Military Review

Overseas hegemon sends nuclear hi to Russia

21
Because of the “Russian threat,” the Trump administration plans to create new nuclear weapons, and to modernize the old ones. Politicians in Washington insist that the new nuclear measures will help contain the “threats” faced by the “European allies”. Trump's opponents claim that the result of the new plan will not hold back Russia, but lead to a nuclear war.


Overseas hegemon sends nuclear hi to Russia


Trump's nuclear strategy aims to create a new weapons “To counter Russia,” writes Robert Burns (“The Associated Press”). Material published in the publication "The Spokesman-Review".

Given the so-called Russian threat, the Donald Trump administration seeks to develop its new nuclear weapons. The new “nuclear firepower”, according to the strategists, will make it easier for European allies to “contain threats”.

This plan has not yet been approved by President Donald Trump. However, its essence is already known: it is intended to make a nuclear conflict "less likely." Critics of the same plan argue that everything will happen with the exact opposite.

Trump's proposal is set out in a political document officially titled Nuclear Posture review. The basis of this “review” is the “more aggressive nuclear stance” of the USA, the journalist notes.

This is the first review of this kind since 2010. It discusses security strategies adopted since Trump took office. In many respects, the document confirms Trump's predecessor, President Barack Obama’s nuclear policy, including the commitment to replace all key elements of the nuclear arsenal with new, more advanced weapons over the next two decades.

The text states that the United States will adhere to existing arms control agreements, but doubts are immediately expressed about the prospects for any new such agreements.

It is expected that the new nuclear doctrine of Mr. Trump will be published in early February 2018 year. Then the relevant policies relating to the development of the principles of "protecting the US against ballistic missiles" will be implemented.

In some places, Trump's doctrine disagrees with Obama's approach. The discrepancies, it is noted in the material, consist in Trump’s refusal to reduce the role of nuclear weapons in the US defense policy.

At the same time, like Obama, Mr. Trump is ready to consider the use of nuclear weapons only in “extreme situations”. However, the document retains “some ambiguity” with regard to what is meant by this. After all, Trump sees the “deterrent role” of this weapon is much more solid, and this is “reflected in the plan for developing new possibilities for countering Russia in Europe,” the correspondent further points out.

The material of the journalist is not built on scraps of the text of the document, but on its full copy. The publication says that the Associated Press has a copy of the document. The Pentagon said that the text is a "preliminary decision", because the document is to be finalized, and then it will be approved by D. Trump. Approval of such a document can not be a surprise, since Donald Trump ordered it a year ago.

The new approach to the nuclear doctrine clearly indicates “Russia” and “to some extent China” as states creating problems for the United States in the field of nuclear policy. Both countries require a “tougher approach.”

According to the Trump administration, Russian politics and Moscow’s actions are generally fraught with "the possibility of miscalculation," which, in turn, can lead to "an uncontrolled escalation of the conflict in Europe."

The compilers of the document refer to the Russian defense doctrine, which contains the principle of “escalating de-escalation”: Moscow will use low-powered nuclear weapons or will threaten to use them in the context of a limited traditional conflict in Europe, suggesting that this will force the United States and NATO to “withdraw”.

The Trump administration is offering opposition to Moscow in a two-stage strategic response.

1. Improve the "small number" of long-range ballistic missiles that are in service now. This refers to the missiles with which the strategic submarines Trident are equipped. These missiles must be equipped with smaller nuclear warheads.

2. In the relatively long term, the United States should develop a sea-based cruise nuclear missile with a nuclear warhead. In essence, we are talking about the restoration of weapons that existed during the Cold War. In 2011, the B. Obama administration refused such weapons.

These two steps are designed to put even more obstacles to the Russian “regional aggression,” the author continues. Russians should “think about it”: is it worth it to launch a limited nuclear strike?

The document also mentions the DPRK. The “interest” in the state and role of nuclear weapons in the United States has intensified also because North Korea is developing its own nuclear arsenal, which, Pyongyang claims, is aimed at the United States.

The Trump administration is viewing both the “North Korean threats” and the “provocative nuclear rhetoric of Russia” as evidence that the conditions created are no longer in line with the idea that the United States can rely less on nuclear weapons.

The “nuclear report” also mentions a new Russian weapon: a nuclear torpedo that can move under water, achieving targets at long distances.

Experts, however, suggest that the White House tends to exaggerate the Russian threat.

For example, Hans Christensen, an expert on nuclear weapons from the Federation of American Scientists, asks the question: Does the Trump administration not exaggerate the Russian threat and is Trump's decision to build up nuclear forces right? On the other hand, he fully supports the thesis that Moscow itself caused the fears of the West "by its aggression in Ukraine".

Bruce Blair, a former officer of the command post responsible for launching nuclear missiles, who is now advocating for the elimination of nuclear weapons, called the report "basically a status quo document", with the exception of a plan to develop new nuclear options for countering Russia.

According to him, the Trump plan could lead the United States to "fail in a nuclear war with Russia." “The fundamental motivation of the Pentagon,” said Blair, “is the fear of Russia's willingness to hit the civilian infrastructure of the United States and Western Europe (financial, energy, transportation, and communication) with cyber and traditional forces.” In recent years, Moscow has developed a doctrine implying the use of vulnerabilities in the vital Western infrastructure, for example, in communication networks, he said.

The authors of the Trump nuclear doctrine claim that adding new US nuclear capabilities to contain Russia in Europe will reduce, rather than increase, the risk of war. They are concerned that aircraft carrying nuclear weapons are currently the only nuclear forces in Europe that are opposed to Russia, but these aircraft "may be vulnerable to Russian air defense." Therefore, the emphasis is on the replenishment of the US nuclear weapons arsenals and their priority.

At the same time, the document states that the goal of the strategy is not to unleash a war. The goal is to make the nuclear conflict “less likely”: given the new nuclear forces of the other side, the “potential adversaries” will not see the benefits to transfer the traditional military conflict “to the nuclear level”.

In the Pentagon, we note in conclusion, they confirm the constant “observation” of Russia's nuclear behavior.

This was openly told to the press by the representative of the Committee of the Chiefs of Staff of the US Armed Forces, Lieutenant General Kenneth MacKenzie. According to him, the US military is watching the development of the Russian strategic deterrence forces.

"From a purely military point of view, we are trying to think globally," TASS his speech at the briefing. “Of course, Russia and the development of its strategic forces is what we continue to monitor, but at the same time we pay attention to more pressing threats.” “I would say that we are closely watching this,” added Mackenzie, returning to the Russian theme.

In addition to his words, Pentagon spokeswoman Dana White assured that the United States would help its NATO allies "to contain any aggression."

Mr. Trump, obviously, gave a little back and began to pay much more attention to the care of "European allies." This is not surprising: the arms race, which Trump unleashed according to the script of his idol Reagan, must be paid in part by these same "allies." Russia will continue to be portrayed as a “potential adversary” for Europe.

Observed and commented on Oleg Chuvakin
- especially for topwar.ru
21 comment
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. XII Legion
    XII Legion 22 January 2018 07: 06 New
    15
    Overseas hegemon sends nuclear hi to Russia

    God forbid if literally)
    There is an antidote to any threat.
    Revision of nuclear doctrines is an objective process, nuclear dwarfs of the 2nd echelon pulled themselves up. The range of threats and scope has grown.
    1. noct
      noct 22 January 2018 16: 07 New
      0
      only a clear position with the threat of attack will help here without any “either” and “if” or a preventive strike. otherwise the yankees don't stop
      1. Alber
        Alber 22 January 2018 17: 00 New
        +1
        Quote: noct
        only a clear position with the threat of attack will help here without any “either” and “if” or a preventive strike. otherwise the yankees don't stop

        Duc we get ourselves once transferred our strategic reserves of weapons-grade uranium or plutonium to the Americans
  2. Uncle lee
    Uncle lee 22 January 2018 07: 12 New
    +5
    They have a rich imagination - they can declare any country an “enemy”! am
  3. Antianglosax
    Antianglosax 22 January 2018 08: 19 New
    +3
    Now let’s put hypersound into the series and welcome for a portion of lyuli! In principle, there is no doubt - that the Americans are behind, there is only one single let - put them in Lyuli, without this they will never calm down.
    1. Starover_Z
      Starover_Z 22 January 2018 14: 11 New
      0
      Quote: Antianglosaks
      so that the Americans are lagging behind, there is only one single let - put them in cots, without this they will never calm down.

      If you try to insert the Lyuli to the Americans, then such a mess will begin that after it the penguins in Antarctica will be bent by radiation! There’s nothing to say for people! There will be no 4th war on Earth - humanity will not survive the 3rd World War!
      So it’s better to collapse the dollar, after that there will still be a chance to survive!
  4. Ace Tambourine
    Ace Tambourine 22 January 2018 08: 47 New
    +5
    Moscow will use low-power nuclear weapons or threaten to use them in the context of the limited traditional conflict in Europe, suggesting that this will force the US and NATO to "retreat."

    That is, recognizing precisely the defense strategy of Russia, they all want to unleash a rodeo in Europe, but they put it down, and with this sauce they upgrade their AO.
    Why doesn’t Russia transfer its ground forces in Mexico, for example, and do not shout, at the same time, about the growing Amer threat?
  5. Nemesis
    Nemesis 22 January 2018 09: 22 New
    +3
    The USA is an evil empire.
  6. Old26
    Old26 22 January 2018 10: 31 New
    +2
    Quote: Antianglosaks
    Now let’s put hypersound into the series and welcome for a portion of lyuli! In principle, there is no doubt - that the Americans are behind, there is only one single let - put them in Lyuli, without this they will never calm down.

    How simple it is for you. Let’s put hypersound into the series - and immediately lyuley Americans. And they will wipe off and do nothing in return. Portions of light and heat will go not only to them, but to us no less. And everything is simple for you. To be left behind, they must be given a lyule. Will you give? Prepare your family for slaughter in advance?

    Quote: Ace Tambourine
    Moscow will use low-power nuclear weapons or threaten to use them in the context of the limited traditional conflict in Europe, suggesting that this will force the US and NATO to "retreat."

    That is, recognizing precisely the defense strategy of Russia, they all want to unleash a rodeo in Europe, but they put it down, and with this sauce they upgrade their AO.
    Why doesn’t Russia transfer its ground forces in Mexico, for example, and do not shout, at the same time, about the growing Amer threat?

    These are exclusively American Wishlist. “Agree” that we do not use powerful charges in return if they use low-power ones. They have been “sucking” this idea through the media (mainly) for two or three years already.

    And to be realistic, it’s not worth it, as Professor Preobrazhensky said, to read American newspapers before a meal. It is better in this case, for example, to read the report of their Ministry of Energy. With a forecast for the next 15-20 years. The result in this serious report is much more interesting than the "lulling" of American newspapers (and politicians)
    1. Jacques Khakas
      Jacques Khakas 24 January 2018 20: 55 New
      0
      If you look at the situation with Korea, then Comrade Eun showed how to speak with the United States. But it doesn’t work, because of the money, a lot of money. But it would be very simple.
  7. Alex-a832
    Alex-a832 22 January 2018 13: 23 New
    +3
    All these plans, against the background of supposedly defensive goals, will come down to the need to develop the INF, and nuclear weapons. Most likely, US military analysts have not confirmed the sufficient likelihood of a global non-nuclear strike on Russian territory. The problem is the sufficiently developed layered air defense and missile defense, which provide almost 100% nuclear response. They can bet on the development of new missile launchers and small arms missiles with nuclear warheads sufficient to suppress air defense, missile defense, and also eliminate the bulk of ICBMs. For the West, this is very relevant, because the ideas of globalization are beginning to crumble and US dominance will last no more than a quarter century, which is very small by historical standards. As soon as they feel that they can break us relatively unpunished, they will immediately untie TMV. Russia's peacekeeping mission is to maintain military parity with the west.
  8. The comment was deleted.
  9. Mikhail Zubkov
    Mikhail Zubkov 22 January 2018 14: 56 New
    +1
    Well, that's fine - we also need small nuclear charges of a limited radius of action that we need to launch in a series. The effect for euronatsiks will be needed - everyone will understand that they will be beaten with precision and without fail at the means of the USA in their territories, without looking back at possible losses of the peacekeeper. The punishment for US bases, arsenals and launchers must be decisive and inevitable.
  10. bald
    bald 22 January 2018 15: 13 New
    0
    ---- "... the arms race that Trump has unleashed ... must be partially paid for by these same" allies "" --- So who is threatening the EU economy ?! It would have been nice to turn the channel of the imaginary threat of Russia into a real one from the USA for Europe. This applies to our media - by hook or by crook. (live with wolves ...).
  11. Indifferent
    Indifferent 22 January 2018 15: 40 New
    +1
    The Americans will not be able to do anything. They only understand the retirement age of nuclear weapons, and it’s not 55 years old, like ours, but 70 and older .. Middle-aged and young engineers are simply not there. Generational continuity broken. They will not be able to put on the development of new weapons of the Indians or Chinese. Secrecy must be respected, and there is simply no indigenous Yankee. She's really dumb, as Zadornov said. The decline of both schools and universities. Plus, you need a large production school to train mid-level engineers. Therefore, you can not even worry. They can’t do anything good. From ten years they will experience, but most likely they will not bring to mind. They can’t bring their F-35 to mind, although they have spent so much money that our entire military budget is less. Rocket engines can’t do it, although "They flew to the moon" and so on ...
    1. Ace Tambourine
      Ace Tambourine 22 January 2018 16: 44 New
      0
      Do you think we have better in Roskosmos and other industries?
      It's just that they, striped, were the first victims of the exam.
    2. nickgv
      nickgv 22 January 2018 20: 54 New
      0
      So why are they indigenous - they are from enslaved (of the same Ukraine) young cadres who started back in the USSR. Fortunately, what is left does not stand up to criticism in terms of living standards (compared to the USA)
  12. nickgv
    nickgv 22 January 2018 20: 48 New
    0
    I am sure that the United States has a wide variety of weapons of mass destruction from chemical weapons, bacteriological, etc. to nuclear in a neutron version. It’s not known, only that if you use any of the types against the Russian Federation, the answer will be quite adequate and inevitable.
  13. Lexus
    Lexus 22 January 2018 22: 58 New
    +1
    Overseas hegemon sends nuclear hi to Russia

    Fortunately, we have something to answer, so these "greetings" will never turn up.
  14. Cynic
    Cynic 23 January 2018 11: 50 New
    0
    Yes, the Yankees do not have fissile materials in the right quantities, so that would stretch the total number of new warhead nuclear weapons, and we went to reduce the power!
    They would have geyropian regret, generally silent about us. They always shouted about the largest Nuclear Club at the SGA, hmm, now about the BIGGEST RED BUTTON ...
  15. Anyone
    Anyone 24 January 2018 11: 07 New
    +1
    Quote: noct
    only a clear position with the threat of attack will help here without any “either” and “if” or a preventive strike. otherwise the yankees don't stop

    You read such comments and think who the author is: a schoolboy or a provocateur? On the topic: we must strive to minimize the risks of a nuclear conflict in order to create - no matter how trite it sounds! - a safe world. Nuclear weapons are primarily a guarantee, and only then - weapons.
  16. omit
    omit 25 January 2018 18: 11 New
    0
    You are strange people, scattered. Your rockets are more powerful, your planes are the coolest, your tanks are super-duper, your cruise missiles aren’t better. And everything else has no analogs. I know.