Nonstrategic Nuclear Weapons Page: 14 of 29
View a full description of this report.
Extracted Text
The following text was automatically extracted from the image on this page using optical character recognition software:
CRS-11
prior to the 1991 announcements. Nevertheless, President Gorbachev's pledge to
withdraw and eliminate many of these weapons spurred their removal from other
former Soviet states after the collapse of the Soviet Union. Reports indicate that they
had all been removed from the Baltic States and Central Asian republics by the end
of 1991, and from Ukraine and Belarus by mid-late spring 1992.21
The status of nonstrategic nuclear weapons deployed on Russian territory is far
less certain. According to some estimates, the naval systems were removed from
deployment by the end of 1993, but the Army and Air force systems remained in the
field until 1996 and 1997.22 Furthermore, Russia has been far slower to eliminate the
warheads from these systems than has the United States, with many warheads still
awaiting elimination at the end of the 1990s. Some analysts and experts in the
United States have expressed concerns about the slow pace of eliminations in Russia.
They note that the continuing existence of these warheads, along with the increasing
reliance on nuclear weapons in Russia's national security strategy, indicate that
Russia may reverse its pledges and re-introduce nonstrategic nuclear weapons into
its deployed forces. Others, however, note that financial constraints could have
slowed the elimination of these warheads, or that Russia decided to coordinate the
elimination effort with the previously-scheduled retirement of older weapons.23
U.S. Nonstrategic Nuclear Weapons after the Cold War
Strategy and Doctrine. Nonstrategic nuclear weapons have continued to
play a role in U.S. and NATO policy. For the United States, the emphasis has
shifted from a strategy that emphasized the deterrence of an attack from the Soviet
Union and its allies to one that has placed a growing emphasis on the role that
nuclear weapons might play in deterring or responding to regional contingencies that
involved nations other than Russia. For example, former Secretary of Defense Perry
stated that, "maintaining U.S. nuclear commitments with NATO, and retaining the
ability to deploy nuclear capabilities to meet various regional contingencies,
continues to be an important means for deterring aggression, protecting and
promoting U.S. interests, reassuring allies and friends, and preventing proliferation
(emphasis added).24 Specifically, the United States maintains the option to use
nuclear weapons in response to attacks with conventional, chemical, or biological
weapons. For example, Assistant Secretary of Defense Edward Warner testified that
"the U.S. capability to deliver an overwhelming, rapid, and devastating military
response with the full range of military capabilities will remain the cornerstone of ourstrategy for deterring rogue nation ballistic missile and WMD proliferation threats.
The very existence of U.S. strategic and theater nuclear forces, backed by highly
21 Joshua Handler, in Alexander and Millar, Tactical Nuclear Weapons, p. 22.
22 Joshua Handler, "The September 1991 PNIs and the Elimination, Storage and Security
Aspects of TNWs," Presentation for seminar at the United Nations, New York. September
24, 2001.
23 Ivan Safranchik, "Tactical Nuclear Weapons in the Modem World: A Russian
Perspective," in Alexander and Millar, Tactical Nuclear Weapons, p. 62.
24 Secretary of Defense William J. Perry, Annual Report to the President and the Congress,
February 1995, p. 84.
Upcoming Pages
Here’s what’s next.
Search Inside
This report can be searched. Note: Results may vary based on the legibility of text within the document.
Tools / Downloads
Get a copy of this page or view the extracted text.
Citing and Sharing
Basic information for referencing this web page. We also provide extended guidance on usage rights, references, copying or embedding.
Reference the current page of this Report.
Woolf, Amy F. Nonstrategic Nuclear Weapons, report, September 9, 2004; Washington D.C.. (https://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metacrs6104/m1/14/: accessed May 21, 2024), University of North Texas Libraries, UNT Digital Library, https://digital.library.unt.edu; crediting UNT Libraries Government Documents Department.