Military Review

German observer: Russians and Americans rushed into new arms race

32
German observer: Russians and Americans rushed into new arms race

The German press published an article by the columnist Theo Sommer about the existing nuclear arsenals in the countries of the world. The German journalist writes that 75 years have passed since the explosions in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, but today the situation in the field of nuclear weapons is very hot.


Theo Sommer writes that after Donald Trump came to the United States for the presidency, the very process of reducing the volume of nuclear arsenals was, if not completely canceled out, then under very great threat. It is noted that Washington insists on including in the new treaty not only the United States and Russia, but also other countries that have nuclear weapons and which, according to the United States, are their opponents. First of all, we are talking about China.

Theo Sommer on Die Zeit:

The situation is difficult for a number of reasons. First, several fundamental arms control agreements were terminated at once. The nuclear arms control agreement is about to be canceled. Secondly, we can already say that nuclear disarmament has not only stalled, but even the opposite: the Russians and Americans have rushed into a new arms race.

The article by the German observer noted that by next year, US nuclear arsenal spending will grow from $ 37,3 billion to $ 44,5 billion.

Sommer notes that Trump did not rule out the possibility of placing nuclear weapons in space and resuming nuclear tests.

Theo Sommer:

Vladimir Putin is no less ambitious in this regard. It boasts such "miracle weapons" as the Avangard complex, capable of speeds up to 20 M, as well as cruise missiles with nuclear power plants, nuclear torpedoes to destroy coastal cities, ballistic missiles that can bypass US missile defense through the South Pole.

The German author notes that China has recently seriously armed itself in the nuclear field. And this, too, worries the German observer who advocates "comprehensive nuclear disarmament."
32 comments
Ad

The editorial board of Voenniy Obozreniye urgently needs a proofreader. Requirements: impeccable knowledge of the Russian language, diligence, discipline. Contact: [email protected]

Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Livonetc
    Livonetc 11 August 2020 09: 00 New
    +4
    Russia has no choice.
    Bedding, like most countries, it is not able to be.
    1. hrych
      hrych 11 August 2020 13: 30 New
      0
      By and large, Trump untied our hands by destroying the INF Treaty, he taught the EU and the PRC a lesson with this. The US itself has these missiles on the side. Even earlier, Bush Junior broke the ABM Treaty, in return he received what the ABM missiles were incapable of. With Iskander, of course, the Americans were right, as in their time with Oka. In nuclear warheads with light, on the other hand, half-ton warheads, they will fly out of the INF Treaty, and not even in MD, but almost in SD, i.e. per thousand.
  2. Mavrikiy
    Mavrikiy 11 August 2020 09: 05 New
    0
    and today the situation in the field of nuclear weapons is very tense.
    When was she cold? fool
    ballistic missiles that can bypass US missile defense through the South Pole.
    And what, sorry for the United States? fool Let them not twitch and we will not touch.
  3. Kurare
    Kurare 11 August 2020 09: 14 New
    +3
    If we compare the development of the defense budgets of Russia and the United States, then it becomes crystal clear who is "chasing" and who is simply maintaining their defenses.
  4. Lord of the Sith
    Lord of the Sith 11 August 2020 09: 26 New
    +3
    What's the matter with the Deutsche Razer?))

    Just like in the bearded anecdote - "Vasily Ivanovich, Honduras worries me! And you don't scratch him" laughing
  5. APASUS
    APASUS 11 August 2020 09: 29 New
    0
    And this, too, worries a German observer in favor of "comprehensive nuclear disarmament."

    Somehow the German observer smoothed the big picture, keeping silent that it was the West, represented by the United States, who initiated the termination of nuclear control treaties!
    An attempt to shift the responsibility to everyone and China dragged there
    1. voyaka uh
      voyaka uh 11 August 2020 09: 51 New
      -2
      "China still dragged there" ///
      ----
      Because of China, all the fuss.
      China now has a large strategic nuclear arsenal. Your ICBMs.
      And it is stupid not to take it into account in the bilateral treaties between Russia and the United States.
      The era of two nuclear strategic players is over.
      There are three of them.
      1. APASUS
        APASUS 11 August 2020 11: 44 New
        +4
        Quote: voyaka uh
        "China still dragged there" ///
        ----
        Because of China, all the fuss.
        China now has a large strategic nuclear arsenal. Your ICBMs.
        And it is stupid not to take it into account in the bilateral treaties between Russia and the United States.
        The era of two nuclear strategic players is over.
        There are three of them.

        Since you are such a champion of justice, why did you not include Israel in this number? In fact, it is necessary to make a global agreement, and not those who oppose the United States.
        1. voyaka uh
          voyaka uh 11 August 2020 13: 54 New
          -1
          You missed the word "strategic" in my post.
          1. APASUS
            APASUS 11 August 2020 14: 05 New
            +2
            Quote: voyaka uh
            You missed the word "strategic" in my post.

            For nuclear weapons, this is not a matter of principle.
      2. Threaded screw
        Threaded screw 11 August 2020 13: 21 New
        +1
        China now has a large strategic nuclear arsenal. Your ICBMs. And it is stupid not to take it into account in the bilateral treaties between Russia and the United States.
        In this case, the treaty should be NATO + the most cunning / Russia and China. Otherwise, it would be nice to increase the number of warheads at the level of 35-40 thousand.
      3. Alber alber
        Alber alber 12 August 2020 00: 25 New
        0
        Why three, let's add the arsenals of NATO and Israel, is against us, and let them breed China themselves, while the West has much more yao than us, so let them cut down, include participants, 5st. Came across nobody canceled
  6. paul3390
    paul3390 11 August 2020 09: 30 New
    +2
    It is not clear then why they do not demand to include England, France, India, Pakistan, Israel? Small-breeders generally brazenly violate the non-proliferation treaty, because they do not have their own missiles, just as their warheads seem to be. And it is directly forbidden to transfer all this to third countries. Since they cannot produce their own strategic nuclear forces, it means that they are no longer a nuclear power. To the exit.
  7. rotmistr60
    rotmistr60 11 August 2020 09: 57 New
    +1
    the Russians and Americans have thrown themselves into a new arms race.
    This is how you look at it. The Americans are increasing military spending (budget), money is already rowing with a shovel. We, in contrast to them, rely on modern types of weapons and are ahead of some. The Americans are withdrawing from the treaties not only in order to free their hands, but also to try, using the practice worked out during the Cold War, to force Russia to spend exorbitantly (disproportionately) on defense. But this time it won't work.
  8. rocket757
    rocket757 11 August 2020 09: 58 New
    0
    Things can get darker and darker. This is the situation.
    The worst thing is that THEN, it will be useless to look for the guilty ...
  9. Old26
    Old26 11 August 2020 12: 06 New
    +3
    Quote: voyaka uh
    "China still dragged there" ///
    ----
    Because of China, all the fuss.
    China now has a large strategic nuclear arsenal. Your ICBMs.
    And it is stupid not to take it into account in the bilateral treaties between Russia and the United States.
    The era of two nuclear strategic players is over.
    There are three of them.

    Actually, five. Do not forget the already existing SLBMs of France and Britain, plus two more countries with strategic carriers "appeared" on the horizon - these are India and the DPRK.

    But the worst thing is that it is very difficult to achieve mutually acceptable ceilings even for three countries, and even more so if we talk about five. And in the future there will be several more countries with strategic weapons ...

    Quote: paul3390
    Small-breeders generally brazenly violate the nonproliferation treaty, because they do not have their own missiles, as it looks like warheads

    They don't violate anything. They have their own warheads, and as for the carriers, the British invested in the creation of Trident, which is essentially a joint development, even in the field of finance ...
    1. voyaka uh
      voyaka uh 11 August 2020 14: 24 New
      0
      "it is very difficult to achieve mutually acceptable ceilings even for three countries, and if we talk about five, even more so" ///
      ----
      I agree. The situation is very dangerous and unpleasant. sad
    2. Charik
      Charik 11 August 2020 17: 22 New
      +1
      What are their BGs
  10. Old26
    Old26 11 August 2020 15: 10 New
    +1
    Quote: voyaka uh
    "it is very difficult to achieve mutually acceptable ceilings even for three countries, and if we talk about five, even more so" ///
    ----
    I agree. The situation is very dangerous and unpleasant. sad

    Alas, I agree. The situation is not pleasant. It is easier to find a "common denominator" for two countries (although the negotiation process is also quite lengthy). This can be seen in the example of the START III treaty. The parties came to a compromise. We agreed on the American ceiling for warheads - 3, they are on the ceilings for deployed and non-deployed carriers.
    If we now "fasten" the PRC to the treaty, the issue will hang in the air for a very long time. For China is unlikely to "cut back" plans to develop its strategic nuclear forces. In the future, it has new submarines with up to 20-24 missiles. But in any case, the number of Chinese speakers will be less than that of Russia or the United States. And if you add Franco-British nuclear forces to this, the problem becomes insoluble. And on the way is also India with its strategic forces and possibly the DPRK. And in the future Israel, Pakistan, Iran in the future and possibly Japan or South Korea.
    there can be only two options
    1. Or a general nuclear strategic reduction - here Russia will be against
    2. Or everyone disarms - only a small amount of strategic nuclear weapons remain in the US and Russia - others will disagree here - China, North Korea (at least), possibly France and Britain
    1. Liam
      Liam 11 August 2020 15: 16 New
      -4
      Quote: Old26
      1. Or a general nuclear strategic reduction - here Russia will be against

      Russia is not able to economically and technologically maintain even the current quantitative level of strategic nuclear forces for a long time.
      Therefore, the START-4/5/6 treaties with it lose their practical meaning. Why make any concessions for the sake of something that will happen in a "natural" way.
      1. Alber alber
        Alber alber 12 August 2020 00: 31 New
        0
        In fact, Russia is the leader in the production and development of new missiles and Yao in principle, but the Yankees have almost lost the ability to develop new types of Yao, now the industry will be restored, even the "civil" Westinghouse and that bankrupt
  11. Old26
    Old26 11 August 2020 15: 48 New
    +1
    Quote: Liam
    Quote: Old26
    1. Or a general nuclear strategic reduction - here Russia will be against

    Russia is not able to economically and technologically maintain even the current quantitative level of strategic nuclear forces for a long time.
    Therefore, the START-4/5/6 treaties with it lose their practical meaning. Why make any concessions for the sake of something that will happen in a "natural" way.

    Russia still maintains quantitatively the levels of its strategic nuclear forces. Fortunately, the time for mass decommissioning of complexes has passed. Now there are 4 or 5 regiments left to re-equip - this is about 3 years. On average, the Strategic Missile Forces receives about 20 ICBMs per year. About the same number of SLBMs. So Russia is quite capable of supporting quantitatively.
    Will the "partner" agree to the conclusion of START-4 / START-5 / START-6 - we'll wait and see. The Americans in the future have a massive replacement of their ICBMs and SLBMs
    1. Liam
      Liam 11 August 2020 17: 00 New
      -3
      Quote: Old26
      so far supports

      Exactly so far. The remnants of the former luxury in the form of oil prices and access to Western technologies from the period 2003-2014. After 2014, all rearmament programs stalled in unison - Armata, Su-57, shipbuilding, etc., etc. And it is naive to think that strategic nuclear forces are a safe haven. The problems are systemic and could not get around them. The state of affairs in cosmonautics (the area closest to the strategic nuclear forces) is also in full view of everyone. Technological and qualitative progressing lag, and not only in relation to the United States. Finances sing romances. Bulava's adventures are well known, Sarmat smoothly goes to the right from year to year. Searchlighting and PR buzz is getting stronger and less real cases.
      Quote: Old26
      The Americans in the future have a massive replacement of their ICBMs and SLBMs

      After how many years of service? And what is the average duration of Russian ICBMs? And that's not counting the economic opportunities that are incomparable
      1. Charik
        Charik 11 August 2020 17: 31 New
        +2
        fabulous dolboy
  12. NF68
    NF68 11 August 2020 15: 51 New
    0
    It would not hurt this observer to remind who exactly is spurring this arms race. To do this, it will be enough to compare the defense spending of Russia and the United States.
  13. Old26
    Old26 11 August 2020 16: 33 New
    +3
    Quote: NF68
    It would not hurt this observer to remind who exactly is spurring this arms race. To do this, it will be enough to compare the defense spending of Russia and the United States.

    In principle, everyone knows this, Nikolai. They whip up, and sometimes we provoke.
    1. NF68
      NF68 12 August 2020 15: 51 New
      0
      Quote: Old26
      Quote: NF68
      It would not hurt this observer to remind who exactly is spurring this arms race. To do this, it will be enough to compare the defense spending of Russia and the United States.

      In principle, everyone knows this, Nikolai. They whip up, and sometimes we provoke.


      Why is Russia so provoking them? All dirty tricks begin with the actions of NATO countries and Russia is forced to respond to the actions of NATO.
  14. Old26
    Old26 11 August 2020 17: 55 New
    +3
    Quote: Liam
    Quote: Old26
    so far supports

    Exactly so far. The remnants of the former luxury in the form of oil prices and access to Western technologies from the period 2003-2014. After 2014, all rearmament programs stalled in unison - Armata, Su-57, shipbuilding, etc., etc. And it is naive to think that strategic nuclear forces are a safe haven. The problems are systemic and could not get around them. The state of affairs in astronautics (the area closest to the strategic nuclear forces) is also in full view of everyone. Technological and qualitative progress lagging behind and not only in relation to the United States.

    Nobody claims that everything is in order and in such an area as the strategic nuclear forces everything is without problems. But the problems there are the smallest in comparison with other areas.
    We, at least in the 80s, were able to achieve a breakthrough in the same solid-propellant missiles. And now the technological and qualitative lag is not particularly observed. Yes, there are problems, for example, we could not master the industrial technology of replacing bonded solid fuel. I don’t know the reason, but in the industrial sector we could not, as a result, where the Americans modernized, we wrote off. Here we really were and remain on the sidelines ...

    Quote: Liam
    The adventures of Bulava are well known, Sarmat smoothly goes to the right from year to year.
    The Bulava's adventures are well-known, but the point is that they decided to save money on ground mining at Bulava, although MIT did not have such experience as the SRC.
    "Sarmat" - yes, it goes to the right. GRTs and Khrunichev - namely, the main co-executors of the program had no experience in creating heavy ICBMs. You have to pay for it now

    Quote: Liam
    Quote: Old26
    The Americans in the future have a massive replacement of their ICBMs and SLBMs

    After how many years of service? And what is the average duration of Russian ICBMs? And that's not counting the economic opportunities that are incomparable

    Well, let's take a look.
    1. The MINITMAN-3 was adopted in 1970. Fully 550 ICBMs "Minuteman-3" were put into service in 1975. That is, now the "oldest" one is 50 years old, and the "freshest" one is 45 years old. True, one should not forget that in the period 1998-2012 the missiles underwent a complete modernization. In fact, the rockets, although they have "old" names, are about 8-20 years old.
    2. The TRIDENT-2 was put into service in 1990. Fully 240 SLBMs were put into service in 1997. That is, now the "oldest" is 30 years old, and the "freshest" is 23.

    1. Our oldest rocket is the solid-propellant Topol. Almost all of it has already been removed from service, although the oldest would have been 36 years old, but these old ones have already been written off
    2. Topol-M is aged - the oldest is 23 years old, the youngest is 8 years old
    3. UR-100N UTTH - they are no longer in service.
    4. "Voevods" - the oldest - 32
    1. Liam
      Liam 11 August 2020 18: 39 New
      0
      You very competently outlined the technical aspects. The Russian strategic nuclear forces and their carriers, due to technological features, are less durable, more expensive to operate, need to be replaced more often. A variety of types also contribute, which adds to logistics costs. The state of affairs and prospects in the economy are also known. And not particularly pleasing. Plus huge spending on dubious projects a la Poseidon. Since the times of the USSR, the trend has been steady - a decrease in the number of warheads and carriers and no prerequisites for a turn are observed. Just before, the need was presented as a virtue, various START treaties.
      1. Alber alber
        Alber alber 12 August 2020 00: 37 New
        0
        You also add something about a balalaika, earflaps, bears on the street and a fake vaccine to your fountain of "vseprosralipolymers", well, what do you usually have liberdy on there on the plate, you know much better whether you need Poseidons and petrels or not
  15. Old26
    Old26 12 August 2020 13: 20 New
    +1
    Quote: Liam
    The assortment of types also makes its contribution, which adds spending on logistics. The state of affairs and prospects in the economy are also known and not particularly encouraging. Plus huge spending on dubious projects a la Poseidon. Since Soviet times, the trend has been steady - a decrease in the number of warheads and carriers and no prerequisites for a reversal are not observable. Just before the need was passed off as a virtue, various treaties on START.

    Now they are trying to clean up the assortment with all their might. And it turns out very well. Old liquid-propellant missiles of the UR-100N UTTKh type have been removed from service and are being replaced by the solid-propellant Yars-M. Old "Topol", of which there are about 3 dozen left, are also replaced by "Yars" (Yars-M or Yars-S - this is not so important). In the future, the replacement of "Topol-M" with some version of "Yars" ("Yars" itself is nothing more than a model "Topol-MR." This is a network of almost a raznosortyu of 4 ICBMs (Topol, Topol-M MR, UR-100N UTTH and R-36M2) we replace with two - the Topol-M / MR and Sarmat families. Even if we assume that the Barguzin and Rubezh will also be the same variants of "Topol-MR" ("Yarsa"). so that the assortment is removed and logistics problems become less costly

    Quote: Liam
    The state of affairs and prospects in the economy are also known and not particularly encouraging, plus huge spending on dubious projects a la Poseidon.

    Well, with Poseidon, I agree with you. A completely unnecessary system. As well as "Petrel"

    Quote: Liam
    Since the times of the USSR, the trend has been steady - a decrease in the number of warheads and delivery vehicles, and there are no preconditions for a turnaround. Just before, the need was presented as a virtue - various START treaties.

    Why is it necessary to have such a quantity? There was a time when the Americans and I had about 70 thousand nuclear warheads in total, and the number of targets (at least for us) could reach 25 thousand. Get scorched earth as a result of the conflict? Gradually came to the conclusion that the number can be safely reduced to about 1500 thousand (strategic). This is enough for the same USA to cease to exist as a single state.
    About 10 years ago, there was a publication on the network of one user who, using both "simulators of the 3rd world" and knowledge of geography, calculated how many nuclear warheads would be required for America. I have quoted some of the data many times. I can repeat myself. In order to destroy the United States, as a single, controlled state, it is required to hit, according to this user, 165 targets in the United States, spending from 266 to 426 charges depending on the charge power. So to start a new nuclear arms race, increasing the number of battlegrounds - there is no special sense yet.
  16. Old26
    Old26 12 August 2020 19: 26 New
    +1
    Quote: NF68
    Quote: Old26
    Quote: NF68
    It would not hurt this observer to remind who exactly is spurring this arms race. To do this, it will be enough to compare the defense spending of Russia and the United States.

    In principle, everyone knows this, Nikolai. They whip up, and sometimes we provoke.


    Why is Russia so provoking them? All dirty tricks begin with the actions of NATO countries and Russia is forced to respond to the actions of NATO.

    Can I give you an example? Two examples, one might say Christomatic, of how we provoked.
    1s. Another parade on Red Square. In the air part of the parade, for the first time, the latest Soviet bombers TU-50 and M-95 are shown. EMNIP prepared for the parade about 4 vehicles of each type, that is, a total of 3 strategists. But to show such a meager amount was below the level of self-esteem. And they did it simply. All these 6 cars just started to drive "in a circle". As a result, the military attaches were shocked when several dozen of the latest machines passed over Red Square in a certain time. If several dozen were shown at the parade - how many Russians have them in reality?
    In reality, machines of the TU-95 and M-4 type were in service with about 140-150. The report of the military attaches (read scouts) stated that the United States was colossally lagging behind the Russians in strategic bombers. As a result, the number of B-47 strategists released was increased to 2043 EMNIP (although initially it was planned less than 1000), and the number of B-52 bombers intended to replace the B-36 increased EMNIP from 400 to 720. This is the price to show off.

    2. Missile program of the USSR
    Each parade, we showed so many missile models that the Americans had to change their classification, because the number of Soviet missile models was prohibitive, and the SS-X-xx classification was simply not enough. Sometimes non-existent systems were shown, such as the global SS-X-10 missile and missiles for submarines of such dimensions that the Polaris developed in the USA simply did not fit a candle to this solid-propellant ballistic missile of submarines. ”As a result, the number of Minutemans was it is customary to increase it to 1000 units and bring the number of our submarine missile carriers to 41. Although then we had boats with only 3 missiles (the Americans - from 16).
    These are two of the most famous examples of how we "on our own head" provoked the race. Although they spur, taking advantage of the superiority in the budget.

    Among our latest "provocations" is the announcement of several weapon systems, which are either not now or are on the WDS.
    The US work on a hypersonic cruise missile was stalled (at least about the X-43A and X-51 missiles) for about 7 years, it was not heard. But we announced the Dagger - as a result, there are now several directions in the US using ballistic missiles. The same is true of Poseidon and Petrel. The Americans will take steps to fend off this threat as well. As a result, we can get the same systems from the enemy, but in much larger quantities. And they will unwind. We will have to put into service a significant number of new systems, although initially it was planned to have a couple of dozen