The topic of nuclear arsenals of Russia and the United States again became topical
In the past televised debates, Republican candidate Donald Trump said that Russia is expanding its nuclear potential, and Moscow "possesses much newer weapons than we" (that is, the United States). Trump's words leads Mixednews.ru with reference to the magazine "Business Insider".
However, Mr. Trump is inclined, as always, to exaggeration. Dr. Jeffrey Lewis, publisher of Arms Control Wonk, believes that Russia may have updated its missiles and warheads, but the idea of Moscow’s more powerful nuclear potential "is almost certainly not true."
And yet, “Business Insider” notes that the nuclear arsenal of the Russian Federation consists of more deadly weapons compared to the American “theoretically”. The Russians have PC-24 “Yars” ballistic missiles (they were presented long ago, in the middle of the 2000's). And they can really strike at any point in the United States.
It is also noted that each of these missiles is equipped with 10 nuclear warheads, induced independently. And all these warheads enter the atmosphere at hypersonic speeds. The United States simply has nothing to answer.
American "Minutemen" (meaning Minuteman III ICBM) also enter the atmosphere at hypersonic speeds, but they are equipped with just one warhead. And they are morally obsolete: they were introduced back in the 1970s!
On the other hand, the question of whose missiles are “better” is more of a philosophical nature. Direct comparison of potentials is hardly appropriate.
According to Mr. Lewis, the leaders of the Joint Strategic Command of the US Armed Forces, who are responsible for the nuclear potential, have for several decades argued that, if necessary, to choose between nuclear weapons USA and Russia, they would choose their own.
In an interview with Business Insider, Mr. Lewis said that the American arsenal really cannot "destroy entire continents." But he is better suited to perform the strategic tasks of the United States.
And that's the main difference between nuclear weapons of the Russian Federation and the United States.
In the field of intercontinental ballistic missiles, the Russians made a different design choice than the United States, the expert said. “Russia has built weapons that provide for incremental modernization and improvement,” he quotes Mixednews.ru. This is a weapon that needs to be updated approximately every 10 years.
But American missiles, Lewis believes, are more like Ferrari cars: beautiful and designed for the perfect solution of problems for a long time. Experts say that plutonium cores can serve a whole century. Therefore, the arsenal of "Minuteman", despite their age, has the highest efficiency.
The Russians believe that “there is no point in making the rocket super-efficient, since it will have to be modernized in just 10 years,” and the Russians also like “putting rockets on tracks”. Lewis recalls that in the United States prefer land mines to the base. Security requirements in the United States "are far exceeding the Russian ones," and this is exactly what makes such a platform inexpedient: "The United States cannot do such things as Russia, since we are not going to put rockets on poor tracked platforms." “The United States likes more reliable things that require special staff training,” Lewis said in an interview. He recalled that, unlike the Russian army, the core of the US military machine "is a permanent sergeant". And these people "serve a long time." That is why “our army is qualitatively better than the Russian, in which conscripts still serve,” he said.
Lewis speaks with obvious disdain about the Russians and their nuclear forces: they say, an American nuclear missile is such a miniature weapon that can fly in through a window and destroy a specific building. The Russians wouldn’t do that: they would strike with ten warheads and level the whole city with the ground, and they wouldn’t spare the civilians.
According to Lewis, the Russian mini-submarine “Status 6”, capable of operating within a radius of ten thousand kilometers, is essentially a “dirty bomb with a nuclear charge,” as it does a nuclear strike and makes the waters around radioactive for many years. The United States does not even consider the possibility of causing such damage. In short, Russia's nuclear ambitions are “highly immoral,” Mr. Lewis sums up. That is why “Americans are good guys.”
The expert explained something else that automatically turns Russians into bad guys: the United States really has no means of protection against modern Russian nuclear weapons (“diabolic”). The Russian intercontinental rocket bursts into orbit, rotates, disintegrates into warheads, and they are sent to targets at high speed. The United States is not able to develop an appropriate protection system. Such an idea is unrealistic, especially if “thinking about 1000 warheads” ...
Earlier, US Secretary of Defense Ashton Carter visited the same American base with nuclear weapons (this was his first visit to this kind of base). We talked about it on "Military Review". The head of the Pentagon was taken by helicopter to the territory where the “Minuteman III” is located, where he descended 85 feet under the ground, to the launch control center.
Then he made a speech. The presence of powerful nuclear forces in the United States, according to the minister, should be a "sobering fact" for potential adversaries. Most likely today, the use of nuclear weapons is not in the form of mass strikes, as reflected in the days of the “classic cold war”, but in the form of pinpoint strikes of a limited type. Such “formidable attacks” may be thought of, “for example, Russia or North Korea,” Carter noted. In his opinion, Russia is “rattling” nuclear weapons, while North Korea is engaged in nuclear and missile provocations.
According to Carter, the Pentagon intends to spend $ 108 billion over the next five years. This money is needed for the preservation and improvement of nuclear forces.
Thus, we add that whatever the experts write, while in the USA they are actively engaged in the modernization of nuclear weapons. Despite the reduction in defense spending planned by the Obama administration for 10 years, spending on upgrading the nuclear arsenal looks impressive.
- especially for topwar.ru
Subscribe and stay up to date with the latest news and the most important events of the day.