to multilateral international treaties that aim to prevent the spread and use of nuclear weapons, but the increasingly erratic relationship between the countries, combined with the dwindling treaties, has many worried. Survivors of the atomic bomb dropped 80 years ago Wednesday by the U.S. on the Japanese city of Hiroshima expressed frustration about the growing support of global leaders for nuclear weapons as a deterrence. US and Russia have far fewer warheads than decades ago In 1986, the Soviet Union had more than 40,000 nuclear warheads, while the U.S. had more than 20,000, according to the Federation of American Scientists. A series of arms control agreements sharply reduced those stockpiles. The federation estimated in March 2025 that Russia has 5,459 deployed and non-deployed nuclear warheads, while the U.S. has 5,177. Together, that's about 87% of the world's nuclear weapons. Washington and Moscow have signed a series of key treaties In May 1972 — a decade after the Cuban missile crisis — the U.S. and Soviet Union signed the Strategic Arms Limitation Talks I, or SALT I, which was the first treaty that placed limits on the number of missiles, bombers and submarines carrying nuclear weapons. At the same time, they also signed the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, or ABM, putting restrictions on missile defense systems that protect against a nuclear strike. Then, in 1987, Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev and U.S. President Ronald Reagan inked the INF treaty, banning missiles with a range of 500 to 5,500 kilometers (310 to 3,410 miles). U.S. President Donald Trump withdrew from the pact during his first term, citing Russian violations that Moscow denied. The White House also said it placed the U.S. at a strategic disadvantage to China and Iran, neither of which was party to the agreement and each of which it said had more than 1,000 INF-range missiles. The Kremlin initially said it would abide by its provisions, but on Tuesday, it ended that pledge. Even before that, Moscow test-fired its new intermediate-range Oreshnik hypersonic missile at Ukraine in November. Russian President Vladimir Putin has said those missiles will be deployed to Russia's neighbor and ally Belarus later this year. Meanwhile, the START I nuclear arms reduction treaty signed in 1991 reduced the strategic arsenals of U.S. and Russian nuclear warheads, as well as missiles, bombers and submarines carrying them. It has since expired. Another treaty, START II, was signed but never entered into force. In 2002, then-U.S. President George W. Bush withdrew from the ABM agreement after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks because of concerns that the agreement limited U.S. capabilities to counter attacks, including from countries such as Iran or North Korea. Russia strongly opposed the move, fearing that it would allow the U.S. to develop a capability that would erode its nuclear deterrent. The last remaining bilateral treaty — New START, signed in April 2010 — aimed to set limits on deployed nuclear weapons and launchers and enforce on-site inspections. It, too, is 'functionally dead,' said Sidharth Kaushal, a senior fellow in military sciences at the Royal United Services Institute in London. It expires on Feb. 5, 2026, and Russia already suspended its participation after its invasion of Ukraine, resulting in a halt of on-the-ground inspections of Russian nuclear sites. Moscow said, however, it would continue to abide by the pact's limits on its nuclear forces. Russia and the US aren't the only players The INF and New START treaties, in particular, led to 'serious on-the-ground inspections' that lowered tensions in Europe, Bollfrass said. Their end could rachet up tensions between the two Cold War adversaries, experts said. But they also reflect a broader interest in conventionally armed intermediate-range missiles, the experts said, pointing to the planned U.S. deployment of such missiles to Europe and the Pacific, as well as Israel's and Iran's use of missiles during their recent war. New bilateral agreements on nuclear weapons between the U.S. and Russia in the immediate future are 'highly unlikely' because the level of trust necessary to negotiate and follow through with an arms control agreement does not exist, Kaushal at RUSI said. And the U.S. is increasingly looking at other threats. Both the Bush and Trump administrations withdrew from treaties with Russia partly by citing concerns that the agreements didn't place limits on other countries' build-up of nuclear weapons. As China increasingly becomes a nuclear peer of the U.S. and Russia, it could drive a 'competitive spiral' in which Washington could develop more nuclear, as well as conventional, weapons to counter what it perceives as a threat from Beijing, Kaushal said. Any increase in U.S. intermediate- or long-range weapons could, in turn, drive Russia to increase its own nuclear arsenal, he said. But even as Cold War treaties end, Cold War thinking may endure. The possibility of mutually assured destruction may still demand restraint, the experts said. ___ The Associated Press receives support for nuclear security coverage from the Carnegie Corporation of New York and Outrider Foundation. The AP is solely responsible for all content. ___ Additional AP coverage of the nuclear landscape:
Associated Press
06-08-2025
- Politics
- Associated Press
With only one nuclear arms pact left between the US and Russia, a new arms race is possible
For decades, the threat of nuclear conflict between the U.S. and the Soviet Union hung over humanity — and occasionally the superpowers edged toward the brink, as with the Cuban missile crisis. But beginning in the 1970s, American and Soviet leaders started taking steps toward de-escalation, leading to a handful of critical treaties, including the 1987 Intermediate-range Nuclear Forces Treaty that eliminated an entire class of nuclear-capable missiles. The pact was terminated in 2019 after the U.S. withdrew. On Tuesday, Russia announced it was ending self-imposed restrictions on the deployment of the missiles covered in the agreement. That leaves just one nuclear arms pact between Moscow and Washington still standing: New START, which experts say is on the ropes and set to expire in February in any case. While the end of nuclear weapons agreements between the U.S. and Russia does not necessarily make nuclear war more likely, 'it certainly doesn't make it less likely,' said Alexander Bollfrass, an expert on nuclear arms control at the International Institute for Strategic Studies. Moscow and Washington are still signatories to multilateral international treaties that aim to prevent the spread and use of nuclear weapons, but the increasingly erratic relationship between the countries, combined with the dwindling treaties, has many worried. Survivors of the atomic bomb dropped 80 years ago Wednesday by the U.S. on the Japanese city of Hiroshima expressed frustration about the growing support of global leaders for nuclear weapons as a deterrence. US and Russia have far fewer warheads than decades ago In 1986, the Soviet Union had more than 40,000 nuclear warheads, while the U.S. had more than 20,000, according to the Federation of American Scientists. A series of arms control agreements sharply reduced those stockpiles. The federation estimated in March 2025 that Russia has 5,459 deployed and non-deployed nuclear warheads, while the U.S. has 5,177. Together, that's about 87% of the world's nuclear weapons. Washington and Moscow have signed a series of key treaties In May 1972 — a decade after the Cuban missile crisis — the U.S. and Soviet Union signed the Strategic Arms Limitation Talks I, or SALT I, which was the first treaty that placed limits on the number of missiles, bombers and submarines carrying nuclear weapons. At the same time, they also signed the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, or ABM, putting restrictions on missile defense systems that protect against a nuclear strike. Then, in 1987, Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev and U.S. President Ronald Reagan inked the INF treaty, banning missiles with a range of 500 to 5,500 kilometers (310 to 3,410 miles). U.S. President Donald Trump withdrew from the pact during his first term, citing Russian violations that Moscow denied. The White House also said it placed the U.S. at a strategic disadvantage to China and Iran, neither of which was party to the agreement and each of which it said had more than 1,000 INF-range missiles. The Kremlin initially said it would abide by its provisions, but on Tuesday, it ended that pledge. Even before that, Moscow test-fired its new intermediate-range Oreshnik hypersonic missile at Ukraine in November. Russian President Vladimir Putin has said those missiles will be deployed to Russia's neighbor and ally Belarus later this year. Meanwhile, the START I nuclear arms reduction treaty signed in 1991 reduced the strategic arsenals of U.S. and Russian nuclear warheads, as well as missiles, bombers and submarines carrying them. It has since expired. Another treaty, START II, was signed but never entered into force. In 2002, then-U.S. President George W. Bush withdrew from the ABM agreement after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks because of concerns that the agreement limited U.S. capabilities to counter attacks, including from countries such as Iran or North Korea. Russia strongly opposed the move, fearing that it would allow the U.S. to develop a capability that would erode its nuclear deterrent. The last remaining bilateral treaty — New START, signed in April 2010 — aimed to set limits on deployed nuclear weapons and launchers and enforce on-site inspections. It, too, is 'functionally dead,' said Sidharth Kaushal, a senior fellow in military sciences at the Royal United Services Institute in London. It expires on Feb. 5, 2026, and Russia already suspended its participation after its invasion of Ukraine, resulting in a halt of on-the-ground inspections of Russian nuclear sites. Moscow said, however, it would continue to abide by the pact's limits on its nuclear forces. Russia and the US aren't the only players The INF and New START treaties, in particular, led to 'serious on-the-ground inspections' that lowered tensions in Europe, Bollfrass said. Their end could rachet up tensions between the two Cold War adversaries, experts said. But they also reflect a broader interest in conventionally armed intermediate-range missiles, the experts said, pointing to the planned U.S. deployment of such missiles to Europe and the Pacific, as well as Israel's and Iran's use of missiles during their recent war. New bilateral agreements on nuclear weapons between the U.S. and Russia in the immediate future are 'highly unlikely' because the level of trust necessary to negotiate and follow through with an arms control agreement does not exist, Kaushal at RUSI said. And the U.S. is increasingly looking at other threats. Both the Bush and Trump administrations withdrew from treaties with Russia partly by citing concerns that the agreements didn't place limits on other countries' build-up of nuclear weapons. As China increasingly becomes a nuclear peer of the U.S. and Russia, it could drive a 'competitive spiral' in which Washington could develop more nuclear, as well as conventional, weapons to counter what it perceives as a threat from Beijing, Kaushal said. Any increase in U.S. intermediate- or long-range weapons could, in turn, drive Russia to increase its own nuclear arsenal, he said. But even as Cold War treaties end, Cold War thinking may endure. The possibility of mutually assured destruction may still demand restraint, the experts said. ___ The Associated Press receives support for nuclear security coverage from the Carnegie Corporation of New York and Outrider Foundation. The AP is solely responsible for all content. ___ Additional AP coverage of the nuclear landscape:
Yahoo
26-07-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Thai-Cambodian conflict pits a well-equipped US ally against a weaker adversary with strong China links
The deadly conflict on the Thai-Cambodian border pits a longtime United States ally with decades of experience against a relatively young armed force with close ties to China. Bangkok and Phnom Penh are fighting over territory disputed since colonial power France drew the border between them more than a century ago. Clashes continued into Saturday, according to officials on both sides. More than a dozen people have been reported killed, dozens wounded, and more than 150,000 civilians evacuated since fighting began on Thursday. Here's a look at the histories and capabilities of the two sides. Numbers favor Thailand Thailand's military dwarfs that of neighboring Cambodia, both in personnel and weaponry. Thailand's total of 361,000 active-duty personnel spread across all branches of the kingdom's military is three times Cambodia's. And those troops have at their disposal weaponry their Cambodian counterparts could only dream of. 'Thailand has a large, well-funded military and its air force is one of the best equipped and trained in Southeast Asia,' the International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS) wrote in its 'Military Balance 2025' look at the world's armed forces. Meanwhile, a 2024 ranking of the military capabilities of 27 regional nations by the Lowy Institute places Thailand at 14th, to Cambodia's 23rd. Such a disparity is perhaps to be expected, given Thailand has four times as many people as Cambodia, and a GDP more than 10 times larger. Unlike Cambodia, Laos and Vietnam, it escaped the ravages of the wars that engulfed the region in the second half of the 20th century, and the European colonialism that preceded them. Overall, with factors including military, economic, diplomatic and cultural power weighed in the Lowy Asia Power Index, Thailand is ranked 10th, considered a middle power, just behind Indonesia but ahead of countries including Malaysia and Vietnam. Lowy ranks Cambodia as a minor power in Asia, grouped with countries such as Bangladesh, Sri Lanka and Laos. Thailand has strong US ties, global outlook Thailand's military has long been a major player in the kingdom's politics. The country has for years been dominated by a conservative establishment comprising the military, the monarchy and influential elites. Generals have seized power in 20 coups since 1932, often toppling democratic governments, according to the CIA World Factbook, and the military portrays itself as the ultimate defender of the monarchy. Thailand is a United States treaty ally, a status dating back to the signing of the Southeast Asia Collective Defense Treaty, also known as the Manila Pact, in 1954, according to the US State Department. During the Vietnam War, Thailand hosted US Air Force assets at some air bases, including B-52 bombers, and tens of thousands Thai troops fought on the side of the US-backed South Vietnam against the communist North. Strong ties between Washington and Bangkok have endured. Thailand is classed as a major non-NATO ally by the US, giving it special benefits that have enabled it to enjoy access to decades of US support for its weapons programs. Thailand and the US Indo-Pacific Command co-host the annual Cobra Gold military exercise, which began in 1982 as joint drills with the US but has since added dozens of other participants. It's the longest-running international military exercise in the world, according to the US military. Besides Cobra Gold, Thai and US forces hold more than 60 exercises together, and more than 900 US aircraft and 40 Navy ships visit Thailand yearly, the US State Department says. Despite all that history with Washington, these days the Thai military tries to maintain a more neutral approach to military policy, increasing ties with China in the past decade. Not wanting to rely on any one country as its arms supplier, it has also developed a strong domestic weapons industry, with the help of countries such as Israel, Italy, Russia, South Korea and Sweden, the 'Military Balance' report says. Cambodia's Chinese support Cambodia's military is young in comparison to Thailand's, established in 1993 after forces of the communist government were merged with two non-communist resistance armies, according to the IISS. 'Cambodia's most important international defense links are with China and Vietnam. Despite a traditional reliance on Russia for defense equipment, China has emerged as a key supplier,' the IISS says. Beijing has even developed a naval base in Cambodia. The Ream Naval Base, on the Gulf of Thailand, would be able to host Chinese aircraft carriers, according to international analysts. Cambodia and China completed the seventh edition of their annual Golden Dragon joint military exercise in May, which was touted as the largest ever and featured live-fire training scenarios. It's a relationship that's expected to reach 'a new level and achieve new development' this year, according to a February report on the People's Liberation Army's English-language website. 'China and Cambodia are iron-clad friends who… always support each other. The two militaries enjoy unbreakable relations and rock-solid brotherhood,' Chinese Defense Ministry spokesperson Senior Col. Wu Qian told a press conference in February, when asked about possible fissures in relations. Cambodia's military needs the support. 'Cambodia currently lacks the ability to design and manufacture modern equipment for its armed forces,' the IISS report says. Weapons on each side Bolstered by years of US support, the Royal Thai Air Force is well equipped, with at least 11 modern Swedish Gripen fighter jets and dozens of older, US-made F-16 and F-5 jets, according to the IISS. Cambodia has no combat-capable air force to speak of. On the ground, Thailand has dozens of battle tanks, including 60 modern, Chinese-made VT-4 tanks, and hundreds of older, US-made tanks. Cambodia has about 200 old Chinese- and Soviet-made tanks, the 'Military Balance' shows. The Thai army boasts more than 600 artillery pieces, including at least 56 powerful 155mm weapons and more than 550 105mm towed guns. Cambodia has only a dozen 155mm guns with around 400 smaller towed artillery pieces, according to IISS figures. In the air, the army has US-made Cobra attack helicopters as well as 18 US Black Hawk transports. Cambodia has only a few dozen older Soviet and Chinese transport helicopters. What comes next Hawaii-based military analyst Carl Schuster, a former director of operations at the US Pacific Command's Joint Intelligence Center, said that while Thailand has the numerical and qualitative military advantage, Cambodia has at least one thing in its favor – the actual land along the disputed border. 'Terrain favors access from Cambodian territory to the disputed area,' Schuster told CNN. And with Cambodian forces allegedly laying landmines and booby traps in the disputed area, Thailand can be expected to rely on longer-range weaponry, he said. 'The Royal Thai Air Force is superior and their special forces are superior,' Schuster said. 'I think the Thais will prefer to emphasize air power and long-range firepower in the conflict.' Solve the daily Crossword
Reuters
24-07-2025
- Politics
- Reuters
Cambodia and Thailand conflict: how do their militaries compare?
BANGKOK, July 24 (Reuters) - Months of simmering tensions between Cambodia and Thailand exploded into armed conflict on Thursday, including the deployment of a Thai F-16 fighter jet, in the heaviest fighting between the Southeast Asian neighbours in over a decade. Here is a look at the defence forces and arsenals of two countries, according to data from the London-based International Institute for Strategic Studies: Cambodia had a defence budget of $1.3 billion in 2024 and 124,300 active military personnel. The armed forces were established in 1993 from the merger of the country's former Communist military and two other resistance armies. Of this, the Cambodian army is the largest force, with some 75,000 soldiers, backed by more than 200 battle tanks and around 480 pieces of artillery. Thailand, which the U.S. classifies as a major non-NATO ally, has a large, well-funded military, with a defence budget of $5.73 billion in 2024 and over 360,000 active armed forces personnel. The Thai army has a total of 245,000 personnel, including an estimated 115,000 conscripts, around 400 battle tanks, over 1,200 armoured personnel carriers and some 2,600 artillery weapons. The army has its own fleet of aircraft, comprising passenger planes, helicopters such as dozens of U.S.-made Black Hawks, and unmanned aerial vehicles. Cambodia's air force has 1,500 personnel, with a relatively small fleet of aircraft, including 10 transport planes and 10 transport helicopters. It doesn't possess any fighter aircraft but has 16 multi- role helicopters, including six Soviet-era Mi-17s and 10 Chinese Z-9s. Thailand has one of the best equipped and trained air forces in Southeast Asia, with an estimated 46,000 personnel, 112 combat capable aircraft, including 28 F-16s and 11 Swedish Gripen fighter jets, and dozens of helicopters. The Cambodian navy has an estimated 2,800 personnel, including 1,500 naval infantry, with 13 patrol and coastal combat vessels and one amphibious landing craft. Thailand's navy is much larger, with nearly 70,000 personnel, comprising naval aviation, marines, coastal defence and conscripts. It has one aircraft carrier, seven frigates, and 68 patrol and coastal combat vessels. The Thai fleet also contains a handful of amphibious and landing ships capable of holding hundreds of troops each and 14 smaller landing craft. Thailand's naval aviation division has its own fleet of aircraft, including helicopters and UAVs, besides a marine corps that has 23,000 personnel, backed by dozens of armed fighting vehicles.
New York Times
19-06-2025
- Politics
- New York Times
Israel Says Iran Struck With Missile Armed With Cluster Munitions
The Israeli military said Iran launched a missile with a cluster munition warhead at a populated area in central Israel on Thursday, according to Lt. Col. Nadav Shoshani, a military spokesman — the first report of that type of weapon being used in the current war. Iran's mission to the United Nations declined to respond to the Israeli claim, which was linked to a ballistic missile that struck Or Yehuda, Israel, and nearby towns. No one was killed by the missile or its bomblets, and it was unclear if anyone was injured. ` Cluster munitions have warheads that burst and scatter numerous bomblets, and are known for causing indiscriminate harm to civilians. More than 100 countries have signed on to a 2008 agreement to prohibit them — but Israel and Iran have not adopted the ban, nor have major powers like the United States, Russia, China and India. Videos and photographs verified by The New York Times show an unexploded bomblet on the patio of an apartment building in Or Yehuda after an Iranian missile barrage on Thursday. The object, which resembles a narrow artillery shell or rocket warhead, is most likely a submunition similar to those that have armed some Iranian ballistic missiles since 2014, according to Fabian Hinz, a research fellow at the International Institute for Strategic Studies, a London-based think tank. 'The chances of hitting something increase when you have a missile that might not be as pinpoint-accurate as you would like it to be,' Mr. Hinz said in an interview. 'Sometimes you might not need that much destructive force — imagine you want to hit an air-defense or a missile-defense system. These things are not armored, they are pretty soft targets, so just having a geographical spread of the attack could be worth it even if the explosive force and penetrative power is less.' Want all of The Times? Subscribe.
