Russia Reserves Pre-Emptive Nuclear Strike Right
From Reuters last month (and overlooked/omitted by the moronic/corrupt US mainstream media):
Russia reserves pre-emptive nuclear strike right
Tue Oct 13, 2009
MOSCOW (Reuters) - Russia in a new review of its policy on use of nuclear weapons will reserve the right to undertake a pre-emptive strike if it feels its security is endangered, a senior Kremlin official told a Russian newspaper.
Russian and U.S. negotiators are in talks to find agreement on a new bilateral pact cutting stocks of strategic nuclear weapons. Both sides are working to a December deadline for a new treaty to replace the landmark Cold War-era START pact.
While Moscow and Washington have made progress in strategic nuclear arms talks, Russia's security may come under threat from regional conflicts and local wars, Nikolai Patrushev, secretary of the Kremlin's powerful Security Council, said in an interview with Izvestia newspaper to be published on Wednesday.
"Conditions of using nuclear weapons to repel an aggression with the use of conventional weapons not only in a large-scale but also in a regional and even local war have been revised," he said, without naming these conditions.
"Moreover, different variants are considered to allow the use of nuclear weapons depending on a certain situation and intentions of a would-be enemy. In conditions critical for national security one should not also exclude a preventive nuclear strike on the aggressor."
Russia's current doctrine says the "most important task is to be able to deter, including with the use of nuclear weapons, an aggression of any scale against Russia and its allies."
As Russia's conventional troops lack modern equipment and undergo a painful reform aimed to cut their numbers and create professional armed forces, Moscow relies heavily on its formidable arsenal of nuclear weapons.
The Kremlin prided itself on defeating tiny neighbor Georgia in a five-day war in August 2008. But many Russia watchers are skeptical that Moscow would be able to defeat with the same ease a larger and stronger nation.
(Reporting by Dmitry Solovyov)
Pravda covered the story as well.
There's a quote from the Reuters story worth considering:
"In conditions critical for national security one should not also exclude a preventive nuclear strike on the aggressor."
Anyone remember the kerfuffle over "no first use" back in the Eighties?
How about the fundamental assumption that the United States should absorb a first strike by the Soviets -- be it a "bolt from the blue" or part of a general escalation stemming from a European or Middle Eastern war -- before committing its strategic nuclear assets?
Assuming one is truly faced with an existential threat posed by a ruthless enemy, what is the utility of telling that adversary, as "no first use" advocates advise, that he can have a free hand in the timing and execution of the first wave of mass murder?
The question is much more than academic.
Si vis pacem, para bellum.