![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Дестабилизация и разоружение
Интересная и очень содержательная статья Стюарта Кёля о возможных последствиях обамовской болтовни о необходимости ядерного разоружения. Тщательно проанализированы все аспекты современного ядерного баланса сил и наглядно показано, что любое (!) нарушение ядерного статус-кво (будь то сокращение ядерных арсеналов или прибавление в семье малоадекватных стран-обладателей ядерного потенциала) могут спровоцировать ряд масштабных военных конфликтов. В том числе и ядерных. Поэтому болтовня йесуикенов, буде она реализована хотя бы в малой степени, опасна для всего мира.
Как всегда - несколько цитат для затравки.
Like most on the left, Barack Obama and his closest foreign policy advisers believe that nuclear weapons per se are a threat to international peace and stability, and that a world without any nuclear weapons would be a safer, saner place. This is, to say the least, simplistic and naïve. It is not so much nuclear weapons as the nature of the countries possessing them that are the cause of tensions in the international community. Nobody much cares that France or the United Kingdom have nuclear weapons; even Israel's nuclear arsenal does not unduly worry the international community--with the exception of those countries that harbor hostile intent towards Israel. On the other hand, nuclear weapons in the hands of countries like Russia, China, North Korea, Iran (and to a lesser extent, Pakistan) do raise concerns not just among their near neighbors, but around the world, because their foreign policies are inherently aggressive, and marked by a willingness to use military force offensively to further their strategic interests. ....
Adopting much lower nuclear stockpiles also means each warhead represents a larger incremental share of our total deterrent, making the force more vulnerable to attack. One way to improve survivability would be deployment of a National Missile Defense (NMD) system, something else anathema to liberals in the Democratic party. But, ironically, if Obama is able to negotiate parallel reductions in the Soviet nuclear force, then NMD would be effective not only against small nuclear powers like China, Iran and North Korea, but also against Russia. In short, steep cuts in U.S. strategic forces opens Pandora's Box, and it seems clear the Obama administration has given little consideration to what might be inside. Its pronouncements on nuclear disarmament represent nothing more than the triumph of mindless sentiment over serious strategic analysis.
Интересная и очень содержательная статья Стюарта Кёля о возможных последствиях обамовской болтовни о необходимости ядерного разоружения. Тщательно проанализированы все аспекты современного ядерного баланса сил и наглядно показано, что любое (!) нарушение ядерного статус-кво (будь то сокращение ядерных арсеналов или прибавление в семье малоадекватных стран-обладателей ядерного потенциала) могут спровоцировать ряд масштабных военных конфликтов. В том числе и ядерных. Поэтому болтовня йесуикенов, буде она реализована хотя бы в малой степени, опасна для всего мира.
Как всегда - несколько цитат для затравки.
Like most on the left, Barack Obama and his closest foreign policy advisers believe that nuclear weapons per se are a threat to international peace and stability, and that a world without any nuclear weapons would be a safer, saner place. This is, to say the least, simplistic and naïve. It is not so much nuclear weapons as the nature of the countries possessing them that are the cause of tensions in the international community. Nobody much cares that France or the United Kingdom have nuclear weapons; even Israel's nuclear arsenal does not unduly worry the international community--with the exception of those countries that harbor hostile intent towards Israel. On the other hand, nuclear weapons in the hands of countries like Russia, China, North Korea, Iran (and to a lesser extent, Pakistan) do raise concerns not just among their near neighbors, but around the world, because their foreign policies are inherently aggressive, and marked by a willingness to use military force offensively to further their strategic interests. ....
Adopting much lower nuclear stockpiles also means each warhead represents a larger incremental share of our total deterrent, making the force more vulnerable to attack. One way to improve survivability would be deployment of a National Missile Defense (NMD) system, something else anathema to liberals in the Democratic party. But, ironically, if Obama is able to negotiate parallel reductions in the Soviet nuclear force, then NMD would be effective not only against small nuclear powers like China, Iran and North Korea, but also against Russia. In short, steep cuts in U.S. strategic forces opens Pandora's Box, and it seems clear the Obama administration has given little consideration to what might be inside. Its pronouncements on nuclear disarmament represent nothing more than the triumph of mindless sentiment over serious strategic analysis.