Military Review

We do not advise anyone to test the strength of Russia's defense

20



The American Huffington Post has published an unclassified version of the draft new US nuclear doctrine. The fear that this publication may be a fake and foolish to try to analyze the doctrine before its official publication is removed by a note by the US Department of Defense, which does not deny the authenticity of the document published by the Huffington Post, although it refused to publicly comment on the project. It should be understood that after the completion of the text and its endorsement by the Secretary of Defense James Mattis and President Donald Trump, such comments will certainly follow.

However, we do not need to wait for the official promulgation of the doctrine in late January - early February to see in it, even at the project level, a pronounced anti-Russian charge. Russia (along with China, the DPRK and Iran) is directly named in the document as an increased external threat to the United States.

The Pentagon received the order on the preparation of a new nuclear doctrine from D. Trump a year ago. Everything is logical: in the pre-election speeches, and then in various interviews as the newly elected head of state, Trump spoke negatively about the Russian-American START-III treaty, calling it "unilateral", beneficial only to Russia, since it allegedly allows it, unlike the US , continue to produce nuclear warheads.

Accordingly, Trump is not satisfied with the current US nuclear doctrine, adopted under his predecessor B. Obama in 2010. It is not difficult to guess why he is not satisfied. Obama, considering the United States to be obliged to maintain a “reliable and effective arsenal” of nuclear weapons, albeit in a declarative form, but considered a possible reduction of nuclear weapons (it was under Obama that the START III treaty was concluded).

D. Trump's such "duality" does not fit. The cowboy’s manner peculiar to him rudely impose on the opponent his own ideas leave no room for reasonable arguments.

Thus, in the 2010 doctrine, the United States retained the right to launch a nuclear strike first, but declared a refusal to use nuclear weapons against states that did not possess such weapons. Under D. Trump they refuse this obligation. Under "extraordinary circumstances, to protect the vital interests of the United States, allies and partners," the new nuclear doctrine project says, they are ready to use nuclear weapons in response to "non-nuclear strategic attacks." There is a reservation in the document that such emergencies may include “attacks on the civilian population of the United States”, their allies and partners, or civilian infrastructure in these countries, as well as attacks on the nuclear forces of Washington and its allies, command and control bodies such as on the objects of attack warning.

However, this reservation does not mean much, considering, as noted by the First Deputy Head of the Federation Council Committee on Defense and Security, Franz Klintsevich, Washington’s expansive interpretation of the very "vital interests of the United States, allies and partners." In essence, the senator said, “the doctrine provides carte blanche for the use of nuclear weapons.”

At the Pentagon, it is not hidden. The idea to commit ourselves not to be the first to use nuclear weapons “today is unjustified ...” is emphasized in the draft nuclear doctrine. “US policy remains to maintain a certain ambiguity regarding the exact circumstances that could lead to a US nuclear response.”

So: ambiguity in politics, on which the fate of the world depends!

Russia is accused of first intending to use nuclear weapons. “The greatest concern is caused by the policy, strategy and doctrine of Russia's national security, including an emphasis on the threat of limited nuclear escalation ... Moscow threatens the limited use of nuclear weapons first, suggesting an erroneous calculation that nuclear threats or limited use (atomic warheads. - Red .) the first is capable of paralyzing the United States and NATO and, thus, ending the conflict on terms favorable to Russia, ”the American document says.

Where and when, one wonders, is "Moscow threatening"? In this sense, the published version of the draft new US nuclear doctrine is a blatant lie.

“Preventing a nuclear military conflict, like any other military conflict, is the basis of the military policy of the Russian Federation,” written in black and white in the current Military Doctrine of the Russian Federation, approved by President V. Putin on December 26 2014. There are also dotted on the issue of the possibility (or rather, impossibility) of a preemptive strike: “The Russian Federation reserves the right to use nuclear weapons in response (highlighted by us. - Yu.R.) to use against it and (or) its allies nuclear and other ide weapons of mass destruction, as well as in the case of aggression against the Russian Federation with the use of conventional weapons as a threat to the very existence of the state. "

It is obvious that the administration of D. Trump would like to untie his hands in building up nuclear arsenals and in using nuclear weapons. To do this, she goes to a direct forgery, stating the "advantage of Russia in this area."

As is known, the following ceiling was established by the START III treaty: by 2021, each side should have no more than 700 deployed strategic carriers (intercontinental ballistic missiles, ballistic missiles on submarines and heavy bombers) and no more 1550 nuclear warheads on them. According to the data available for the middle of 2016, the ratio of the nuclear arsenals of Russia and the United States looked like this: carriers — 508 and 848, respectively, warheads — 1796 and 1367, respectively. Talking about some advantage of the Russian Federation, and even extracted allegedly illegally, in violation of the agreements, is simply absurd, while in accordance with START III, Russia even has the legal right to significantly increase the number of carriers.

In essence, the new US nuclear doctrine is the propaganda rationale for the new round of the nuclear arms race launched by Washington. At the end of 2016, it was announced that the Pentagon plans to get at least 400 intercontinental ballistic missiles of the new generation, which should replace the new-generation ICBM ground alert 1970, as part of the program for modernizing the nuclear missile arsenal. based "Minuteman". For these purposes, up to 2044, $ 62 billion will be spent, of which $ 14 billion - for the modernization of command and launch systems and about $ 48,5 billion for the creation of new warheads.

These astronomical sums today is not enough. In late December, Trump approved the budget of the US Department of Defense for 2018, it will be $ 700 billion, $ 81 billion more than in 2017 year. Additional expenses were required for the implementation of plans for the further modernization of the strategic nuclear potential. It also announced plans to modernize some missiles on submarines and a nuclear-tipped cruise missile.

For comparison, and in the order of information about those who really unleash an arms race: the Russian military budget for 2018 is $ 46 billion. But even with these, incomparably smaller than in Western countries, military expenditures have significantly improved the quality of the Russian armed forces. As was reported at the extended meeting of the 22 XDUMX December Board of the Russian Defense Ministry, which was held with V. Putin’s participation, over the past five years, the army and navy received 2017 intercontinental ballistic missiles, 80 submarine ballistic missiles, three Borey missile cruisers , 102 spacecraft, 55 rocket regiments re-armed to the Yars complex, and 12 rocket brigades to the Iskander complex.

“We do not rattle weapons and do not intend to fight with anyone. At the same time, we do not advise anyone to test our defense capability for strength ”- these words of the Minister of Defense of the Russian Federation S.Shoigu were spoken in the ears of the authors of the new US nuclear doctrine.
Author:
Originator:
https://www.fondsk.ru/news/2018/01/14/my-nikomu-ne-sovetuem-proverjat-na-prochnost-oboronosposobnost-rossii-45419.html
20 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Greenwood
    Greenwood 16 January 2018 05: 52
    +1
    I even remembered.
    1. Mordvin 3
      Mordvin 3 16 January 2018 05: 56
      +9
      Yes, he's drunk, a dog ... request
      1. megavolt823
        megavolt823 16 January 2018 11: 41
        +7
        how disgusting to see this face. it’s good that the museum of this cattle is far from me. am
      2. Antianglosax
        Antianglosax 16 January 2018 12: 28
        +2
        Quote: mordvin xnumx
        Yes, he's drunk, a dog ... request

        And why remember a dead animal?
        1. Mordvin 3
          Mordvin 3 16 January 2018 12: 30
          +1
          So it is necessary. Is it in vain that Korzhakov carried out the "Sunset" operation?
  2. Uncle lee
    Uncle lee 16 January 2018 05: 53
    +6
    "Let the enemies remember this!
    Do not threaten, but we say:
    We walked with a half-light cart
    If necessary, repeat! "
    Battle song in CA!
  3. Conductor
    Conductor 16 January 2018 06: 12
    +1
    Yes, somehow again with a bag I do not want to walk half the world
    1. Uncle lee
      Uncle lee 16 January 2018 09: 42
      +5
      Pancake ! one letter is wedged in and the whole point is lost. ! Estessno: "With YOU"
  4. rotmistr60
    rotmistr60 16 January 2018 07: 18
    +5
    The fact that Moscow is “to blame” for all the troubles of the United States and this makes it necessary to correct the doctrine. But the desire to measure the buttons with Russia is clearly from the category of complete inadequacy. Trump with the DPRK was measured by buttons showing off that he had a lot more and that caused a smile (the child was playing and okay). But only a complete idiot can measure up with Russia, for whom “peace in ruin” is a hidden desire.
    1. lukewarm
      lukewarm 16 January 2018 09: 43
      +1
      Quote: rotmistr60
      world in ruin

      drinks Wild ensign laughing Donald is not far from him
  5. Mih1974
    Mih1974 16 January 2018 09: 39
    +5
    so what's the problem? Let the Amerikas tear the START3 treaty, we send them a little farther and "small money" restore our base in Cuba and drag different missiles there, from calibers to iskander tongue And let RT push it in such a way as if in Hawaii on the occasion of a "random" warning of vigorous missiles flying towards them - EVERYTHING clutched at the burrows and began to say goodbye. And then choose and go to overthrow all these maniacs in the Pentagon and the General Commissar to hell. tongue
    1. CentDo
      CentDo 16 January 2018 13: 16
      +4
      And where does START3? It seems to limit the number of deployed nuclear warheads and their carriers. This agreement does not prohibit the bringing of Iskanders to Cuba, etc.
  6. Old26
    Old26 16 January 2018 09: 53
    +4
    Quote: Mih1974
    so what's the problem? Let the Amerikas tear the START3 treaty, we send them a little farther and "small money" restore our base in Cuba and drag different missiles there, from calibers to iskander tongue And let RT push it in such a way as if in Hawaii on the occasion of a "random" warning of vigorous missiles flying towards them - EVERYTHING clutched at the burrows and began to say goodbye. And then choose and go to the hell with the Pentagon maniacs and the side-committee. tongue

    At the helm in Cuba now is no longer Friedel. Raul is also at such an age that he will soon retire. Who will stand at the helm of Cuba and what kind of policies will be followed is unknown to anyone. And you simply cannot wait to deploy the base somewhere, completely not taking into account the need for this base, as well as the country's ability not only to create, but to ensure the operability of the base. Nobody asks about the desire of the Cubans
  7. Evgenijus
    Evgenijus 16 January 2018 10: 17
    +1
    Well expressed S. Shoigu, very briefly, accurately and clearly.
  8. 44Serega44
    44Serega44 16 January 2018 10: 40
    +4
    Frankly infuriates when they begin to compare budgets !!!!!! Economists !!!!!! Calculate the cost of our weapons and ovs !!! The purchasing power of the Russian Federation (for example, $ 1 billion) is significantly higher than striped. Yes, we have a smaller budget and that among Amers 80-85% of the 700 billion go to the maintenance of bases, generals and retirees. We have about 15-20% of 70 billion. So, count: 85% of 700 is 595 billion, the balance is 105 (America), 20% of 70 is 14 billion (Russia), our weapons are on average 2-3 times cheaper, and in quality is equal to or higher. So calculate who can buy more))))))))))), those of our $ 56 billion worth of arms are $ 140 billion striped. (AT LEAST, THIS IS PERSONALLY MY OPINION).
  9. vlad007
    vlad007 16 January 2018 14: 30
    0
    What about cyber security? The whole country on foreign software and computer still can not do. The release of the Baikal processor was announced this year, but this is a drop in the bucket.
    1. thinker
      thinker 16 January 2018 15: 18
      0
      Not a release was announced, but a free sale.
      Initially, these processors were available only to a limited number of legal entities ...
      https://nplus1.ru/news/2018/01/15/baikal
  10. German Titov
    German Titov 16 January 2018 14: 31
    0
    And try it. We tried, it didn’t work. "Tasters" of Russia's defense, so that later they do not stand in the pose of a "greyhound ram." It seems to me (with an eye on history) that Russia is the most peace-loving country. Probably not.
  11. onix757
    onix757 16 January 2018 20: 17
    +1
    over the past five years, the army and navy have received 80 intercontinental ballistic missiles, 102 ballistic missiles of submarines

    Apparently, these "loud" numbers gathered to scare Nat. Yes, at such a pace of rearmament, they don’t need to do anything, we will naturally get rid of strategic nuclear forces by the year 30m
  12. Old26
    Old26 17 January 2018 10: 40
    +4
    Quote: onix757
    over the past five years, the army and navy have received 80 intercontinental ballistic missiles, 102 ballistic missiles of submarines

    Apparently, these "loud" numbers gathered to scare Nat. Yes, at such a pace of rearmament, they don’t need to do anything, we will naturally get rid of strategic nuclear forces by the year 30m

    So natural? Well, you are a connoisseur. What will naturally go away? The remaining couple of regiments of the old Topol? Will the remaining 26 “Governor” leave? Both will leave. “Poplars” will be replaced by “Yars”, “Governor” by “Sarmat” in the ratio of 1: 1. What else? "Poplar-M" relatively "fresh" complexes. The 35th are already numbered as undisclosed. That is, consider them also not.

    On the seas, BDRs and BDRMs will gradually leave with the replacement for Borei

    In the segment of the strategic nuclear forces, a disaster is also not expected. So how will they go away naturally ???