"the Rise Of U.s. Nuclear Primacy" - It's Really? Whether there is a threat?

[Artem ZHI 0]

PRESENT AT THE DESTRUCTION
For almost half a century, the world's most powerful nuclear states have been locked in a military stalemate known as mutual assured destruction (MAD). By the early 1960s, the nuclear arsenals of the United States and the Soviet Union had grown so large and sophisticated that neither country could entirely destroy the other's retaliatory force by launching first, even with a surprise attack. Starting a nuclear war was therefore tantamount to committing suicide.

During the Cold War, many scholars and policy analysts believed that MAD made the world relatively stable and peaceful because it induced great caution in international politics, discouraged the use of nuclear threats to resolve disputes, and generally restrained the superpowers' behavior. (Revealingly, the last intense nuclear standoff, the 1962 Cuban missile crisis, occurred at the dawn of the era of MAD.) Because of the nuclear stalemate, the optimists argued, the era of intentional great-power wars had ended. Critics of MAD, however, argued that it prevented not great-power war but the rolling back of the power and influence of a dangerously expansionist and totalitarian Soviet Union. From that perspective, MAD prolonged the life of an evil empire.

This debate may now seem like ancient history, but it is actually more relevant than ever -- because the age of MAD is nearing an end. Today, for the first time in almost 50 years, the United States stands on the verge of attaining nuclear primacy. It will probably soon be possible for the United States to destroy the long-range nuclear arsenals of Russia or China with a first strike. This dramatic shift in the nuclear balance of power stems from a series of improvements in the United States' nuclear systems, the precipitous decline of Russia's arsenal, and the glacial pace of modernization of China's nuclear forces. Unless Washington's policies change or Moscow and Beijing take steps to increase the size and readiness of their forces, Russia and China -- and the rest of the world -- will live in the shadow of U.S. nuclear primacy for many years to come.

One's views on the implications of this change will depend on one's theoretical perspective. Hawks, who believe that the United States is a benevolent force in the world, will welcome the new nuclear era because they trust that U.S. dominance in both conventional and nuclear weapons will help deter aggression by other countries. For example, as U.S. nuclear primacy grows, China's leaders may act more cautiously on issues such as Taiwan, realizing that their vulnerable nuclear forces will not deter U.S. intervention -- and that Chinese nuclear threats could invite a U.S. strike on Beijing's arsenal. But doves, who oppose using nuclear threats to coerce other states and fear an emboldened and unconstrained United States, will worry. Nuclear primacy might lure Washington into more aggressive behavior, they argue, especially when combined with U.S. dominance in so many other dimensions of national power. Finally, a third group -- owls, who worry about the possibility of inadvertent conflict -- will fret that U.S. nuclear primacy could prompt other nuclear powers to adopt strategic postures, such as by giving control of nuclear weapons to lower-level commanders, that would make an unauthorized nuclear strike more likely -- thereby creating what strategic theorists call "crisis instability." and etc.

http://forums.xisto.com/no_longer_exists/

Whether there is a threat in a reality? I so do't think. I think, that in this articl much is wrong. Very much many facts are void. In one of these (and may and in this) to clause it is written, that ALL Russian planes are concentrated on 2 bases. Whether but so it? I know, that in each Russian city there is 1 civil and 1 military airport. In Russia more than 100 megapolis. Whether so it is possible after that to speak, what all military planes are concentrated all on 2 airports? I have an impression, that the American military experts know about our armies less, than I.

[SqlByte 0]

http://forums.xisto.com/no_longer_exists/
on that link you can watch places where USA store there Nukes, only if you have Google earth affcourse.
Nukes sucks, i heard that France is willing to fire nukes if someone attack their country by terrorist attack... i heard somewhere that so im not 100% sure...
What if that is true and tomorow someone who isnt terrorist just wont a war becouse he will get something from that, attack France ?

Russia and USA will not do stupid things now like they planet in cold war, but others country might do that... So Russia and USA are not the biggest problem, they are usualy the problem but this time its not only depending on them