Posts by YanaKorobko:
The Modern Nuclear Strategies
March 26th, 2015
By Yana Korobko.
The nuclear diplomacy has become one of the most crucial issues of the modern international relations.
Accordingly to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI)[1], the total number of the nuclear warheads in the world today is estimated to be over 20 million. More than half of this amount belongs to the Russian Armed Forces, then goes USA, and the remaining percentage is made up by other nuclear states.
The “mutually guaranteed security” of the United States of America
The US nuclear strategy is most precisely formulated by a doctrine of “mutually guaranteed safety” by the Minister of Defense W. Perry during World War Two. Until now it has not lost its significance for the American military ideology. And it means that the United States is still holding firmly the memories about the bipolar epoch even though the nature of the U.S. nuclear threats radically changed. The collapse of the Soviet Union and the annulment of the Warsaw Pact have sharply reduced the chance not only of the global nuclear confrontation, but even of the large-scale regional wars. Nevertheless, the Russian remaining nuclear capabilities continue to evoke fear of the American national security. In reality, the concept of the “mutual assured security” became a national program called “Cooperative Threat Reduction from the former Soviet Union”, which is also known as the Nunn-Lugar plan financed from the budget of the American Ministry of Defense. The program was intended to assist the former USSR republics in the rapid and secure nuclear disarmament. William Perry stated: “there is no better opportunity to spend funds predestined for the national security than to help the destruction of the nuclear weapons and nuclear industry of the former enemy … This is also defense, however, by other means.” By the beginning of 1995 the Nunn-Lugar initiative allocated around 900 million US dollars on the implementation of the disarmament programs.
The U.S. modern nuclear strategy consists of two chief principles. First of all, it has to “convince” the rest of the world of its power, which is achieved by maintaining a high level of the combat readiness of the strategic offensive forces. Secondly, it must create the state of the greatest uncertainty about the Washington’s possible reaction to a nuclear threat emanating from its opponent. That is why the U.S. authorities refuse to make a commitment not to use nuclear weapons first, in contrast to other nuclear countries. At the same time, the United States is an active party to the Non-Proliferation Treaty.
The American administration promotes persistently a program on the combat against the weapons of mass destruction fixing it as a priority for their own diplomatic, economic and military purposes. The Ministry of Defense is entitled to develop a complex of purely military measures to prevent the proliferation of WMD on the international level. Some specific tasks are assigned to the intelligence services that can easily obtain the updated information about the possible development and the production of weapons of mass destruction in any part of the world.
Thus, the revision of the nuclear policy of the Pentagon at the end of the “cold war,” in fact, did not bring about any radical changes for the U.S. nuclear strategy[2]. The “nuclear deterrence” still remains the cornerstone of the national security of the United States.
Russian nuclear ambitions non-stop
The modern Russian military doctrine states that “The Armed Forces of the Russian Federation are in constant readiness as well as other troops to deter and prevent an armed conflict in accordance with international law and international treaties of the Russian Federation … The prevention of the nuclear armed conflict, as well as any other military conflict is the most important task of the Russian Federation[3]“.
The use of the nuclear weapons is defined in the following terms: “The Russian Federation reserves the right to use nuclear weapons in response to an attack aimed at it, and (or) its allies with the nuclear and other weapons of mass destruction, as well as in the event of aggression against the Russian Federation with the conventional weapons when under threat”.
In the statistical numbers the dimension of the Russian nuclear arsenal is inferior only to the American. During the nuclear talks Russia tends to defend the position of the U.S. missile defense system in the Eastern Europe. When the United States announced the suspension of the deployment of a missile defense system in the Eastern Europe, Russia declared that it “would steadily move towards the verifiable and irreversible reductions in the nuclear weapons.” However, Moscow aims at the preservation of the balance of the strategic offensive arms between Russia and the United States, and thus, exercising a strict control over the export of the nuclear materials and technology, promoting the denuclearization of the post-Soviet space, and improving the existing international nuclear non-proliferation documentary basis.
“The sub-strategic strike” of the United Kingdom
In its nuclear policy the UK adheres to the principle of the minimum nuclear deterrence for selective use of nuclear weapons in the framework of the so-called sub-strategic mission. In the lexicon of the British military and political leadership there even exist the special concept of “sub-strategic impact”, which means that the “sub-strategic strike is limited to the extremely selective use of the nuclear weapons. This gives a strategic blow, and on the level of its capacity it is sufficient to reassure the aggressor to afflict a strike upon UK, which should stop even the thought about the aggression, otherwise the aggressor risks facing a devastating nuclear attack”. That is to say the Russia’s nuclear forces are designed for nuclear retaliation as retaliation for a nuclear attack on Russia and the opponent (or) its allies.
With the reduction in the number of U.S. and Russian nuclear weapons, Great Britain pledged to “develop and implement” a future agreement on the reduction of the nuclear weapons and nuclear forces to maintain it at a minimum level. To prevent the terrorists from acquiring nuclear weapons and to avoid the risk of contagion Britain called upon the nuclear powers to achieve a “global compromise”. In accordance to this plan, all non-nuclear states are ought to guarantee not to develop nuclear weapons under any circumstances. In return Britain is ready to provide those countries with the access to peaceful nuclear technology.
French balanced containment
Since DeGaulle`s times France has been in favor of maintaining its nuclear forces at a minimum, but duly supervised level of the vigilance. In the field of promotion of the international nuclear non-proliferation, the French government has made significant proposals to the United Nations, calling upon all countries to ratify the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty and to begin the negotiations on an international treaty banning the production of fissile material without extension preconditions as soon as possible.
The Chinese philosophy and nuclear weapons are incompatible
China is the only great power, which has a commitment the official level not to use the nuclear weapons first, without any reservations.
All throughout its history, the military-political leadership of China has been realizing its necessities of a huge country, such as the possession of the highly drilled and fully equipped with modern weapons, including nuclear, armed forces. Therefore, the official Chinese doctrine is interpreted as mainly a political and propagandistic tool and it does not show the real operational planning of the strategic nuclear forces, which are in fact aimed at a pre-emptive strike. The Chinese first nuclear program, adopted in 1951, had purely peaceful purposes. However, afterwards it was supplemented by a secret amendment allowing the creation of its own nuclear weapons. China took the path of the preferential production of the nuclear weapons, ballistic missiles and land-based aircraft bombs. Nowadays it is no secret that China has got both strategic and non-strategic nuclear weapons.
The Chinese tactical nuclear forces include: strategic missile forces (CDR), the strategic air (SA) and the nuclear missile fleet[4]. On January 1 2007 the total number of the nuclear weapons of strategic purpose counted 244 units.
In comparison with other nuclear states, the Chinese nuclear forces have low combat readiness. The reason for this is the technical imperfection of the Chinese nuclear missile potential. Besides this, the nuclear weapons, as a weapon of war, are considered as the extreme last step by the Chinese defense policy. This willing killing is in direct contradiction with the Chinese philosophy of war and victory. Therefore, the Chinese philosophy of war and the use of nuclear weapons are incompatible. Furthermore, the use of the weapons of mass destruction is completely meaningless for China. As the population of China is one of the biggest in accordance to other world military powers, which already gives it an overwhelming advantage over the other countries in the world. The use of the weapons of mass destruction may be beneficial to any other party to the conflict, much is inferior to the population of China. For Beijing, the initiative in the use of weapons of mass destruction means depriving its population of one of the main advantages that they already own.
Indian “strategy of regional deterrence”
If the India declares that it does not intend to use its nuclear power, why, then, wouldn`t New Delhi abandon it? The truth is that even the fact of the possession of the nuclear-country status can have its strategic benefits. The Indian “peaceful atom” means:
– Control over the U.S. influence in the Indian Ocean. India sees itself as a regional power in the Indian Ocean becoming more and more suspicious towards the naval presence of other powers there. The fact that India’s nuclear weapons intend to deprive the U.S. of any possibility to exercise pressure upon India in the ocean space, even if it will worsen the US-Indian relations.
– Another means to deter Pakistan[5]. Numerous collisions in the diplomatic Indo-Pakistani relations still exist on the general background of the religious intolerance, which in turn adds fuel to the mutual hatred leaving no room for compromise. If Pakistan is decisive to possess nuclear weapons, then India will move in the same direction.
– A strategy to contain China. The test of the China’s atomic bomb in 1964 became another blow to the Indian security. In November of the same year, the Indian Prime said that his country would consider the possibility of testing of nuclear devices for peaceful purposes. Still the Indian military believes that the Indian nuclear weapons are the most effective deterrent against China and Pakistan.
– Great-power prestige, which would help New Delhi to take place in the UN Security Council. It is for this reason that India has been refusing to abandon its “nuclear option” for decades. India is well aware that it gained its own nuclear arsenal with big costs and it will force other powers to listen to its opinion.
The India’s nuclear strategy is evolving at a slow pace in the absence of the clear systems of the political leadership of the country. Currently the Indian nuclear weapons are under the civilian control, and the means of their delivery are under the supervision of the militaries. In the operational terms India is reiterating that its nuclear strategy is based strictly on the peaceful principles.
Pakistani “nuclear bomb at all costs”
In 1965 Pakistan made an unsuccessful attempt to oust India in Kashmir. Pakistan lost that war, and the U.S. imposed the arms embargo on the country. As a result, Pakistan was deprived from the U.S. military support and a sense of security, the army began to show dissatisfaction with the current situation and the country’s political crisis started evolving. In 1972 after the defeat in the war with India and the dismemberment of Pakistan, the new president of the President Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, declared: “If India builds the bomb, we will eat grass or leaves, even go hungry, but we will get one of our own”[6].
So, what are the advantages for Pakistan to keep its nuclear bomb?
First of all, so that to keep distance with India. Now it is already more than half-century that the Indo-Pakistan conflict is ongoing. Pakistan believes that India will continue to be a threat to the Pakistan, and that only the fact that Pakistan acquires the nuclear bomb can make India keep distance with its neighbor.
Secondly, it is an issue of reputation. The military potential of India in the field of conventional weapons is higher than the military capacities of Pakistan. A direct comparison of the nuclear power is not in favor of Pakistan: India has 2 times more soldiers to 1.5 times more tanks, 2.5 times more artillery, a factor of 2 – planes, and 4 times – warships. So, Pakistani nuclear weapons are intended to end this imbalance by making the Indian armed forces helpless in the face of the threat of unacceptable damage to the opponent.
Thirdly, it is a matter of the Pakistani status in the Islamic world. On the international stage, Pakistan and India are in different weight classes. At the same time, the Pakistani government believes that the possession of the nuclear weapons would allow the country to take a more prominent place in the world. Unlike India, Pakistan does not have pretensions to adhere to the club of the great powers and obtain a seat at the Security Council of the UN. The Pakistani ambitions are basically limited to the Islamic world, so the fact of possessing nuclear power rises Islamabad up on the region. The leadership in the Islamic world has always been crucial. In this situation, a Muslim country with nuclear weapons automatically becomes a strategic center of the Muslim world. In 70s ex-President of Pakistan Z.A. Bhutto described the Pakistani nuclear status as an “Islamic bomb”, which proves the modern reality.
Last, but not the least, Pakistan has not yet announced publicly its nuclear strategy. In theory and practice it follows the principles of minimum nuclear deterrence and defense by conventional means. Pakistan was the second country after India to have refused to make a commitment not to use nuclear weapons first. From this it can be concluded that some actions of Pakistan at the international arena, especially those manifested during the previous Indo-Pakistani crises prove that it may use the nuclear weapons in certain situations. Such a situation may occur as a war fought with the conventional weapons, where Pakistan might threaten to use nuclear weapons.
North Korean “nuclear escalation”
The North Korea’s leadership is considering nuclear shield as a guarantor and protection against the regime and the dynasty change. The North Korea has already observed how easily the regimes were eliminated during the Arab Spring. None of them had the nuclear weapons, so they were quickly overthrown by the rebels. So, the North Korea will be avoiding at all cost the repetition of the same scenario on its territory.
The North Korea has not yet entered into the range of the strategic nuclear powers, because, apparently, it has not created yet the compact nuclear warheads for missiles and aircraft carriers. Its potential can largely be described as “provocative” or ” international sabotage”[7].
In this situation Washington is trying by all means to avoid the escalation of the current crisis into war. At the same time, the U.S. is actively building up its military forces in the region. The “hawks” in the Pentagon urged the administration of the President Barack Obama to abstain from any unnecessary contacts with the dictator. However, the fact is that a war with the North Korea can lead to the use of nuclear weapons and the destruction of the South Korea and some parts of Japan if the White House abandons the tempting idea of pre-emptive strike. For the North Korea the preventive strikes mean war, and this war can become a local disaster. It is high time for the North Korea to change its nuclear strategy.
Iranian “nuclear intimidation”
Currently Iran has the most developed research and production base in the nuclear field among the Islamic states and in the whole Middle Eastern region.
Firstly, the acquisition of the nuclear energy is national pride for Iran, as there is only limited number of the countries, which are, indeed, able to master the nuclear fuel cycle. The progress in the development of the nuclear energy, as well as advancing technologies in the space program are highly valued by the Iranian administration, and not only because it raises its international weight, but also because it proves the effectiveness of the Islamic regimes in general. The Iranian nuclear program is more than a key part of its ideology, it is the most crucial period of its history. The Islamic Republic for such a long time has been fighting hard for its right to use the nuclear energy, so that now it feels itself as a full-fledged master at its house.
Secondly, the Iranians believe that the world concerns about the possibility of the double-use or the misuse of the Iranian nuclear potential cannot be a sufficient reason for the constant international intervention into their nuclear program.
In a summary, as it has been presented above, each country being a part to the nuclear club, has got its own purposes for maintaining the nuclear program, as well as its own goals and strategies that such global schemas might require. In the military-political plan each nuclear country associates with the nuclear weapons five main advantages: the prestige and status in the world policy; prevention of a nuclear attack; containment (six countries except China and, with reservations, the U.S. and India), security guarantees and impact on its allies (Russia, USA, UK and France), “trump card” to exchange for concessions on other countries negotiations on other topics in the multilateral negotiations (Russia and North Korea). However, each nuclear program has got its own specificities. In what it concerns the use of nuclear weapons in response to a nuclear strike attack of the enemy, it all nuclear states respond positively. The states are prepared to use nuclear weapons in response to an attack, which is afflicted upon them with the nuclear weapons.
Moreover, such powers as U.S. and Russia intend to resort to the nuclear weapons even if a nuclear attack affects their allies. Russia intends to use nuclear weapons in case of an attack on its allies by using other weapons of mass destruction. The new U.S. nuclear strategy, edited in 2010, does not foresee the usage of the nuclear weapons in response to the usage of other weapons of mass destruction against the U.S. and its allies (except, apparently, to protect Japan and South Korea, which are worried about the threat of such aggression emanating from the North Korea). Russia and Pakistan are ready to use their nuclear weapons under the threat of a catastrophic defeat in the war with an adversary that uses only conventional arms and armed forces. Whereas, the United Kingdom, France and later the United States in “The strategy of NATO” adopted in 2010 allowed the use of the nuclear weapons so that to prevent the destruction of their conventional forces. The new U.S. nuclear doctrine does not permit the usage of the nuclear weapons in such a case.
All powers except China and India, allow the use of nuclear weapons in a preemptive strike “by default” so that to destruct the missiles and other weapons of mass destruction of an enemy. It is worth noting that the USA earlier allowed the selective application of the nuclear weapons against the terrorist targets in other situations in a discrete way.
So, as we can see, the fundamental principles of the nuclear strategies are evolving extremely slowly preserving the basic approaches taken on during the Cold War, which, above all, aim at the mutual nuclear deterrence. And the modern common strategy of the nuclear club is to keep in fear the rest of the world, which has mainly the psychological basis. In the communication with non-nuclear states their behavior fits into the following schema: playing with time come to negotiations achieve no substantial results gaining time. Sometimes the nuclear countries agree to come to some concessions, and then, one of them wouldn`t agree (like Iran) and all the process starts from the beginning. Only bilateral negotiations may bring solution to the current nuclear challenges. The negotiations are vital in this case, even if they lead to no results so far, it is fundamental even the fact that they are going on.
Comments Off on The Modern Nuclear Strategies
What Is Psychological Warfare?
June 12th, 2013
By Yana Korobko.
It was Napoleon who was already mentioning the mighty of psychological weapon, which can be described as the use of activities that cause fear and anxiety in the people you want to influence without hurting them physically. This type of war differs from all others mainly by the object of its influence, which is the consciousness of people and its transformation through propaganda or ideological campaigns based on carefully planned strategies and tactics directed towards achievement of specific goals. The main weapons of the psywar aren`t tanks, nor the missiles, but the weapon of a new type: information.
It can be transmitted through radio, television, slogans, books, newspapers, magazines, conferences and other means for reaching and affecting the thinking and emotions of the mass public. The psywar may be also carried on at a more limited, sophisticated level in an effort to mislead or confuse policymakers or military commanders. To the greatest extent the psywar develops on unconscious level and it is invisible for a human eye. It includes all set of political, military, economic and social activities carried out during war period aimed at remodeling thoughts and actions of the humans. That is why in XXI century the psycho-informational combat is considered to be among the most dangerous. Its most known types are the following:
1) information-psychological,
2) psychogenic ;
3) psychoanalytic ;
4) neurolinguistic ;
5) psychotronic;
6) psychotropic.
1. Information-psychological (often called ideological)
The psychological impact of this type of weaponry, as its main goal, has the formation of the certain ideological (social) ideas, opinions, ideas, beliefs, with aim of making people experience positive or negative emotions, feelings, and even cause violent mass reaction. Thus, a leaflet with a propaganda effect can simultaneously cause the psychological experience, such as feeling homesick at the battlefield.
Example: Some political statements made by the American and Soviet leaders during Cold War, so that to influence the course of events in one`s own favor, however, without any following practical actions, which mainly served to gain time. They were lately labeled as propaganda.
2. The psychogenic influence leaves profound physical effects on the brain of an individual, which leads to malfunction in its psychological activity. For example, a person receives a brain injury as a result of which he/she loses memory and the ability to think rationally. Or any shocking environmental conditions and events, e.g. the scene of the mass destruction with many victims, which result in person`s lost ability of space orientation with emanant depression, panic etc. So, the lesser humans are prepared to the stressful influence of the war reality, the more traumatic their experience can be. It`s been scientifically proved that even the use of specific colors creates essential emotional atmosphere, which can facilitate the perception and the assimilation of the information; whereas the wrongly chosen color in its relation to the informational content of event can cause emotional dissonance. And as a consequence, the message will not be delivered, as information was not transmitted correctly.
Example: Hoge and his colleagues released their study in 2004 showing that about one in six returning soldiers faced severe mental disorders, but those conclusions were based on interviews with about 6,000 soldiers. In the latest study, exposure to combat was found to be the one factor most closely associated with mental problems. Among the 21,822 Iraq veterans who reported symptoms of post-traumatic stress disorder, 79.6% had engaged in combat or witnessed people being wounded or killed. Among the 200,798 who did not have the disorder, 47.8% had done so.
3. Psychoanalytic influence includes all subliminal therapeutic agents, used especially in a state of hypnosis or deep sleep. There are also methods that exclude the conscious resistance of individuals as well as of groups of people in awakening state. For example, in former USSR the professor I.V.Smirnov, following the instructions of the Ministry of Defense, developed the technology of the computer psychoanalytical correction, allowing:
• to perform statistical analysis of the reactions to the external stimuli and to determine absolutely accurately a reaction of an unaware person in response to specific information, as well as to measure its significance to him\her, to identify hidden motivations and true aspirations;
• if necessary, to carry out correction of mental states using words, pictures, images, and even smell-associated motivators that create certain type of behavior.
In particular, a person who listens to music, does not suspect that the melody composition influences greatly his\her consciousness, especially, subconscious mind with that information, which is initially implanted in it. And this makes this person do what is suggested to do by it.
Example: The Chinese strategist Sun Tzu stated that the most noble victory was to subdue his enemy without a fight. Another example is the successful exploits of Genghis Khan (the Mongolian General Temujin), who would soften his enemy’s will to resist by spreading rumors about his own army’s strength and fierceness. His planning was simple and, seemingly, relevant and effective.
Neuro-linguistic influence (NLP – Neuro-Linguistic Programming) incorporates all kinds of psychological impact that can change people`s motivation by introducing into their consciousness special language programs. In this case, the main object is the neuro-physiological activity of the brain and emerging, thanks to it, psycho-emotional state. The main means of influence are the specially selected words, as well as non-verbal linguistic program. By learning their contents one can change beliefs, opinions and ideas of a single individual as well as of groups of people. The schematic formula of the process of inflicting changes upon psyche of an observed person under targeted exterior influence can be drawn as follows :
Example: During World War II, propaganda activities became known as psychological warfare (psywar). Public broadcast radio, about 20 years old at this point, was called into play. Tank-mounted loudspeakers with a range of approximately two miles amplified the ability of the human voice to reach opposing combatants. Besides media programs, military actions were undertaken for their psychological effect.
5. Psychotronic (psychic, psychic) is delivery of information through extrasensory (unconscious) perception. This term was first coined in 1967 by Zdeněk Rejdák.
The psychotronic weapons focus mainly on the practices related to the use of technical means of influence on the mind, for example, sublimation of the sound and visual messages. At present it is too early to speak about its active use as a means of the psychological warfare, as yet, it has not been studied sufficiently in comparison to other psychological weapons.
Example: Each war produces its own traumatic syndrome. The trench warfare of World War I produced the shaking and partial paralysis known as shell shock. The long tours and heavy fighting of World War II induced in many young men the numbed exhaustion that was called combat fatigue.
6. Psychotropic effects imply the impact of drugs, chemical or biological agents on the psyche of people. To make a man do, towards which he is not inclined, without compelling him by force. Today no one can guarantee that this weaponry has not been created with aim of organizing “natural” protest demonstrations, or stimulating behavior of the crowd. Moreover, there is information about creation of so-called neurotransmitters, which incite aggressive behavior.
Example: In 2011 more than 110,000 active-duty US Army troops were taking prescribed antidepressants, narcotics, sedatives, antipsychotics and anti-anxiety drugs, according to figures recently disclosed to The Times by the U.S. Army surgeon general. Nearly 8% of the active-duty Army is now on sedatives and more than 6% is on antidepressants — an eightfold increase since 2005.
Thus, some elements of psywar (propaganda, misinformation) were known and employed since the notion of a “war” appeared itself. However, psywar gained its popularity only during World War I, after which, it was rarely considered as a serious mean for fighting an enemy, owing to insufficient number of specialists involved in military psychology at that time. The conception of psywar was only revived in 1980s with the statements of Ronald Reagan, which he made against the Soviet Union by characterizing it as an “evil empire”. In early 1984 the President directed Department Of Defense to rebuild the American military psychological capabilities. In response, the Secretary of Defense Caspar Weinberger launched a master plan aiming at the total reformation of the military psychological capabilities of DOD that could have been flexibly adapted to times of peace, crisis, and war. Nowadays psywar is an integral part of waging a war campaign in all corners of the world.
Undoubtedly, psychological weapon is effective, secretive and it is often difficult to detect. Psywar can demoralize, disorient, and confuse hostile groups. Against such groups, psychological operations are employed as offensive weapons to enhance the overall effectiveness of military operations. However, they also can unite, inform, and strengthen the morale of non-hostile groups. Therefore, the use of psychological weapon is often contradictory. These facts indicate the need for development of strong basis of international legislation for protection of the human psyche from the unconscious destructive informational influence, which is currently much restrained and cannot respond effectively to the risks that the development of the modern psychological warfare entails.