Komsomolskaya Pravda, 14.09.2024

Photo: Alexei Arbatov / Photo by the Yabloko Press Service

Academician Alexei Arbatov is the head of the Centre for International Security at the Institute of the World Economy and International Relations of the Russian Academy of Sciences, and a member of the Yabloko Federal Political Committee. He is one of the best experts arms control in Russia. Who better than him can answer our questions about the risks of World War III?

Question: Alexei Georgievich, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs confirmed that changes to the Russian nuclear doctrine are being prepared. Are you involved in this work?

Alexei Arbatov: No. I only participate in broad discussions that take place in the expert community.

Question: All the better, you are not bound by obligations, so I will ask: what changes to the doctrine do you see as feasible?

Alexei Arbatov: The document “Fundamentals of the Policy of the Russian Federation in the Field of Nuclear Deterrence” was adopted in 2020. Much has changed since then: it has become clear that nuclear deterrence does not protect Russia from drone strikes deep into its territory, it has not prevented the invasion of Ukrainian troops into the Kursk region, and it has not ruled out the supplies of long-range missiles to Ukraine by NATO. All of this was unthinkable four years ago.

The current doctrine states: we can use nuclear weapons in response to a nuclear attack and “aggression against the Russian Federation with the use of conventional weapons, when the very existence of the state is at risk”. It can be supplemented: “… and other vital interests”.

Next – pointing to aggression using conventional weapons, they forgot our allies. They could have added: “In response to aggression against the Russian Federation and its allies,” especially since Russian nuclear weapons have been deployed in Belarus.

We are writing a doctrine for a potential enemy to deter it from unwanted actions. When adjusting the doctrine, we must remember that a nuclear strike is an exceptional and forced measure, and not a broom with which you can sweep all corners.

FIRE WORSHIPPERS

Question: The enemy is behaving so brazenly that sometimes you think: we are being provoked into a strike with tactical nuclear weapons. Is this impression deceptive?

Alexei Arbatov: It is deceptive. Ukraine and the West, on the contrary, are very afraid of this. Otherwise, Ukraine would have long ago been provided with long-range missiles and allowed to use them deep into our territory.

What is the interest in provoking us to use nuclear weapons? To once again stigmatise Moscow from the UN rostrum?

Question: Ukrainians are expendable material for the West. There is an opinion that Russia will get a lot of trouble in response to a local strike.

Alexei Arbatov: If they wanted and could, then in two and a half years they would have easily found or created a pretext, as in 2003 for the invasion of Iraq. The first use of nuclear weapons is the only real threshold. Then Pandora’s box, an abyss will open. It is absolutely impossible to control the exchange of such strikes. Even containing the escalation of attacks by conventional missiles and drones is becoming increasingly difficult.

Question: Yet, calls to “use a tactical nuke” are quite popular. They say: you can choose a desert area, the West will think forever about how to respond, or will be afraid to respond at all.

Alexei Arbatov: The Hiroshima bomb was a tactical nuclear weapon by modern standards. What if an aerial bomb or missile misses and hits not some isolated target, but a city? Or is it deflected by an interceptor missile?

You will kill 50,000 – 80,000 people at once, contaminate a huge area, cause continuous fires…

In response, NATO plans to launch a massive strike with conventional weapons. Those who promote these ideas say, “And then we will launch a group nuclear strike” (with several missiles – Ed.). Well, we will receive a massive nuclear barrage in response. Because the other side will decide: the Rubicon has already been crossed, and this way there will at least be a chance to reduce the power of Russia’s retaliatory strike. This is exactly what Moscow would do in a mirror situation, which was said at the top level.

What will these nuclear “fire worshipers” say then? “Sorry, there was a mistake, we didn’t mean that?” It will be too late. You can’t start a chess game knowing only the first move e2-e4, the result will be disastrous.

CHAIN ​​REACTION

Question: I sometimes read American forums, where ordinary people write: all the Russian missiles are rusty, if we attack, nothing will happen to us…

Alexei Arbatov: This is nonsense, we still have a huge potential, although it has been significantly reduced over the past 30 years. Our forces are systematically updated, they have high survivability at launch and in flight, even a part of them is enough to destroy all potential opponents individually and together with a retaliatory strike.

Question: The last full-fledged nuclear test, an underground one, the USSR conducted in Novaya Zemlya in 1990, and the United States in Nevada in 1992. Currently, computer modeling and carriers without warheads are used in exercises. How accurate are such simulations?

Alexei Arbatov: Naturally, there is always a place for inaccuracy, but the absolute destructive power of nuclear weapons is so great that this has virtually no effect on the results of their use.

Question: Do we need to resume testing to force the West to come to senses?

Alexei Arbatov: I think the effect will be exactly the opposite. Last year, Russia withdrew ratification of the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty (CTBT), but did not withdraw from it. If we decide to withdraw in order to conduct tests again, other nuclear states will also withdraw and start testing.

And then non-nuclear countries will also begin to withdraw from the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons and the CTBT. They will have every reason to decide that they also need such weapons for security purposes, since the nuclear powers have resumed their testing and building-up. Instead of the current nine nuclear states, we will have twenty or more in 10-15 years, and mostly near our borders.

God knows what the security of their nuclear arsenal, the reliability of preventing unauthorised use, the psychology of leaders, and internal stability will be then…

A HOMEMADE BOMB

Question: It is not so difficult to assemble a nuclear device now, is it? Speaking about terrorism…

Alexei Arbatov: It is not very difficult. University students studying physics know how to do it. The problem is how to get hold of the required amount of highly enriched uranium or plutonium. Terrorists may well gain access to them – especially if nuclear weapons spread to countries where their sufficient security is not provided. Then they may secretly assemble a bomb from different parts that will be brought from all over the world to some basement. Or deliver the device on a sports plane, trailer or tourist boat.

Question: What is the probability of such a scenario in percent?

Alexei Arbatov: It is very high. But if the international control system collapses, it will be over 90%.

Quesstion: There are many reports that the Ukrainians are preparing a nuclear provocation, a “dirty bomb”, in order to blame everything on Russia then. God forbid, something like this happens. What next?

Alexei Arbatov: A “dirty bomb” is a device not for a nuclear explosion, but for dispersing radioactive material with the help of conventional explosives. What and who can be blamed is a vague question. But no one will answer this with a nuclear strike. An international investigation will be conducted, although the experience of recent years in this regard is very ambiguous. In any case, a provocation of this kind is a stupid idea.

TO RULE THE WORLD?

Question: The Pentagon began to invest huge amounts of money in Artificial Intelligence. A prominent American expert, Leopold Aschenbrenner, published a forecast: the leaders in this [arms] race will rule the world – AI will help create weapons that are impossible to track. Or, on the contrary, impenetrable missile defence system…

Alexei Arbatov: You can come up with a huge number of such forecasts. Certainly, AI changes military strategies. However, not by itself, but in combination with many other technologies and systems.

For example, multiple constellations of small-sized cheap satellites will be able to provide constant control over the entire surface of the Earth. Artificial Intelligence is needed to select the desired objects from this huge amount of information. For example, the deployment of ground-mobile intercontinental missiles – now surveillance satellites cannot constantly monitor their movement.

Question: Or rather, we are talking about breakthrough design solutions. It is predicted that AI will surpass human intelligence by 2030.

Alexei Arbatov: So we still have time, but human intelligence often leaves much to be desired. In general, for the last half century I have been constantly hearing predictions: “Something is about to appear that will change everything”. Most of the ideas did not come true.

Question: When the Internet emerged, did you think that it would have such potential?

Alexei Arbatov: Certainly, I didn’t think so. But it has not yet created the means to track strategic missile submarines in the ocean depths.

A DOOMSDAY BUNKER

Question: What advice would you give to ordinary people who are very scared of a nuclear war?

Alexei Arbatov: I would say, “You have every reason to be scared, because a nuclear war is the end of our civilisation, when the survivors will envy the dead”. There is only one piece of advice: do not trust the nuclear “great schemers” and, do everything to prevent this to the best of your ability.

Question: Would you build yourself a doomsday bunker?

Alexei Arbatov: Never.

Question: Why?

Alexei Arbatov: Because I don’t want to live after a nuclear exchange.

Source

ALEXEI ARBATOV

is a member of the Federal Political Committee of Yabloko. Head of the Centre for International Security of the Institute of World Economy and International Relations of the Russian Academy of Sciences. Doctor of Historical Sciences, Academician of the Russian Academy of Sciences