Professors Dan Plesch and Manuel Galileo from SOAS University of London argue in a newly published study that the ability of the U.S. and its allies to strike and destroy all of Russia's and China's nuclear missile bases with conventional weapons creates a risk of geopolitical instability, writes The Guardian.

According to the authors, U.S. superiority may provoke Russia or China, in the event of a major crisis, to make the mistaken decision to use nuclear weapons preemptively. Plesch and Galileo argue that this situation justifies renewed attention to arms control.

"I would place this study in a broader context. In fact, dozens of studies of this kind are published around the world every week. It should not be seen as something particularly extraordinary or noteworthy," Indrek Kannik, director of the International Center for Defense and Security (ICDS), told ERR.

"Secondly, if we look at the background of the study's authors, both Dan Plesch and Manuel Galileo are long-time advocates of arms control, even activists. They are also closely associated with the organization Scrap Weapons. This somewhat reveals their ideological background," Kannik commented.

"Like many arms control activists in the West, they focus on demanding restrictions from their own side – the West – without acknowledging that they have no ability whatsoever to ensure that the West's adversaries, in this case Russia and China, would impose similar restrictions on themselves," Kannik said.

"Thus, we can say that such demands and presentations of this kind are more likely to weaken us and the West as a whole," he added.

Kannik also pointed out that this approach would undoubtedly be used in Russian propaganda. "Certainly. If we look at why the state of arms control is so weak at the moment, the reason is that Russia has withdrawn from the majority of arms control agreements, and China, for example, refuses to agree to many nuclear weapons control treaties, claiming that they are in a weaker position than the United States and Russia and want to improve their position first," said Kannik.

"In this situation, to worry that the U.S.' conventional armament is superior and more effective than that of Russia and China seems, at best, naive and, at worst, hypocritical," he stated.

Kannik explained that if the U.S. military capability were not superior to that of Russia and China and were instead on the same level, it would clearly increase the risk of Russia and China becoming even more aggressive.

"We see Russia's aggression every day towards Ukraine, but also in other parts of the world. China might not be as closely observed, but for its neighbors – such as the Philippines, Vietnam and several other countries – China is still an extremely difficult and aggressive partner. China is also creating situations in the South China Sea where it takes control of islands previously under Philippine control or in dispute, using military capabilities," Kannik explained.

"This would simply strengthen the positions of those countries, and the West's ability to respond to them at a level below full-scale nuclear war would become even weaker," said Kannik.

According to the study's authors, Russia has approximately 150 distant nuclear missile bases, while China has around 70. All of these are located about 2,500 kilometers from the nearest border, which U.S. air-launched JASSM and Tomahawk cruise missiles could strike in a preemptive attack designed to prevent the launch of nuclear weapons, within just over two hours.

However, Kannik expressed doubts about such a scenario where the U.S. would destroy such a large number of nuclear facilities simultaneously.

"Given that a large portion of Russia's nuclear arsenal is mobile and they can move it if necessary, it is utopian to think that the U.S. could strike such a large number of nuclear warheads, as Russia has, in a planned attack. The idea that the U.S. would launch such an attack against Russia or China to take out their entire nuclear arsenal preemptively belongs in the realm of utopia," Kannik said.

He also noted that the study does not take into account Russia's nuclear weapons stationed on submarines or those placed deep underground in fortified bunkers, which cannot be destroyed with conventional weapons.

--

Follow ERR News on Facebook and Twitter and never miss an update!