Russian Nuclear Weapons: Past, Present, and Future

CONCLUSIONS
Nuclear weapons issues deserve the most serious,
rigorous, and sober thought based on evidence
from the actions of governments other than the United
States. The foregoing analysis shows that much U.S.
writing about the inutility or “senselessness” of nuclear
weapons is misplaced, unfounded, and based
on a failure to take into account the evidence of other
governments’ thinking and policies. Russia is by no
means the only government whose programs must be
seriously considered. Those who argue that nuclear
weapons are only good for deterring nuclear attacks
might profit by more serious study of Russia, Pakistan,
China, and Israel, to cite only a few examples.
They might also remember that in 1987 Iraq launched
chemical missiles against Iran in defiance of international
agreements, and that Iran, not irrationally drew
the appropriate conclusions from those attacks.
If we are to make progress towards the noble goal
of abolition and enhanced global security, a more rigorous
understanding of contemporary international
relations, strategy, and politics is needed, not more
moralism or wishful thinking. It is clear that, for many
states, nuclear weapons serve many useful purposes
apart from gaining big power status or retaining it.
We cannot make progress here until we realize that,
for whatever reason, other nations genuinely feel
threatened, and not just psychologically deprived.
A sober unsentimental analysis would confirm that
point rather than stigmatizing these states as being
somehow benighted, as in Paul Warnke’s memorable
phrase, as “apes on a treadmill.” Apart from the policy
significance of Russia for the United States, Russia’s
strategic posture needs to be understood and not just
brushed aside.
347