The attack approved by Vladimir Putin on Dnipro may have profoundly changed one of the main pillars of global security
Russia’s use of a nuclear-capable ballistic missile on Thursday is the latest escalation in the Ukraine war.
It also marks a decisive and potentially dangerous moment in Moscow’s conflict with the West.
The use of what Vladimir Putin said was a ballistic missile with multiple warheads in offensive combat is a clear departure from decades of Cold War deterrence doctrine.
According to experts, ballistic missiles with multiple warheads, known as “multiple independent reentry vehicles” or MIRV, have never been used to attack an enemy.
“As far as I know, yes, this is the first time MIRVs have been used in combat,” said Hans Kristensen, director of the Nuclear Information Project at the Federation of American Scientists.
Site where the Russian missile fell, in Dnipro (Ukrinform/Cover Images/AP)
Ballistic missiles have been the cornerstone of deterrence, offering what is known as “mutual assured destruction,” or MAD, in the nuclear age.
The idea is that if even a few missiles survive a nuclear first strike, there will be enough firepower in the adversary’s arsenal to level several of the aggressor’s major cities, thus ensuring that neither side will be able to escape the consequences of nuclear actions.
In this sense, ballistic missiles were designed to be the sentinel of a future in which nuclear weapons would never again be fired in anger.
But analysts, including Kristensen, argue that MIRV missiles could invite, rather than deter, a first strike.
The highly destructive capacity of MIRV missiles means they are both potential first-strike weapons and first-strike targets, Kristensen and his colleague Matt Korda of the Federation of American Scientists wrote in a study published in March.
This is because it is easier to destroy multiple warheads before they are launched than to try to shoot them down as they are falling at hypersonic speeds towards their targets.
And, according to a recent publication by the Union of Concerned Scientists, a US-based non-profit science advocacy organization, this creates a “use them or lose them” scenario – an incentive to strike first in time. of crisis. “Otherwise, a first strike that destroyed a country’s MIRV missiles would disproportionately harm that country’s ability to retaliate,” the publication states.
Videos of Thursday’s Russian attack showed multiple warheads falling at different angles on the target, and each warhead would have to be defeated with an anti-missile rocket, a frightening prospect for even the best air defense systems.
And although the warheads launched over the Ukrainian city of Dnipro on Thursday were not nuclear, their use in conventional combat operations will certainly raise new uncertainties in a world already in crisis.
It is important to note that Russia previously warned the United States about the use of the missile fired on Thursday. But even with that advance warning, any new launches by Putin’s regime will inevitably raise fears across Europe, with many asking the question: has deterrence just died?
The global MIRVs
It is not just Russia and the United States that have MIRV technology. China has it in its intercontinental ballistic missiles, according to the Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation, and the UK and France, along with Russia and the US, have long had MIRV technology in their submarine-launched ballistic missiles.
And there are also new actors in the MIRV game. Pakistan reportedly tested a multi-warhead missile in 2017, and earlier this year India claimed to have successfully tested an ICBM with MIRV.
Analysts worry more about land-based MIRVs than submarine ones. This is because submarines are stealthy and difficult to detect. Land-based missiles, especially those in fixed silos, are more easily detected and therefore make more tempting targets.
Indian Agni-V intercontinental ballistic missile at a military parade in New Delhi (Manish Swarup/AP)
In their March report, Kristensen and Korda wrote about the dangers of the expanding MIRV club, calling it “a sign of a more worrying trend in the world’s nuclear arsenals” and an “emerging nuclear arms race.”
India proclaimed that MIRV’s success during a trial the same month was merely a warning sign, they wrote.
“North Korea may also be using MIRV technology and the United Kingdom has decided to increase its nuclear arsenal so it can install more warheads on its submarine-launched missiles,” Kristensen and Korda wrote.
The authors argue that the existence of more MIRV warheads in the arsenals of many countries “would drastically reduce stability in the event of a crisis, encouraging leaders to quickly launch their nuclear weapons in the event of a crisis.”
“A world in which almost all nuclear-armed countries have a significant MIRV capability appears much more dangerous than our current geostrategic environment,” they say.
