According to the secretary if the Russian Security Council, the Russian government’s new review of its nuclear weapons policy retains and even expands the nation’s long-standing option to pre-emptively use nuclear weapons in warfare.
“Different variants are considered to allow the use of nuclear weapons depending on a certain situation and intentions of a would-be enemy,” the secretary insisted. Russia has insisted that it has the right to launch pre-emptive nuclear strikes since early 2008.
NATO has likewise had a long-standing position of threatening to launch pre-emptive nuclear strikes, even against non-nuclear nations. Most recently officials have said the alliance could use nuclear weapons against other nations if they were concerned that they might soon acquire nuclear weapons.
Between them, Russia and NATO control the vast majority of the world’s nuclear weapons, and while they are unlikely to use them against one another, fearing reprisal, the threat remains that either side may launch a pre-emptive strike against a smaller power with little to no retaliatory capability. So far, however, such threats have remained simply threats, and no nation has used nuclear weapons against another in over 64 years.
AAAAAAAAAggggggghhhhhhhhhhhh……. Here's another fine mess you made george..!!!!!!
It is very misleading to say that Russia has had a "longstanding" policy to use nuclear weapons pre-emptively.
Throughout the Cold War the Soviet Union had a policy of No First Use of nuclear weapons. Nato never did, nor does it now.
So to say that both Nato and Russia have had a "longstanding" policy of First Use is to suggest an equivalence that does not exist in fact. Only Nato has had such a longstanding policy.
Russia's policy change on No First Use is relatively recent. It was only in 2000 that Russia amended its policy and adopted a First Use option.
Some Western commentators suggest this policy actually changed in 1993, when Russia announced it has not renewed its commitment to No First Use. But it did not specifically say that it had adopted the First Use option. So this is open to interpretation.
In any case, even if we use the 1993 date, there can be no equivalence between the "longstanding" aspect of Nato and Russia.
Once again we are treated to uninfored news writing on this website.
Gordon Arnaut
China on the other hand has a "no first use" policy and a total fleet of 16 missiles capable of entirely covering North America — fewer than found on a single Trident submarine.
So, why not? The US tore up the ABM treaty, is still attempting to effect nuclear primacy through "missle defense", the US and NATO have admitted eastern european countries to NATO, and even, perhaps, the Ukraine, and are still building a first-strike missle defense system to be based in Europe; and Israel, who has at least 200 nuclear weapons, isn't even being compelled to sign the NPT. So, what would you expect?
So, why not? The US tore up the ABM treaty, is still attempting to effect nuclear primacy through "missle defense", the US and NATO have admitted eastern european countries to NATO, a direct controdiction of a promise made to Gorbachev, and are still building a first-strike missle defense system to be based in Europe, including the Ukraine; and Israel, who has at least 200 nuclear weapons, isn't even being compelled to sign the NPT. So, what would you expect?
So, why not? The US tore up the ABM treaty, is still attempting to effect nuclear primacy through "missle defense", the US and NATO have admitted eastern european countries to NATO, a direct contradiction of a promise made to Gorbachev by Bush I, the US is still building a first-strike missle defense system based in Europe, including probably the Ukraine; and Israel, who has at least 200 nuclear weapons, isn't even being compelled to sign the NPT. So, what would you expect?