US, France nuclear stance will trigger volatility as Ukraine War continues – Firstpost

Around 40 years ago, Ronald Reagan and Mikhail Gorbachev made a historical declaration in Geneva. “A nuclear war cannot be won and must never be fought,” the leaders said in a joint statement in November 1985 aiming to reduce nuclear risks and promote non-proliferation and disarmament.

The statement paved the way for the INF Treaty (December 8, 1987), START I (July 31, 1991) and START II (January 3, 1993).

The INF Treaty banned American and Soviet nuclear and conventional ground-launched ballistic and cruise missiles with ranges of 500-5,500 km, excluding air- or sea-launched missiles. By May 1991, the US and Soviet Union had eliminated 2,692 missiles.

On this day in 1988 President Reagan and Mikhail Gorbachev signed the INF Treaty. #RonaldReagan #MikhailGorbachev #INFTreaty #America #Sovietunion #Russia #Peace pic.twitter.com/VKed6nRRFC

— Ronald Reagan Presidential Foundation & Institute (@RonaldReagan) June 1, 2024

START I barred the two nations from deploying more than 6,000 nukes and 1,600 ICBMs and bombers. Around 80 per cent of strategic nukes were reduced in subsequent years and the US and Soviet Union were restricted to around 8,556 and 6,449 N-warheads, respectively.

START II banned the use of multiple independently targetable re-entry vehicles on ICBMs. However, Russia pulled out of START II when the US withdrew from the ABM Treaty on June 13, 2002.

The US and Russia continued to pursue the reduction of nukes and the Treaty Between the United States of America and the Russian Federation on Strategic Offensive Reductions was signed on May 24, 2002, capping their arsenal at 1,700-2,200 operationally deployed warheads each.

Finally, New START, or the Treaty between the United States of America and the Russian Federation on Measures for the Further Reduction and Limitation of Strategic Offensive Arms, was signed on April 8, 2010.

The treaty capped deployed ICBMs, SLBMs and heavy bombers equipped for nukes at 700; the number of warheads deployed at 1,550; and non-deployed ICBM and SLBM launchers and such heavy bombers at 800 deployed.

As of January, Russia had 5,580 nukes (retired, stockpile and strategic) and the US 5,225. Of the 12,400 warheads with the nine nuclear powers, 90 per cent belong to Russia and the US, per the Federation of American Scientists (FAS), the US and SIPRI.

Indeed, a nuclear war can’t be won. An attack by a nuclear power on another will only lead to Armageddon, not victory. The sole purpose of nuclear weapons is to act as a deterrent.

Neither America, nor Russia or any other nuclear powers will use nukes. Russia threatened to use tactical nukes against Ukraine several times during the war but didn’t. NATO continued to arm Ukraine despite the threats. After the US allowed Ukraine to fire long-range missiles into Russia last November, Vladimir Putin even changed the nuclear doctrine, which stated that an attack from a non-nuclear state backed by a nuclear power would be considered a joint assault on Russia.

However, ratcheting up nuclear tension triggers panic with Hiroshima and Nagasaki continuing to haunt humanity.

Two recent developments could profoundly impact global nuclear stability.

Trump 2.0 and denuclearisation

After returning to the White House, Donald Trump has thrice expressed support for denuclearisation with Russia and China.

In January, he said that denuclearisation and eventual agreements with Russia and China are “very possible” as “tremendous amounts of money are being spent on nuclear [weapons]”. In February, he said, “There’s no reason for us to be building brand new nuclear weapons.” Earlier this month, he said, “It would be great if everybody would get rid of their nuclear weapons.”

If Trump convinces Putin to denuclearise before New START expires in February 2026, it will bode well for the world in general and the two nuclear powers in particular.

However, Trump is a maverick and notorious for making hasty decisions and statements.

In the final days of Trump’s first presidency, then-Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Mark Milley feared that he could misuse nukes against China to remain in power, according to the book Peril, written by The Washington Post’s Bob Woodward and Robert Costa. US intelligence showed that China believed that Trump could launch an attack to beat Joe Biden in the election.

In 2017, Trump discussed the idea of using a nuke against North Korea and blaming another country, according to the book Donald Trump v. the United States, written by The New York Times Washington correspondent Michael Schmidt. Trump 
posted in 2018 that he had a “much bigger & more powerful” nuclear launch button than North Korean leader Kim Jong-un.

In the same year, during a tour of Puerto Rico following the devastation caused by Hurricane Maria, Trump told then-governor Ricardo Rosselló, “If nuclear war happens, we won’t be second in line pressing the button.” In his memoir The Reformer’s Dilemma, Rosselló writes: “I could not believe what I was hearing.”

Moreover, Trump’s risky actions in his first term showed he wasn’t serious about denuclearisation.

He pulled out of the INF Treaty in August 2019 after accusing Russia of deploying Novator 9M729 cruise missiles, which were banned under the pact and carry conventional and nuclear warheads.

Trump continued deferring the extension of the 10-year New START despite Russian overtures while insisting that China should also be part of the treaty, new negotiations about Russia’s huge non-strategic nuke stockpile and dissatisfaction with the verification process.

The Biden administration extended the treaty by another five years. The treaty will expire in February 2026.

According to Trump, he shares a great rapport with Putin. He is desperate to end the Russia-Ukraine War as it will bolster his chances of bagging the Nobel Peace Prize. Trump has also tied a peace deal with signing a minerals pact with Ukraine. Therefore, he is appeasing Russia for now.

Putin “suspended” participation in New START in February 2023, a year after the Ukraine invasion. Another extension of New START or a new agreement between Trump and Putin will make the world safe.

However, such pacts are meaningless for two reasons.

First, neither the US nor Russia will use nukes against each other or any other nation but will continue their foreign military campaigns using conventional weapons.

Second, nuclear powers are spending billions on modernising their arsenals and the US is leading the race. According to the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons, the nine nuclear powers 
spent $91.4 billion  on their nuclear arms in 2023.

The US, which frequently highlights the danger of a nuclear arms race, spent $51.5 billion, more than all the other nuclear powers combined, followed by China at $11.8 billion and Russia at $8.3 billion.

While Trump highlights the importance of denuclearisation,  the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) will spend around 
$1.7 trillion on modernising ICBMs, SSBNs, SLBMs, strategic bombers, cruise missiles, gravity bombs and warheads. The US will spend $540 billion on modernising the strategic nuclear forces in the next 10 years, $430 billion on maintenance and operation of delivery vehicles and $650 billion on weapons activities in the next 25 years.

The LGM-30G Minuteman III ICBM is the only land-based component of the US nuclear triad. It will be replaced with the LGM-35A Sentinel.

The 22 Ohio-class ballistic SSBNs will be replaced with the Columbia-class, costing more than $130 billion in procurement and R&D. The new SSBNs, like the Ohio-class, will be armed with M-133 Trident II D5s, which can carry eight warheads. About $33.7 billion will be spent on extending the life of the missiles to up to another 60 years.

Upgrading the B-52H bombers—AESA radar, new satellite communications systems and modern engines—will cost $12 billion. The B-52Hs, of which 46 are nuclear-capable and carry 20 cruise missiles, will be redesignated as B-52Js. More than $100 million will be spent on communications and avionics upgrades of the B-2 bombers, which carry up to 16 nuclear gravity bombs.

The US will spend $203 billion on the acquisition and operation of 100 B-21 bombers, which will replace the B-52Hs and B-2s.

The 500 nuclear-capable AGM-86 air-launched cruise missiles (ALCMs) will be replaced with 1,000 AGM-181s, which will need around $28 billion.

Billions will be spent on meeting a nuclear bomb production target of 80 plutonium pits per year. The NNSA is seeking a 12 per cent increase, $716 billion in FY-25-49, to its projected 25-year budget plan for nuclear warheads relative to the last reported projection.

Moreover, the Mandate for Leadership: The conservative Promise 2025, or Project 2025, calls for resuming nuclear bomb testing, producing a more sophisticated arsenal and rejecting arms control agreements if they don’t advance the interests of the US and its allies.

Trump publicly disavowed Project 2025 during the campaign trail. However, several of his executive orders mirror the conservative blueprint, like efforts to dismantle diversity, equity and inclusion, tighten border security and defence, curb federal spending and workforce, ‘America First’ foreign policy, exit WHO and UNHRC and steps against transgender rights and refugees.

The Heritage Foundation, whose members wrote the 920-page document, 
provided draft executive orders to the Trump transition team before the inauguration. Several Trump senior officials, like SEC chief Paul Atkins, FCC Brendan Carr, senior counsellor for trade Peter Navarro and border czar Tom Homan, wrote Project 2025 or contributed to it.

The document calls for restoring “readiness to test nuclear weapons at the Nevada National Security Site.

US nuclear capabilities and the infrastructure dating from the Cold War, according to the document, are “in dire need of replacement”. Efforts must be made to “modernise the nuclear triad” by replacing the Minuteman III ICBMs with Sentinels, expediting the production of Columbia-class ballistic missile submarines and B-21 bombers and developing the Sea-Launched Cruise Missile-Nuclear.

The paper also wants the Trump administration to reject nuclear disarmament proposals “contrary to the goal of bolstering deterrence” and pursue arms control to “secure the national security interests of the US and its allies rather than as an end in itself”.

France, US-UK angle and nuclear tension

France and the UK are the only nuclear powers in Europe.

After Trump upended America’s decades-old Europe policy and jolted transatlantic ties in Russia’s favour, Emmanuel Macron offered to extend France’s nuclear umbrella to allies given the Russian “threat” to Europe.

A delusional Macron wants to portray himself as the leader of a unified Europe after Angela Merkel’s departure. The French president believes he could be another Charles de Gaulle, who developed a nuclear deterrent to end dependency on the US  and counter the threat of a Soviet invasion.

The Kremlin blasted the French president saying his offer was “very, very confrontational” and Russian foreign minister Sergei Lavrov termed it “a threat”.

Macron’s offer is ridiculous for several reasons and will only increase and trigger Russian retaliation.

First, Russia will never attack a NATO member, especially with a nuke, because it would trigger the bloc’s Article V, which states that an attack against one ally is considered an attack against all allies. It never used a tactical nuke against Ukraine despite Putin’s several threats.

Second, France’s 290 nuclear warheads pale in front of the massive Russian stockpile. Though one nuke can cause enough devastation, Russia can destroy the world several times over with its vast arsenal.

Third, France doesn’t even have a nuclear triad—air-, sea- and land-based nukes—after deactivating its land-based ballistic missiles in 1996.

France has only two kinds of nuclear weapons. The M51 long-range, MIRV-capable SLBM can be launched from its four SSBNs. The Air-Sol Moyenne Portée ALCM can be delivered by the Mirage 2000N or the Rafale F3. France lacks long-range strategic bombers.

Russia’s nuclear triad is a hundred times more destructive.

Putin has an array of nuclear missiles.

• 9K720 Iskander and OTR-21 Tochka SRBMs

• 3M22 Zircon scramjet-powered, nuclear-capable hypersonic cruise missile

• 3M14 Kalibr cruise missile (land, air and sea)

• Avangard hypersonic boost-glide vehicle

• Kh-101/Kh-102, Kh-47M2 Kinzhal and Kh-55 ALCMs

• R-29 Vysota, R-29RM Shtil and RSM-56 Bulava intercontinental-range SLBMs

• R-36, RS-26 Rubezh, RT-2PM/2PM2 Topol, UR-100,  RS-28 Sarmat and RS-24 Yars multiple-RV ICBMs

• K-55 Granat SLBM and ground-launched IRBM

• Oreshnik multiple-RV IRBM and

• P-700 Granit anti-ship, land and submarine-launched cruise missile.

The Russian Su-24, Su-25, Su-34 and MiG-31 are all nuclear-capable. Russia’s long-range strategic bombers are Tu-95, Tu-22M and T-160.

Russia has 16 ballistic missile submarines and 11 nuclear-powered cruise missile submarines.

Fourth, French nukes can’t be deployed outside the country, per its nuclear doctrine. Moreover, producing more French N-capable missiles and aircraft and constructing infrastructure and maintenance and logistics in European allied countries would need billions.

The US is also eyeing to reinforce its nuclear power in other NATO nations.

There are 100 US nukes stored across six bases in five NATO member states: Kleine Brogel in Belgium, Büchel in Germany, Aviano and Ghedi in Italy, Volkel in the Netherlands and Incirlik in Turkey. The weapons are not armed or deployed on aircraft but kept in underground vaults with launch arming codes in American hands.

The bombs comprise B61-12, B61-3 and -4 gravity bombs. On December 18, 2024, the NNSA completed the 
modification of the B61-12 gravity bombs, deployed by the US on its soil and NATO bases, for $10 billion. The life of the oldest and most versatile weapon in the US nuclear stockpile has been extended by 20 years. The NNSA plans to produce a more advanced variant called the B61-13.

These bombs can be delivered by dual-capable aircraft with every NATO member country modernising their nuclear-capable fighters to either the F-35A, the F-18 Super Hornet or the Eurofighter Typhoon.

The most provocative US action is the plan to 
redeploy nukes in the UK. It was revealed in 2008 that America had secretly removed the 110 B-61 gravity bombs from RAF Lakenheath,  Suffolk, in the preceding years.

Like France, the UK doesn’t have a nuclear triad. It has 225 warheads of which 120 can be deployed on 48 SLBMs. It has only Trident 5 SLBMs which can deployed on its four Vanguard-class SSBNs.

RAF Lakenheath, the largest American base in the UK, has two squadrons of nuclear-capable F-15Es and F-35As. Besides, the US long-range strategic bomber B-52 also operates from RAF Fairford, Gloucestershire.

America’s FY 2023 NATO Security Investment Programme document submitted to Congress in April 2022 added Britain’s name to the list of nations where US “special weapons (nukes)” storage sites would be upgraded.

After FAS revealed the secret mission to redeploy nukes in the UK, the US department of defence removed any mention of the UK or other NATO countries where American nukes are deployed.

According to  FAS, the Biden administration planned to redeploy nukes in the UK following the Russian invasion of Ukraine and Putin’s frequent nuclear threats. A US Air Force budget document described the addition of a dormitory at Lakenheath to support new airmen arriving on a “potential Surety [security of a nuclear weapon] Mission”.

Satellite imagery showed an upgrade of around 28 of the 33 protective aircraft shelters with underground vaults at Lakenheath. “Updated tarmac infrastructure for two squadrons of F-35As was completed in 2023 as Lakenheath prepared to be the first USAF squadron in Europe equipped with the nuclear-capable F-35A.”

So far, there is no evidence of redeployment of American nukes at Lakenheath. However, the massive American nuclear modernisation programme and nuclear muscle-flexing in NATO states and Macron’s reckless nuclear umbrella offer will only rattle Russia and make the situation more volatile.

The writer is a freelance journalist with more than two decades of experience and comments primarily on foreign affairs. Views expressed in the above piece are personal and solely those of the writer. They do not necessarily reflect Firstpost’s views.