The Pentagon needed more low-yield nuclear weapons "to contain Russia"

In the opinion of General John Hayten, deputy chairman of the Committee of Chiefs of Staff (JSC) of the US Armed Forces, the United States should build up its arsenal of low-yield nuclear warheads to deter "Russian aggression." He believes that the current amount of these weapons is insufficient.

The general said this at a video conference organized by the Hudson Institute, which is located in Washington.

As Hayten reported, the ex-head of the Pentagon James Mattis asked him to explain in "simple language" why the United States is building up its nuclear arsenal. weapons, especially low power. To this, the deputy chairman of the KNSh replied that an increase in the number of this type of weapons is necessary for the United States to contain the Russian Federation, "which creates a large number of low-power nuclear charges." While America also has such charges, Washington fears that the current supply will not be enough.

Earlier, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov called "regrettable" the assertion of US Defense Secretary Mark Esper that recently the United States has been successfully restraining the aggressive actions of Moscow and Beijing. The Russian Foreign Minister also noted that the military is usually more careful than politicians in situations that could lead to hot conflicts.

Comments

[Trapp1st]

The United States must build up its arsenal of low-yield nuclear warheads to contain "Russian aggression." He believes that the current amount of these weapons is insufficient.

It seems that even one low-power nuclear charge across the territory of Russia will be enough for the United States to go to the 17-18 century, or even further.

[Svetlana]

Nope .. not that the USA went to the 18-17th century or beyond, but we will all go there. And America and Africa with Australia and Europe and Asia. We will all go there. The tops of Russia, the USA and China will survive. But only they will regret having survived in their bomb shelters.
..
One bomb, no matter what power, on the territory of any of the nuclear powers, will be enough to provoke an exchange of blows and to destroy all living things.

[Victor_B]

Russia has clearly stated that ANY missile flying into its territory IS NUCLEAR and a full-scale retaliatory strike on US territory will follow.

[210ox]

Quite true. This is especially true of those foolish from the inside.

[tihonmarine]

Quote: 210ox

This is especially true of those foolish from the inside.

They are not born foolish, but they are only born morons.

[APASUS]

The Americans expect that the use of a low-power nuclear charge will pass, but in vain they count

Russia will provide a nuclear response in the event of an attack by US ballistic missile submarines (SLBMs), regardless of the characteristics of their equipment. This follows from the commentary of the representative of the Russian Foreign Ministry Maria Zakharova. She accused the US of "deliberately blurring the lines between non-strategic and strategic nuclear weapons," adding that "this inevitably leads to a lower nuclear threshold." Earlier, the US State Department published a report justifying the need to create low-yield nuclear warheads W76-2 and equip them with part of the ballistic missiles of Trident-II submarines.

[voyaka uh]

Tactical nuclear charges are not against Russia, but against third countries in critical cases. At the same time, Russia will probably be warned through special channels about launching each ballistic missile or dropping a bomb. And they will launch not in the direction of Russia.

[Trapp1st]

against third countries in critical cases.

For example, if the Taliban begin to smash the states? And here then the containment of Russia ... Or for Syria? Unclear.

[Wolf]

BRAVO Voyaka!
Similarly, low-power nuclear charges are intended for small recalcitrant powers and maybe China?
But for these intentions, this person must immediately be jailed as a war criminal and a criminal.
John Hayten clearly announced one hundred US intentions to commit war crimes against civilians, trash, not a man. JOHN HITEN !!!

[APASUS]

Quote: voyaka uh

Tactical nuclear warheads - not against Russia, but against third countries in

Do you really believe in the use of nuclear weapons in the modern world? Even in a lightweight version.

[voyaka uh]

Russia also holds a significant number of tactical nuclear warheads. And you can also ask why? If there are strategic, wiping out entire cities ... Also - "so it was", just in case. Insure.

[Nyrobsky]

Quote: voyaka uh

Russia also holds a significant number of tactical nuclear warheads. And you can also ask why? If there are strategic, wiping out entire cities ... Also - "so it was", just in case. Insure.

The fact of the matter is that to insure yourself. And mattresses are needed in order to attack. I think it will not be too difficult for you to remember the name of the country that, since the end of the Second World War, has unleashed several dozen wars in order to promote "democracy".

[Trapp1st]

Russia also holds a significant number of tactical nuclear warheads.

Not a fact that significant, tk. Russian President Boris Yeltsin, in the document "On Russia's policy in the field of arms limitation and reduction" dated January 29, 1992, stated that the production of tactical nuclear weapons in Russia was completely stopped, and all warheads would be destroyed. He was a master at destroying something.

[krops777]

Tactical nuclear charges are not against Russia, but against third countries in critical cases. At the same time, Russia will probably be warned through special channels about launching each ballistic missile or dropping a bomb. And they will launch not in the direction of Russia.

Yes, but this is not a comrade about the Russian aggression that carries something, and not about third countries. Perhaps the Yankees have forgotten what a nuclear explosion of a 50 megaton charge looks like. It is time to demonstrate while on the Kola Peninsula you look to cool the hot heads IMHO.

[Volder]

Quote: voyaka uh

Tactical nuclear charges are not against Russia, but against third countries in critical cases.

General Hayten told you in black and white right to your face: low-yield nuclear warheads are needed to contain Russia. Which of his words do not you understand ?? In addition, third world countries can be dealt with with conventional weapons.

[Nyrobsky]

Quote: voyaka uh

Tactical nuclear charges are not against Russia, but against third countries in critical cases.

I can’t even imagine those "critical cases" from THIRD COUNTRIES that could pose a threat to the United States so much that they deserve the use of nuclear weapons against them. They themselves say that this is to contain Russia. It's like a missile defense system that the United States deployed in Europe under the guise of a frail legend about the threat of missile strikes from Iran, but in fact against Russia. The story is the same with these small nuclear charges, since they will be used against two potential adversaries of the United States, namely Russia and China. Only mattresses need to tell a joke about 2 bulls, old and young, when a young bull, seeing a herd of cows every five minutes, urged the old bull to run to the meadow and fall in love with the cows that he liked, to which the old answered him - Why run after every cow? Let's go down the hill and love all this herd at once. Here and there, Russia will not bother with small charges, but will respond with the heavier ones, so that enlightenment does not come gradually, but immediately.

[voyaka uh]

You mentioned China yourself. The States are planning a conflict with them for influence in the Pacific. At the same time, neither of these two countries is interested in exchanging ICBMs.
And tactical nuclear weapons may well be used. Against military targets.
Pakistan, too ... A nuclear power. Radical Islamists can come to power there.
And so on.
Russia, too, may face a nuclear threat from third countries. And tactical warheads are a "last resort" response. If conventional weapons don't help.

[bar]

Tactical nuclear charges are not against Russia, but against third countries in critical cases. At the same time, Russia will probably be warned through special channels about launching each ballistic missile or dropping a bomb. And they will launch not in the direction of Russia.

Is that your humor?

[Shilka]

Quote: voyaka uh

Tactical nuclear charges are not against Russia, but against third countries in critical cases. At the same time, Russia will probably be warned through special channels about launching each ballistic missile or dropping a bomb. And they will launch not in the direction of Russia.

It's sweet that you sing in Israel ... But your friends on the borders of Russia are increasingly concentrated ..

[Lord of the Sith]

The Pentagon needed more low-yield nuclear weapons "to contain Russia"

Translated into human language, "give money and more!"

[cniza]

They are only interested in the budget, and they do not even think about safety ...

[tihonmarine]

Quote: Lord of the Sith

Translated into human language, "give money and more!"

The appetites of the US warriors are growing, and so the wallet is already bursting, but everything is not enough for them.

[Shilka]

Quote: tihonmarine

Quote: Lord of the Sith

Translated into human language, "give money and more!"

The appetites of the US warriors are growing, and so the wallet is already bursting, but everything is not enough for them.

Yes, Vlad, the military budget was inflated, but what's the point? And to fight directly with the Anglo-Saxons, the mentality is not the same .. They will try to play off Russia, or even better to destroy it from the inside, like Ukraine and now Belarus .. It's a good plan, to watch how the former allies grapple in a bloody battle between themselves .. That will be joy and profit will jump to heaven.

[tihonmarine]

Quote: Shilka

They will try to play off Russia, or even better to destroy it from the inside

As the states were created, so from this moment they are only engaged in playing off.

[Shilka]

Quote: tihonmarine

Quote: Shilka

They will try to play off Russia, or even better to destroy it from the inside

As the states were created, so from this moment they are only engaged in playing off.

And a robbery .. Earlier, at least for a dollar there was a gold reserve, but after the 50s
When de Gaulle sent a dry cargo ship with dollars to America in the hope of exchanging for gold ..
This is how it ended! de Gaulle was removed and no more gold was given for pieces of paper, but the machine was turned on at full power .. And remember our bills of the USSR, it is clearly stated there that they are provided with gold and counterfeiting is prosecuted under the Law ..
Now these inscriptions are not present !!! Why?

And now both those and those pieces of paper ..

[tihonmarine]

Quote: Shilka

Now these inscriptions are not present !!! Why?

Capitalism realized that it is possible to fool the people, and there is no need to exchange paper for dollars, well, rubles as well.

[cniza]

"which creates a large number of low-power nuclear charges."

And as always, just words ... if small charges are applied, no one can stop the big ones ...

[Tank jacket]

Lavrov "Even then, we expressed serious concern that the development of such low-yield ammunition lowers the threshold for the use of nuclear weapons and increases the risks of a nuclear conflict," Lavrov said.

According to him, the threat is well understood by scientists not only in the Russian Federation, but also in the United States itself, in Europe and other countries, nevertheless, Washington continues its policy.

-----
"Any attack using American ballistic missiles on submarines, regardless of the characteristics of their equipment, will be perceived as an attack with the use of nuclear weapons ... and, according to Russian military doctrine, will be considered the basis for the reciprocal use of nuclear weapons from Russia," warned Maria Zakharova ...
------
"Why do we need such a world if Russia is not there? (C)

[vkl.47]

Quote: Bruce Norris

Quote: Trapp1st

It seems that even one low-power nuclear charge across the territory of Russia will be enough for the United States to go to the 17-18 century, or even further.

Reasoning of the level of "smart janitor".
Nobody will use charges against the Russian Federation. The economy is bent into a ram's horn, and this is a kirdyk.

Regular bot ... registered today.
Most likely vyshevatnik. Or an adept of the Hodor and the oval))

[tihonmarine]

Quote: vkl.47

Regular bot ... registered today.
Most likely vyshevatnik. Or adept of the Hodor and the oval

Most likely a brave lad from Lyakhovskaya Oukraina.

[Kibl]

The question arises, why does an entogo general with such a "smart" face have only four stars on his shoulder straps, and not five, six, ten?

[tihonmarine]

Quote: KIBL

Why does the entogo general with such a "smart" face on his shoulder straps have only four stars, and not five, six, ten?

No, Papa Trump won't give more than four.

[dzvero]

The general did not indicate - will they create charges from scratch or will they again re-arrange the existing warheads? And not a word about the timing.

[Wedmak]

You are right about something. The US nuclear forces have big problems with maintaining nuclear warheads in combat readiness. Their two remaining enrichment plants either do not work, or work poorly, or are worn out, but the fact is that there is not enough fissile highly enriched materials. As well as for a part of the nuclear power plant. (Guess where they buy fuel?)
Under this sauce, disassembling one multi-megaton charge into ten kilotons is quite an option. And the face, as it were, preserved and their nuclear toys.
These are not my speculations, but facts from experts in the nuclear industry. The Americans practically loved their enrichment industry.

[dzvero]

HEU-LEU is a good example of both freebies and the poison is sweet Restoring capacity to its previous volume will not take a year or two. Most likely, in the coming years, they will only be able to process the material of the charges removed from the carriers from the storage facilities. At the forum, they cited information about the "growth" of -100 warheads per year. Let's see how their nuclear industry will develop, but I won't be surprised if in the near future the United States proposes a large-scale reduction in nuclear arsenals ...

[Wolf]

BRAVO Voyaka!
Similarly, low-power nuclear charges are intended for small recalcitrant powers and maybe China?
But for these intentions, this person must immediately be jailed as a war criminal and a criminal.
John Hayten clearly announced one hundred US intentions to commit war crimes against civilians, trash, not a man. JOHN HITEN !!!

[Turist1996]

I wrote on this topic last night: well, the United States cannot now produce fresh warheads purely due to the lack of technological capabilities. That is why, several years ago, they stopped making available their available quantities in the public domain, for it was clearly visible a clear decrease in the number of warheads from year to year.
Physicists cannot be fooled - both "democratic" and "totalitarian" warheads have a shelf life of 30 years purely due to physical processes taking place inside.
Therefore, it is necessary either to replace the outgoing ones with new ones (which is what Russia is doing), or to invent something with the outgoing ones (such as a decrease in power with an increase in accuracy, because after 30 years of storage of m / I ammunition it is not at all a fact that it will give out the declared power), which is now being done USA. And they do it for a simple reason - they cannot make new ones. Everything else is political and economic dances with tambourines.

[voyaka uh]

"And they do it for a simple reason - they cannot make new ones." ///
----
This is a common misconception in Russia, based on the fact that the United States has not produced weapons-grade plutonium for a long time.
During the Cold War, the USSR and the USA accumulated more than 100 tons of plutonium each.
We decided to start recycling in the 90s. The Americans stopped their factories, and the Russians rebuilt them.
In the past few years, the Americans have again begun to slowly build up fuel for nuclear bombs. But, of course, not in such quantities as in the last century.

[Wedmak]

In the past few years, the Americans have again begun to slowly build up fuel for nuclear bombs. But, of course, not in such quantities as in the last century.

In addition to operating time, it also needs to be enriched. But this is exactly what they have problems with. If the Russian Federation has modernized its enrichment capacities (they have even taken up waste, although this is not really enrichment, but recycling), then the USA still has old energy-intensive methods that are not enough.

[rocket757]

Discuss this? What's the point?
It is clear that there is an enemy ... this is now the only definition of our relationship.

[saygon66]

- This is not yet the HRC!
- The PC will come when effective technologies for cleaning contaminated areas are invented ... Something nano-like that will allow deactivating and reclaiming affected areas in the shortest possible time.
- In the meantime - like this: With small charges, and it seems like there is less harm and the effect of intimidation is obvious ...
- What the same "experiments" with Hiroshima and Nagasaki should have given!

[silberwolf88]

whether it is small or large ... Russia will not understand ... exactly how a rocket was launched from a conventional warhead or KhtoZnat ... the response will go in full ... all these dances with low-power nuclear weapons are just preparation for testing on a weak adversary (well, as at the time in defeated Japan) ... the rest is empty rhetoric ...

[Andobor]

Yes, the Americans hoped for hybrid weapons, but in the field of real, high-tech weapons they are hopelessly behind.

[1536]

The United States is surrounded by largely friendly states. These are Canada in the north and Mexico in the south. To the west and east, the country is surrounded by oceans. Russia does not get out of the "anaconda loop". Poland alone with three Baltic "tigers" are worth something. It's scary to look towards Central Asia. Therefore, Russia needs more "low-power nuclear charges" than the United States.

[Pavel57]

Quote: voyaka uh

Tactical nuclear charges are not against Russia, but against third countries in critical cases. ...

Quote: Victor_B

Russia has clearly stated that ANY missile flying into its territory IS NUCLEAR and a full-scale retaliatory strike on US territory will follow.

And how to consider bases in other countries?