Military Review

Rotted US nuclear shield

93
Rotted US nuclear shield
Technician at Los Alamos National Laboratory working with plutonium as part of the US Stockpile Management Program. The laboratory sought to play an important role in the production of new nuclear warheads despite security breaches. Photo source: US Energy Department


Since the beginning of the Cold War, the topic of nuclear weapons plays a key role in ensuring the defense capability of our country - now we can say that it plays a sacred role as one of the key and most important elements of Russia's influence in foreign policy. However, there is also a downside to the perception of the atomic arsenal - and it received an extremely vivid embodiment in the United States of America ...

Sometimes, considering the topic of weapons, you can find a number of extremely funny incidents - it just so happens that the countries that have pioneered this or that type of weapon eventually lose understanding of the concepts of its use. A similar problem was once experienced by Great Britain, which first tried a tank on the battlefield, and today the United States is experiencing it - to this day, the only country that has used nuclear weapons in war.

For most of the inhabitants of Russia - both professionals and people ignorant of military affairs - such a disdainful attitude towards the nuclear arsenal may seem savage and the greatest stupidity - at one time both the USSR and the Russian Federation were able to ensure their sovereignty only thanks to the presence of weapons of mass destruction. To this day, the development of the Strategic Missile Forces (and, in general, elements of the "nuclear triad") is a key area of ​​financing all defense projects - it will not be wrong to say that this branch of our science and industry really occupies a leading position in the world.

In general, the problems with the American nuclear arsenal turned out to be a complete surprise not only for the allies and enemies of the United States, but also for the highest military and political leadership of the United States. In some respects, the debate in power circles is reminiscent of the fierce debate over the need for fleet in our country: many have the impression that the situation has gone too far, and the invested resources will absolutely and in no way recoup their investments.

In today's article, I propose to briefly familiarize ourselves with the situation that has developed around the American atomic weapons.


Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Joseph Dunford is considering a promising warhead for Minuteman III intercontinental ballistic missiles. Minot Air Force Base, North Dakota, 2016 Photo source: US Navy / Joint Chiefs of Staff

To begin with, after the collapse of the USSR, American nuclear deterrent forces began to be in permanent decline: the threat of the outbreak of World War III disappeared, and the military budget experienced all the delights of optimization. New and effective, but costly to operate, types of weapons were cut down - for example, aviation the AGM-129 ACM cruise missile; and the LGM-118 Peacekeeper heavy ICBMs. The production of nuclear weapons was discontinued in 1991 - yes, the most recent American warhead is already thirty years old!

Funding for any promising projects related to the development of nuclear deterrent forces was absolutely mercilessly cut, and the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) was expanded by prohibiting the allocation of funds for the development of any mobile launchers (analogues of our Yars and Topol ").

In connection with the above, one can say without any embellishment that today the American nuclear triad consists of components that are outdated not only morally, but also technically ... The nuclear shield is turning into decayed ...

A striking example of this can be called the ICBM LGM-30G "Minuteman III" - at the moment it is the only representative of the ground component of the US nuclear triad. The production of these missiles was discontinued in 1977 - the newest of the ones produced was 44 years old. Of course, during the service they were repeatedly modernized: for example, in the late 90s, a fifteen-year program for "refueling" solid fuel began, and in 2014 the missiles in service were re-equipped with single warheads (instead of triple ones) in order to increase the number of carriers. This measure should be viewed as a desire to circumvent the limitations of the treaty "on measures to further reduce and limit strategic offensive arms." The conceptual rationale for such a decision was the reasoning that it would be difficult for the enemy to destroy a large number of carriers - which means that this increases the chances that the conflict will not come to an exchange of nuclear strikes.

Separately, it is worth mentioning that such a re-equipment of the ICBM fleet made it possible to reduce the costs of their maintenance, and instead of dismantled warheads, radio equipment and "tricks" were installed, increasing the chances of overcoming missile defense.


Areas of deployment of the Minuteman III silo ICBMs. Photo source: National Historic Site

However, the American expert community is sharply opposed even to such an essentially modest and outdated arsenal - at the moment there are serious disputes about the complete reduction of the ground component of the US nuclear deterrent forces. In general, one interesting reservation should be made here: after the end of the Cold War, America, in general, has ceased to associate its military power with numbers, and as such, the fact of possessing a nuclear arsenal. The numerical and qualitative superiority of the States in conventional weapons was so obvious that atomic weapons became a kind of unnecessary ballast, which you don't really want to contain, but you have to - whatever one may say, this is one of the signs of a superpower ...

However, the aggressive pressure of the "green left" (let me describe in such a shameless way the radical socialist elements, whose dictatorship has now reigned in the United States) is not abating, and the ground-based component of the strategic nuclear forces looks an extremely attractive target of attacks. The main argument is extremely simple: ground-based ICBMs are too vulnerable to a preemptive strike. Secondary, however, are also quite straightforward - they primarily have an economic justification. The maintenance of the Minuteman infrastructure is too expensive and, among other things, is a potential cause of the destruction of the population that lives in the areas where the silos are located.


Test launch of the Minitmen III ICBM by the 91st US Air Force Missile Wing. 2020 Photo Source: US Air Force

The naval and aviation components of the triad get much less - in the United States, it is traditionally believed that strategic submarine cruisers are the least vulnerable, which means they are extremely dangerous for the enemy. Long-range bombers are also beyond criticism - they have dual functionality, extremely useful and in demand even in local conflicts. Of course, the general offensive against the nuclear arsenal does not disregard the listed weapons, but the Pentagon manages to defend funding for programs dedicated to promising carriers of nuclear weapons (for example, the B-21 Raider, the development of nuclear warheads for cruise and hypersonic missiles).

Such "pacifism", however, is not such - all talks about complete nuclear disarmament have a completely obvious background: if the world atomic arsenal is disposed of, the US military hegemony will take on the form of an obvious and unconditional fact. The military (including officials of the Ministry of Defense), however, strongly disagree with any form of reduction and optimization of the nuclear deterrent.

For example, Deputy Secretary of Defense candidate Kathleen Hicks recently said during a Senate hearing:

“I am concerned about the non-readiness of our nuclear triad - if all pessimistic forecasts are confirmed, my team will immediately begin to study and work out ways to solve this problem. Nuclear deterrence is the cornerstone of US national security — and will remain so as long as there is a nuclear threat from other countries. ”

Supporters of the development of a land-based ICBM program mainly argue related to the current technical state of the strategic nuclear forces arsenal - it is obvious that further extension of the service life and modernization of the Minuteman III is impossible (or it will cost much more money than the creation of a new missile) ; In addition, in the long term, the maintenance of ICBMs built on the basis of modern technologies will be cheaper and easier, and the combat service of silo-based missiles is the least resource-intensive and provides a high combat readiness factor inaccessible to SSBNs and strategic bombers.

At the moment, the US Air Force is actively developing the GBSD (Ground Based Strategic Deterrent) program - according to known data, this is a solid-fuel ballistic missile of more compact dimensions than the Minuteman III (which, by the way, is smaller than the Russian Topol-M "), Most likely, one-piece and designed, contrary to the prohibition of the law on national defense, including for basing on a mobile launch platform.

The developer is the famous company Northrop Grumman (which, by the way, is also developing the B-21 Raider) - all competitors withdrew from the competition in 2018-2019, and since 2020 the project has received funding in the amount of $ 552,4 million. In the current 2021 fiscal year, $ 1,5 billion will be allocated, and for 2022 it is planned to request $ 2,5 billion. Over the next three years, $ 3 billion a year will be allocated. The total cost of the program is estimated at 93,1-95,8 billion. Most of the amount is the construction of 659 missiles (of which 25 are for initial tests, and the rest is for deploying a grouping to replace 400 ICBMs that are on current combat duty, taking into account regular test and guarantee launches), and $ 14,8 billion will go to production warheads W87-1. It is stated that the warheads will structurally repeat the W87 charges of previously decommissioned LGM-118 Peacekeeper missiles.

The desired date for achieving operational readiness is 2029. Probably 2031. The complete replacement of the Minuteman III fleet should take place in the late 30s - in fact, the renewal of the terrestrial component of the triad will take at least 20 years.


US Air Force Strategic Command B-2 Spirit bomber refueling in the Azores. 2021 Photo source: US Air Force

Probably, the upgrade of nuclear weapons carriers will begin with the aviation component - the promising B-21 bomber, perhaps, at the moment is the project closest to its completion. This will be followed by Columbia-class submarines (scheduled to enter service in 2031) and silo-type GBSD ICBMs.

Of course, there is no doubt that the United States will resume the production of nuclear weapons - despite all the bureaucratic and political obstacles, this segment of national defense is considered at least as a priority. The military and top political leadership of America is well aware of the consequences of the degradation of the arsenal of strategic nuclear forces and is actively trying to resolve this problem. In this regard, however, it is quite possible to expect attacks by the US authorities on the countries - members of the "nuclear club". If the United States senses even a tiny weakening of its military power, diplomatic and economic pressure will be used to accelerate the disarmament process. However, despite the described frivolous attitude in previous decades, talk about the "funeral" of overseas nuclear weapons can be called a premature decision: the Yankees have all the scientific and technological base both for preserving the current resources of the triad and for its rearmament.

In this regard, I think it would be quite reasonable to say that the global strategic situation will not change in any way: the policy of containment will not go anywhere, and the total collapse of the American nuclear arsenal is definitely postponed to the distant future.
Author:
Photos used:
US Air Force US Energy Department US Navy National Historic Site
93 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. Far B
    Far B 29 March 2021 04: 11
    +14
    Technician at Los Alamos National Laboratory working with plutonium under the US Stockpile Management Program
    Interestingly, the photographer who was filming the technique immediately unpacked? laughing
    1. Cowbra
      Cowbra 29 March 2021 04: 50
      +3
      There is a door in the back in a typical box, also with gloves and you can push the camera there)
      1. Stas157
        Stas157 29 March 2021 07: 37
        +19
        ... at one time both the USSR and the Russian Federation were able to ensure their sovereignty only due to the presence of weapons mass destruction

        Sovereignty is ensured primarily by a strong and competitive economy (this also applies to weapons).

        If earlier countries increased their influence by armed means, now with the help of trade expansion and transnational companies. Why capture and kill if you can buy up the most important and profitable pieces of the economy in other countries and make them work for you?

        There are a lot of Western TNCs in Russia, which have captured not only the food industry and consumer goods, but also shares in our raw materials companies. And oddly enough, our nuclear triad did not interfere with this in the least. Are there Russian global TNCs in the West? The very definition - Russian and global - sounds unusual in terms of TNCs!

        The world is ruled by TNCs. And in Russia they also feel good, feeding on the juices of our economy and making it more and more dependent on themselves.
        1. Cowbra
          Cowbra 29 March 2021 07: 47
          +2
          Quote: Stas157
          The world is ruled by TNCs.

          USA only. Even in China, for example, the TNC of the country number 1 - Alibaba:
          The official government agency launched an antitrust investigation against Alibaba, and the financial arm of Ant Group was called to meet with banking supervisors to discuss financial rules. In other words, Alibaba was put in place and forced to play by its own rules.

          And all ...
          It is in the United States that TNCs elect the president, nowhere else in the world.
          1. Stas157
            Stas157 29 March 2021 08: 07
            +10
            Quote: Cowbra
            USA only. Even in China, for example, the TNC of the country number 1 - Alibaba

            Have you heard about the trade war between the United States and China? And what are its goals you know? Only to more open up the now rich Chinese domestic market for American TNCs; and reduce the share of Chinese goods in the United States. The Americans do it.

            In terms of our country. Chinese companies trade here in all their diversity, almost without control, and in all areas. Do you know any Russian companies (except for the gas pipe) that trade in China? Not. The Chinese do not let anyone in so easily. Yes, and we, except for raw materials, have nothing to trade. Naturally, this does not add to our sovereignty.
            1. Cowbra
              Cowbra 29 March 2021 08: 37
              -1
              And it began because, on the one hand, American TNCs defend their interests, on the other, China, and not Chinese TNCs, defend theirs. The war is completely unprofitable for the US state, which is left without goods and is unprofitable for the Chinese multinational corporations. But it is awesomely beneficial to China, under this sauce, ousted all American manufacturers from the domestic market, and beneficial to American TNCs, because is carried out in order to protect, for example, American manufacturers of telephone processors - and began from the moment Huawei put a Chinese processor on the flagship line, cheaper and more productive than the American one. Because of this, the United States unleashed a trade war in which it loses billions, and the only profit is that it is now difficult for Chinese telephone companies to sell in the United States, but not in Europe, for example.
              1. Stas157
                Stas157 29 March 2021 08: 48
                +8
                Quote: Cowbra
                The war is completely unprofitable for the US state, which is left without goods and is unprofitable for the Chinese TNCs.

                Oh, is it? I think the US-Chinese huge turnover will only increase! Moreover, the trade balance is gradually changing in favor of the United States. For example, Americans are increasing their share of their agricultural products in China's bottomless food market.
                1. Cowbra
                  Cowbra 29 March 2021 08: 58
                  +2
                  Quote: Stas157
                  I think the US-Chinese huge turnover will only increase!

                  Will be. Because the United States, once again, is not able to refuse goods from China, but at the same time, in order to somehow level the imbalance in trade, it is obliged to sell at least something in order to at least slightly reduce the negative balance in trade with China. The bottom line is that China is still in the black in terms of money, in plus politically, because TNCs cannot dictate their terms to China, but TNCs incur losses from sanctions, while also losing their political leverage - these levers are deprived by the sanctions themselves - by the United States, and not the Chinese government. China is positive in everything, the USA is negative in everything!
              2. WIKI
                WIKI 29 March 2021 11: 50
                +1
                Quote: Cowbra
                But it is awesomely beneficial to China, under this sauce, ousted all American manufacturers from the domestic market, and beneficial to American TNCs, because is being conducted to protect, for example, American manufacturers of telephone processors

                "Several of the largest North American chip suppliers for Huawei, including Intel, Qualcomm, Xilinx, have taken steps to lobby the Chinese company with the US government throughout the year. According to The Wall Street Journal, on August 8, 2020, US chipmaker Qualcomm asked the Trump administration to ease sanctions. Qualcomm believes that the sanctions primarily harm the United States. It is about the supply of chips for smartphones with 5G. According to Qualcomm, by imposing a ban on the shipment of such products for Huawei, the US authorities cut off access to US developers from the $ 8 billion per year. "
                Apparently it's not about the money, and that's not why the Americans don't protect their manufacturers.
                Quote: Cowbra
                and the only profit is that it is now difficult for Chinese telephone companies to sell in the USA, but not in Europe, for example.

                In Europe, Huawei's share of the smartphone market is shrinking: from 22% in the second quarter of 2019, it fell to 16% in April-June 2020, CNBC reports Counterpoint Research. At the same time, the Chinese Xiaomi has increased its market share in Europe from 6% to 13%.
          2. Stas157
            Stas157 29 March 2021 08: 27
            +8
            Quote: Cowbra
            Alibaba has been put in place and forced to play by their own rules.

            The Chinese Communist Party, not the oligarchs, rule the Chinese TNCs. Maybe this is not bad? I would like Russia to follow the same principle.
            1. Maki Avellevich
              Maki Avellevich 30 March 2021 09: 57
              +1
              Quote: Stas157
              The Chinese Communist Party, not the oligarchs, rule the Chinese TNCs. Maybe this is not bad? I would like Russia to follow the same principle.

              will have to bring in Chinese officials.
          3. Zaurbek
            Zaurbek 30 March 2021 09: 01
            0
            American TNCs and in other countries elect presidents ...
        2. dSK
          dSK 29 March 2021 10: 21
          +5
          Quote: Stas157
          Why capture and kill if you can buy up the most important and profitable pieces of the economy in other countries and make them work for you?
          - this was said by Pharaoh back in the dawn of ancient Egypt ...
        3. Ryusey
          Ryusey 30 March 2021 18: 52
          -2
          Tell it to Libyans, Iraqis, Serbs, Grenada, Panama and many more ...
          1. 2 Level Advisor
            2 Level Advisor April 1 2021 13: 50
            0
            and which of them was captured? who is in the occupation?
            Grenada. The head of state and executive branch is Queen Elizabeth II. (as always)
            Panama. An attempt at a coup, did the USSR organize them a little?
            The Serbs were a victim at that moment, so that the Warsaw Bloc would not even think to resist.
            Iraq started on its own, and the mayhem in the oil market was not needed by the minke whales.
            Libya. The only even slightly similar example, but nevertheless, is the civil war. If there had not been such a strong division of the country, everything would have ended.
            But in reality - what? the coup is organized where TNCs are not allowed, in Russia they have no problems with this.
      2. 210ox
        210ox 29 March 2021 12: 26
        +3
        There is constant video monitoring of technology and operations. What is unusual?
      3. Vadim Ananyin
        Vadim Ananyin 29 March 2021 22: 49
        -2
        Actually, it's not clear why such a high-quality photo?
        After all, radiation is the enemy of sensitive film coating.
        And what material are the gloves?
        Some kind of crap!
        1. shinobi
          shinobi 30 March 2021 05: 29
          +4
          On a digital drum, radiation is filtered out as "white noise". There are ways to clean the film from radiation exposure, if not at all overexposed.
        2. Bongo
          Bongo 30 March 2021 07: 47
          +5
          You may not know, but the fissile materials used in nuclear weapons - Uranium-235 and Plutonium-239 - mainly emit alpha and beta particles, the penetrating power of which is minimal. The main danger of alpha and beta radiation sources is through inhalation of radioactive dust, drinking contaminated water, or through damaged skin.
          1. Vadim Ananyin
            Vadim Ananyin 30 March 2021 15: 52
            0
            I am aware that alpha and beta particles are the easiest, but if you work with such materials, you get a full set depending on the time of work.
    2. Machito
      Machito 29 March 2021 09: 26
      +2
      Quote: Far In
      Technician at Los Alamos National Laboratory working with plutonium under the US Stockpile Management Program
      Interestingly, the photographer who was filming the technique immediately unpacked? laughing

      The technician of his hairstyle Simpson reminds.
      1. The comment was deleted.
      2. dSK
        dSK 29 March 2021 10: 30
        +2
        Quote: Bearded
        Simpson's hairstyle resembles.

        - his forehead is very well developed ...
        1. dSK
          dSK 29 March 2021 10: 32
          +3
          States armed one nuclear submarine low-yield nuclear warheads, for successful actions in local conflicts. And they do not hide that it will be a strike on Iranian nuclear facilities. They count on the fact that Europe will remain silent, and in the UN they have a guaranteed "majority" ...
          1. Sergey Sfiedu
            Sergey Sfiedu 29 March 2021 17: 24
            +1
            And they do not hide that it will be a strike on Iranian nuclear facilities.
            - the usual bluff and, at the same time, a warning to the Ayatollahs about Iran's use of its nuclear weapons. Since the Ayatollahs may well have their own atomic bomb, the Yankees are unlikely to want to tempt fate.
            1. Monster_Fat
              Monster_Fat 29 March 2021 18: 26
              +6
              I agree. For some reason, everyone thinks that the United States is in decline, their military-industrial complex is also in decline, and so on. Almost a civil war there will be and the United States will soon disintegrate. This is absolutely not the case. The United States continues to be the leading country in the world and continues to develop new and develop and modernize old types of weapons. I already wrote that in the United States there are strange, subsurface mini-earthquakes in the deserts, which are incomprehensible to seismologists, adherents of "conspiracy theories" unambiguously define them as hidden tests of nuclear weapons. The same applies to other types of weapons. In the United States, in addition to the official military budget of the Congress, there are many hidden and veiled sources of funding for military development. It is very naive to assume that the United States is like "lagging behind" in something. In addition, the United States has long been interested in the development of weapons based on new physical principles and technologies. For example, here at VO there was a very interesting series of articles about the achievements of the United States in search of submarines in the oceans.
  2. svp67
    svp67 29 March 2021 05: 32
    +3
    After reading all this, I have a question, where does the United States spend the largest military budget in the world? For what? To support Ukraine and the hedgehog with them?
    1. Krasnodar
      Krasnodar 29 March 2021 06: 15
      +2
      Salary, pensions, staff maintenance and maintenance of equipment.
      1. svp67
        svp67 29 March 2021 06: 26
        0
        Quote: Krasnodar
        Salary, pensions, staff maintenance and maintenance of equipment.

        Then the second question is, how much should this budget increase in order to modernize the nuclear triad? And can they do it?
        1. Krasnodar
          Krasnodar 29 March 2021 07: 06
          +5
          They can, if they want. How much it will increase - no idea laughing
          1. svp67
            svp67 29 March 2021 07: 14
            0
            Quote: Krasnodar
            How much it will increase - no idea

            Everything has its limits and if the United States has not yet reached it, then it is very close to it ...
            1. Krasnodar
              Krasnodar 29 March 2021 07: 16
              +6
              Yes, they are stupidly rich. They are very rich. Disgusting rich fellow if they want, they will draw up a defense budget in a trillion. They don't care.
              1. svp67
                svp67 29 March 2021 07: 18
                -1
                Quote: Krasnodar
                They don’t care.

                No, and they understand that very well. Otherwise, their Presidents would not have traveled and persuaded their partners to raise defense spending by at least 2%
                1. Krasnodar
                  Krasnodar 29 March 2021 07: 22
                  +5
                  Here the principle + populism (internal) - why should they talk for the rich NATO countries? For Germany, for example, which is on the 6th place in the HDI (roughly, the standard of living), while the United States is on the 17th (impoverished Israel is on the 19th).
                  Of course, there is no extra money, but they will be able to increase the defense budget by 1.5-2 times.
                  1. svp67
                    svp67 29 March 2021 07: 25
                    -1
                    Quote: Krasnodar
                    Of course, there is no extra money, but they will be able to increase the defense budget by 1.5-2 times.

                    1,5 ... 2 times ... Yeah, well, let them increase it just now against the background of unresolved issues with the pandemic will help a lot ...
                    Well, Trump was ready for any measures to support his "defense industry" and he did not go for it, let alone Biden even more so. Democrats have their own priorities ...
                    1. Krasnodar
                      Krasnodar 29 March 2021 07: 31
                      +10
                      It was the Democrats who shouted loudest about the Russian threat and Trump's cooperation with the Russian Federation. Therefore, their "adequate measures" to raise the defense capability will be "accepted with understanding."
                      Trump worked for the internal needs of America - returning production there, reducing the cost of maintaining any "friends-allies", etc.
                      Biden, like all democrats, has the main slogan "democracy in danger" laughing , which is equally well perceived both among the left (his electorate) and among the "hawks from the hinterland."
                      Only financiers who are very disliked are in favor of normal relations with Russia.
                    2. Cherry Nine
                      Cherry Nine 29 March 2021 08: 33
                      +2
                      Quote: svp67
                      Oh, that Trump was ready for any measures to support his "defense industry"

                      Trump is just not that big. His relations with the political-sawing complex were not the best.
                    3. Anzhey V.
                      29 March 2021 14: 45
                      +6
                      Biden and his administration are notorious militarists.

                      These are the very "Pentagon hawks", only under the very comfortable mask of the left.
                  2. Cherry Nine
                    Cherry Nine 29 March 2021 08: 33
                    +7
                    Quote: Krasnodar
                    beggar Israel on the 19th)

                    Strongly said.
              2. shinobi
                shinobi 30 March 2021 07: 00
                0
                You can draw money only in a small amount, especially if it is not backed by anything. The supply is usually carried out with the most demanded raw materials on the external market. And not with an abstract "commodity" as economists convince us. Ask yourself why the most "powerful" economy in the world has the most And why is Russia, with its "torn to shreds" economy, the smallest among the leading powers in the world?
                1. 2 Level Advisor
                  2 Level Advisor April 1 2021 14: 18
                  +1
                  Do you know how minke whales borrow? Bonds valid for up to 30 years - without the right to withdraw money early ... I emphasize - without the right! .. They have a total debt of 1 - almost half of the internal, and in 2x they have to return the external up to 30 years .. and those who want to come and also invest - half of the world, including the Russian Federation, which constantly does this and which has a small national debt - mainly because its bonds are simply not needed by anyone in the world (unlike strip bonds) ..
                  plus striped debt securities in which most of the world has invested a lot and continues to be engaged in this, I don't want to blame anyone, their capital is also there .. but you can't take it away, again, ahead of schedule!
                  how long can this last?
                  From 1966 to 2020, the average annual growth of the US government debt was 8,3%, and nominal GDP - 6,3%. As of 2020, about 30% of the US government debt is on the balance sheet of federal agencies, primarily the Social Security Fund. They have been playing such games with the national debt for 54 years already .. and for their constantly growing economy this is normal.
                  1. shinobi
                    shinobi April 2 2021 04: 42
                    0
                    And what does it change? About unnecessary Russian debt, you tell the Yankees, especially about the prohibition of their vassals to buy them.
              3. boni592807
                boni592807 April 1 2021 21: 06
                -1
                Krasnodar, 29 March 2021, 07:16 - "... They're stupidly rich. Very rich. Disgustingly rich fellows will want to draw up a trillion defense budget. They don't care ..."

                You are right for them the problem is NOT in the SUM, but the problem isthat while the dollar is the main (one of ...) currency of the WORLD, the rest of the WORLD, which uses them, pays for their expenses (the pieces of paper drawn by them) bully
                Thus, for THIS right they will fight, to the last NATO partner, especially about Kraints, Georgians, etc.
                ...... And then the new "Colonel Paul Tibbets", dropped (launched) a modern "atomic bomb (rocket or whatever)" Little Boy "(" Kid ")" in the direction ... and do not offend their military industrial complex and their triad ...
                Their current no longer needed (not important) the so-called gold billion This past.
                Therefore, the words, once THEIR President, "... that HIM is not interested in how many times the United States can destroy the USSR and that the USSR can destroy the United States at times less. A person dies only 1 time! ..." for them, they mean less and less hope on sanity, at least IMPORTANT!
                You shouldn't think about THEM bully , you need to ensure the safety soldier
                OR .... them in HELL am , and after seeing the strait between Alaska and Mexico (optimistically), you can go to paradise drinks (in the order of the previously voiced travel order) ... hi
        2. Pilat2009
          Pilat2009 29 March 2021 07: 30
          +3
          Quote: svp67
          Quote: Krasnodar
          Salary, pensions, staff maintenance and maintenance of equipment.

          Then the second question is, how much should this budget increase in order to modernize the nuclear triad? And can they do it?

          Well, we are doing
          1. svp67
            svp67 29 March 2021 09: 28
            -1
            Quote: Pilat2009
            Well, we are doing

            Yes ... dividing the budget into specific parts. The Americans will either have to increase the budget, which they can no longer do endlessly, but then the amounts are large or cut other budget items, which will not cause much joy in the Pentagon
        3. Cherry Nine
          Cherry Nine 29 March 2021 08: 32
          +7
          Quote: svp67
          Then the second question is, how much should this budget increase in order to modernize the nuclear triad?

          Not how much. Weird question. If they want to solve the problem, they will. If they don't want to, they will flush money down the toilet. The "War on Terror" cost them about $ 2 trillion. for 20 years, it would be enough from the point of view of nuclear weapons to return the times of Andropov if desired.
        4. Anzhey V.
          29 March 2021 10: 37
          +4
          how much should this budget increase in order to modernize the nuclear triad?


          And it does not need to be increased - all costs are already included in the current one)

          In general, the Americans began work in this direction much earlier than it seems. Funding for analytical work and testing TTZ, dedicated to the renewal of strategic nuclear forces, began under Obama. The not very smart Trump from this subsequently staged a show from this show called "Homeland was left with a bare bottom," which makes it seem to everyone that the Yankees found out about the problems with the nuclear arsenal only in 2018.

          And so all key projects have been receiving funding for more than a year, and are listed as priorities for the next financial years.
      2. mark2
        mark2 29 March 2021 06: 45
        +1
        Salary, pensions, staff maintenance and maintenance of equipment.

        Even when you poke your nose into a problem, the mind refuses to believe, right?
        For at least 6 years there has been talk that the hail on the hill has problems with almost everything except the printing press.
        1. Krasnodar
          Krasnodar 29 March 2021 07: 07
          +6
          Yes to me, why - let them rot themselves laughing
          1. novel66
            novel66 29 March 2021 08: 08
            +4
            somehow too slow lol
            1. Krasnodar
              Krasnodar 29 March 2021 08: 20
              +6
              Like the crash of the dollar))
            2. mark2
              mark2 29 March 2021 17: 44
              0
              So the corpse decays for ten years, but here the carcass is like that.
        2. Cherry Nine
          Cherry Nine 29 March 2021 08: 35
          +7
          Quote: mark2
          For at least 6 years there has been talk that the hail on the hill has problems with almost everything except the printing press.

          6 years? They have had these conversations for 200 years.

          But problems generally do not occur where such conversations are taking place, but, on the contrary, where everything is fine.
          1. Fan-fan
            Fan-fan 29 March 2021 15: 16
            +2
            They have had these conversations for 200 years.
            But in my opinion, such conversations were and are still going on only with us. Many expect the United States to rot and their dollar is about to collapse. But it is the waiters who decay and collapse.
    2. Sergey Sfiedu
      Sergey Sfiedu 29 March 2021 17: 30
      +2
      After reading all this, I have a question, where does the United States spend the largest military budget in the world? For what?

      It's just that this is absolutely delusional. The US nuclear forces are quite sufficient to destroy the military power of Russia and China. Moreover, the emphasis is placed on the most stable part of the nuclear triad - SSBNs with Trident SLBMs (quite modern and never outdated). The ground and air parts of the triad play a supporting role. Let's leave the nonsense about the "decayed" nuclear shield on the author's conscience.
    3. Sergey Nikiforov
      Sergey Nikiforov April 1 2021 11: 09
      0
      The maintenance of databases requires a lot of money. Or do you think that the databases are provided free of charge? Even in Germany, they were pretty scared by Trump's plans to cut
  3. Nitarius
    Nitarius 29 March 2021 07: 01
    -8
    than "Minuteman III" (which, by the way, is smaller than the Russian "Topol-M") ------ this suggests that the author ... that our rocket has more potential and brains! weeks bucket of bolts USA! you know less))) sleep better)))
    1. Anzhey V.
      29 March 2021 12: 11
      +14
      Not entirely true statement.

      The Minuteman is at least a generation older than the Topol, but its smaller size is associated not with low combat effectiveness, but with more compact radio electronics and more advanced solid fuel formulations. This is by no means a bad ICBM constructively, given its enormous stock of modernization.
  4. Mikhail Zakharov
    Mikhail Zakharov 29 March 2021 07: 04
    -2
    and our propaganda hangs on the ears about the American threat, but they have nothing to threaten with. in any case, they certainly will not attack. not ready
    1. evgen1221
      evgen1221 29 March 2021 07: 57
      -1
      And why should they, to dispose of their population and the native authorities are doing an excellent job.
    2. Roman070280
      Roman070280 29 March 2021 13: 33
      +1
      in any case, they certainly will not attack.

      Of course ..
      It is stupid to attack us for a variety of reasons .. And they understand that very well ..
      So what about our propaganda and noodles is absolutely right!
      1. Fan-fan
        Fan-fan 29 March 2021 15: 20
        +1
        So I think - they live richly, happily and without problems. Why do they need a war?
  5. Doccor18
    Doccor18 29 March 2021 07: 24
    +17
    Rotted US nuclear shield

    What a bright title ... Only the wrong words were taken in quotation marks.
    Upon detailed analysis, it turns out that he is not so rotten. Minutemans regularly undergo modernization, all Ohio also regularly carry their Tridents ... And plans to update the triad are enormous.
    And those 30 years (from the beginning of the 90s), which flew by without new developments, so they did not need them at that time. The traitors surrendered the USSR, and under their hooting they began to cut nuclear submarines and strategic bombers. China, at that time, remained a predominantly agrarian country with the most massive "infantry" army in the world ...
    On the other hand, over the same years, the United States radically strengthened the capabilities of its Navy, commissioning the largest series of URO destroyers and nuclear aircraft carriers, and supplied the Air Force with two types of fifth-generation fighters.
    And now, when the hypothetical threat from the renewed arsenals of Russia and China has reappeared, the United States has taken up the triad, and briskly, and all components at once. And the money will be enough for them, but not enough, they will still print it, and the same Central Bank of the Russian Federation will support this matter, having bought more "a couple of tons of waste paper" ...
    1. Per se.
      Per se. 29 March 2021 10: 21
      +7
      Quote: Doccor18
      And now, when again there is a hypothetical threat from the renewed arsenals of Russia and China
      The keyword is hypothetical. On the one hand, it is unlikely that our bad boys will bomb their goods in the West, where their mistresses still rest, wives are treated and children study (live), on the other hand, the West needs Russia’s clean resources, in particular, fresh water and fertile soil.
      If Russia remains at the moment the only country in the world that can be guaranteed to destroy the United States, but in the firmness of politics is inferior to the DPRK, which has "one and a half" bombs, why should the United States exert too much effort?
      So, there is a mutual show on which they raise ratings and make money. The difference is that time does not work for Russia, the Soviet margin of safety is not eternal. First of all, this is the loss of designers, engineers and foremen, with an excellent Soviet education and vast life experience. Today's streamlined science, education, and health care, with consumer morality and a cult of money, is unlikely to produce anything good.
      1. Doccor18
        Doccor18 29 March 2021 11: 10
        +5
        Quote: Per se.
        ... the Soviet margin of safety does not last forever ...
        Today's streamlined science, education, and healthcare, with consumer morals and a cult of money, are unlikely to produce anything good.

        I absolutely agree.
    2. The comment was deleted.
      1. Doccor18
        Doccor18 29 March 2021 11: 07
        +6
        You are right.
        However, we often tend to compare things that are incomparable. What is the Strategic Missile Forces for Russia? For the overwhelming majority, the answer is obvious - the main argument in protecting the state, the main and almost the only one. And for the USA? Is the strategic triad so important for them, or rather, as much as for Russia? I think no. America would gladly abandon nuclear weapons altogether, if this initiative were supported by all its owners. And this moment would be the greatest victory for American diplomacy. With the planet's most powerful Navy and Air Force, the United States would forever seize the lead ...
        However, the stubborn Russians and Chinese are persistently investing funds and ideas in the development of their strategic nuclear forces. How to answer? To pretend that they also picked up the baton ... And what happens there, is the tenth thing. There will be no total nuclear war anyway, since billionaires can also die in it. But a limited nuclear conflict is not at all excluded. Therefore, they are more engaged in the development not of monstrous ICBMs, but of small and ultra-small warheads, reconnaissance, target designation and electronic warfare equipment, as well as bribery of "elites" of potential adversaries ...
        1. Hermit21
          Hermit21 29 March 2021 12: 34
          -7
          they are more engaged in the development not of monstrous ICBMs, but of small and ultra-small warheads


          Is it about "TNW" W76-2 on strategic delivery vehicles, which is absurd in itself, or about the decommissioning of nuclear bombs? Remove the main charge from the warhead and leave the plutonium "fuse" - where is the "development"? Such pathos is especially ridiculous when compared with Russia, which, according to the lowest estimates, has 5-6 thousand TNW units on a variety of carriers in all branches of the military. About "and them and ninada" and the bribery of the elites skipped - I do not comment on the fantasies of the mentally ill
          1. Sergey Sfiedu
            Sergey Sfiedu 29 March 2021 17: 47
            +4
            when compared with Russia, which, according to the lowest estimates, has 5-6 thousand TNW units on a variety of carriers in all branches of the armed forces.
            - just this is not particularly proud of. For the Americans, the role of tactical nuclear weapons is played by covenational precision weapons in such quantities as we can only dream of.
            1. Hermit21
              Hermit21 29 March 2021 18: 28
              -5
              Especially in terms of power, yeah, yeah. In what "such", dull? 1,5-2 thousand deployed non-nuclear Axes? Let's calculate how many CRBDs will be thrown by the VKS, SV, and the Navy? Let's compare the range, power, taking into account the possibility of installing SBS in Russian CDs? And let's add 9M723, or don't we need it anymore? What "conventional weapon" are you going to scare, ipsarnik?
              1. Sergey Sfiedu
                Sergey Sfiedu 29 March 2021 19: 11
                +4
                I didn’t drink on a broodershaft with you, from what hangover you poke me and began to be rude? or drunk? In order not to understand the difference between the capabilities of conventional and nuclear weapons, one must a priori consider any war to be nuclear. And our potential adversary does not (for now, at least) strive for a nuclear war - his task is to maximize his advantage in a nuclear-free war, possessing such nuclear forces that any other state will force to abandon the use of nuclear weapons. What is the use of tactical nuclear weapons if you have to pay for its use with burnt-out Moscow and St. Petersburg? Additional "Tomahawks" to deploy - just load into the mines, and besides the "Tomahawks" the Yankees are full of high-precision weapons in quantities simply unthinkable for us.
                1. The comment was deleted.
        2. ironic
          ironic 30 March 2021 16: 25
          +1
          In fact, they perfectly calculated the modernization of their strategic nuclear forces, squeezing the maximum period of validity out of the existing systems. They also know very well that with high hitting accuracy, the optimal ammunition power is 100-300 Kt, therefore they do not create big-hitting monsters and use the existing developments along with technological progress, which is expressed in the development of the W93 that has begun, which, however, will not be relevant tomorrow.
          1. Volder
            Volder 30 March 2021 20: 37
            +2
            Statements of General John Hayten, formerly the commander of the US Strathcom, and now the deputy. early Of the General Staff of the US Armed Forces:
            1) "I look with pessimism at the designated timeline for the modernization of our nuclear triad. With the purchases of weapons from us, nothing ever happens according to plan. It is planned to produce 400 units of new Minuteman-3 missiles, but they will not be on full combat duty earlier 2035. The same situation with new submarine missile carriers. This speed of modernization is unacceptable. Everyone is to blame: politicians and the military, financiers and weapons manufacturers! "
            2) "The reliability of our weapons systems is already unacceptable, and every year the situation will get worse. We are all part of this process and are responsible for missing the deadline. Today we can still protect the country. But I am worried about those who will come in the future. to my post. "
            1. ironic
              ironic 31 March 2021 15: 46
              +1
              Correctly criticizes, because they relaxed. If they had not relaxed and hammered the bolt, they would have been in the process of modernization already now. But during these 10 years they will gradually stretch their arms and open their eyes wider. In the meantime, they have only the modernization of ground-based ICBMs in the long run. The first Colombia will be laid this year. Production of the B-21 has already begun. Even today, they are doing well with accurate warheads. The sea-based missile and in the D5 LTE version surpasses the Bulava, and somewhere in the middle of the construction of Columbia, the E6 is planned to be commissioned. So the only place they have cause for concern is ground-based ICBMs, but they too have already been funded. And the general, with his angry shouts, correctly does not let him fall asleep at his post to the songs of the left democrats about the social orientation of the country's budget.
              The Russian Federation, on the contrary, is doing well with its land-based ICBMs with modernization, but the rest of the triad is not so successfully rearmed.
              1. Volder
                Volder April 12 2021 10: 17
                0
                Quote: ironic
                Production of the B-21 has already begun.
                No. They began to produce only a prototype for testing. The tests will last for an unknown amount of time. Serial deliveries are far away. The accuracy of the warheads is of little importance if they are nuclear. Rocket sea-based and in the D5 LTE version NOT surpasses Bulava in overcoming the missile defense system.
                1. ironic
                  ironic April 12 2021 11: 45
                  0
                  .///..by the summer of 2019 it was reported that construction of the first unit was underway. production started, this is what I wrote.

                  The accuracy of the warheads is important to achieve the maximum destructive effect when using 100-300 Kt separable parts. And megababahs with low accuracy, menie are productive. Science has already studied everything and the military is quite comfortable with it, including in the Russian Federation.
                  The missile defense system is overcome by already divided warheads and their trompe l'oeil. And for the destruction of a missile at the stage before the separation of both Mace and Trident, the difference is not great. How accurate are the Bulava blocks than the W76, better in overcoming missile defense, only practice can tell, and it has not yet taken place, fortunately.
                  1. Volder
                    Volder April 12 2021 14: 47
                    0
                    Quote: ironic
                    .///..by the summer of 2019 it was reported that construction of the first unit was underway. production started, this is what I wrote.
                    Journalists from this source are clearly underreported. Other sources say about a prototype for testing. Even logically, this is correct: it is impossible to start mass production of an aircraft without testing. The first aircraft must be sharpened for various tests.
                    Warhead accuracy matters
                    Russian ICBMs also have sufficient accuracy for effective engagement.
                    The missile defense system is overcome by already divided warheads and their trompe l'oeil.
                    The American divided warheads do not maneuver, the Russian ones do. I don't think you need to explain what that means.
                    And for the destruction of a missile at the stage before the separation of both Mace and Trident, the difference is not great.
                    To destroy an ICBM before separation, it is necessary that the anti-missile launches 100-200 km from the ICBM launch site. Then she will have time to catch up and hit the non-divided ICBM. But you and I understand that Russian ICBMs are either in the depths of the country's territory, or in territorial waters, or no one knows where in the world's oceans. That is, the scenario you are describing will obviously not work.
                    Only practice can tell how much the Bulava blocks are better at overcoming missile defense.
                    American Trident missiles are over 40 years old. That says it all.
                    1. ironic
                      ironic April 12 2021 17: 38
                      0
                      ///..second B-21 stealth bomber is underway at Northrop Grumman's facility in Palmdale, Calif.///
                      I have no doubt that the first produced copies will be tested and before the start of limited editions, it will take time and even time before the release of ma mas production, however. This is the beginning of production.

                      Bulav and Yars have higher accuracy than previous generations, that's right. The Americans have moved even further, which allows them to reduce the power of the charges without compromising the achievement of operational goals.

                      I read something about what hypersonic maneuvers can be in an out-of-the-air trojectory to maintain accuracy. From the point of view of intercepting a modern missile defense system, with a kinetic strike, this is no longer critical for today, the exception is the glider, but this is not quite a ballistic trojectory and its accuracy is clearly not comparable to a conventional warhead, as evidenced by the size and power of the warhead.

                      Well, not exactly 100-200. Ships in the northern seas have a chance to strike with anti-missiles in the pre-separation stage if they come closer. Missile defense in the United States is designed to protect certain infrastructure and military facilities, and not the entire territory of the United States.

                      And at the same time, the Trident D5 LTE is a freshly upgraded rocket that surpasses the Bulava in all respects.
  6. evgen1221
    evgen1221 29 March 2021 07: 55
    +2
    Russia is occupied and managed in the right direction in dozens of different ways, so they have to spend money on storing yao. Instead, they have invested in UAVs and navies with new bases around the world. No one believes in an active nuclear war, but the Chinese have not enough of their own Yao for serious fears of its use in America.
  7. Mikhail3
    Mikhail3 29 March 2021 09: 34
    +9
    It is very difficult to resume production. Very, very difficult) The fact is that capitalism has reached its "maturity". Capitalism is very serious now, correct, as it should be. The most expensive part of modern salary budgets is specialists. Their constant presence in the payroll simply infuriates the financiers, who have now taken over the posts of managing the world economy.
    After all, you need a professional of the highest qualifications not every day, Not even every month! And pay him big money! Moreover, send for retraining, buy equipment and materials, all sorts of programs ... intolerable! Therefore, nowadays work with the pros is organized in a completely different way than before. Everything is done for the benefit of the financial, the most important and the only one, and any kind of production and other unnecessary high technologies are practically not taken into account.
    That is, it is done something like this. Need a pro? They are hired to work. Is the project finished? People are being fired. Simple and cheap. Why feed them, vile bums? Let them themselves somehow. Well, they clean toilets, work as watchmen, as security guards ... let them wait until their qualifications are needed again. Brilliant, isn't it?
    What did it lead to? The unexpected happened. Well, for the financial geniuses. Pro ... gone. America set aside an open budget for a nuclear fuel enrichment plant, industry spent many billions, and then ... and then gave up. They said that we cannot finish building the plant at all, no matter how much money you give. Why? Yes, there is no one to build. The brains were gone. Burn your youth in the fire of learning, rebuild yourself as a person only in order to vegetate as a guard for half your life (all this time continuously studying, because the world does not stand still), waiting until there is a project for a couple of years, where will you be called? And there the fee will be higher than that of the guard, but not much. And for what? A person will become a guard anyway, without CalTech.
    This is the situation in the WHOLE world economy. Technosphere stagnation. Does the author of the article have any doubts that the Americans will solve the problem? But I doubt it.
    1. Aleksandr97
      Aleksandr97 April 15 2021 08: 32
      0
      Just like the history of NASA, after the lunar program, all specialists were fired. When the Space Shuttle program started, they recruited and predictably some of the specialists were trained from "0"! If the workers had been retained, perhaps there would have been an order of magnitude fewer engineering errors in the Space Shuttle program. Again, as we can see to repeat Saturn-5 at a new level, somehow they also fail so far.
  8. Daniil Konovalenko
    Daniil Konovalenko 29 March 2021 11: 30
    +3
    The shield may have rotted away, but the Dubinka remained.
  9. Hermit21
    Hermit21 29 March 2021 12: 35
    +3
    Why the hell was my comment deleted? What rules did he break?
    1. Mikhail3
      Mikhail3 29 March 2021 16: 31
      0
      Write to the admins, sometimes they answer. I wrote a couple of times, explained, albeit without details)
  10. okrd
    okrd 29 March 2021 14: 12
    0
    The Americans once cherished the hope of deepening nuclear disarmament. Under the HEU-LEU agreement, they could still feed on uranium from our nuclear charges for a long time. It is not so easy to feed a hundred of our nuclear reactors; uranium mining does not cover all the needs of nuclear power.
  11. Old26
    Old26 29 March 2021 16: 53
    +5
    Quote: dsk
    States armed one nuclear submarine low-yield nuclear warheads, for successful actions in local conflicts. And they do not hide that it will be a strike on Iranian nuclear facilities. They count on the fact that Europe will remain silent, and in the UN they have a guaranteed "majority" ...

    No. Armed all their SSBNs with such warheads. But taking into account the fact that there were about 50 of them released, they replaced the warheads on 1-2 missiles on each boat. All other mines are Trident's standard combat equipment.
    Moreover, the Americans are not the first. A few years ago, the British reduced the number of missiles on their SSBNs and the number of warheads on each missile. As a result, mine # 1 is intended for test launches, mine # 2 is equipped with a missile with 1-2 low-power APs, the remaining 8 missiles carry 5 APs each.
  12. Split
    Split 29 March 2021 19: 12
    0
    They optimized 3 into one not from a good life ... the production of weapon-grade plutonium has long been gone, they got 3 out of 1, for the same spacecraft missions they took plutonium from us ... it is not produced in ordinary reactors and their re-construction this is not 1 year, the state of the existing imnip is not in the public domain. Although we, too, have already stopped everything, the last one seems to have been 10 years ago
  13. Old26
    Old26 29 March 2021 19: 36
    +4
    Quote: Split
    They optimized 3 into one not from a good life ... the production of weapon-grade plutonium has long been gone, they got 3 out of 1, for the same spacecraft missions they took plutonium from us ... it is not produced in ordinary reactors and their re-construction this is not 1 year, the state of the existing imnip is not in the public domain. Although we, too, have already stopped everything, the last one seems to have been 10 years ago

    You are wrong, Anatoly! Replacement of three BGs on "Minutemans-3" took place
    -Vo-1 because of the ceilings previously concluded by the contract. The Americans had to have a reserve in case of "Day H". Therefore, they installed a warhead at the Minuteman-3 combat stage from their Piskiper ICBM removed from the base. And these warheads were created by EMNIP 550 units. Here on 500 "Minutemans" they also replaced the standard combat equipment in the monoblock version
    - Secondly, we have not developed weapons-grade plutonium for a long time either. The storage reactors were shut down in the 2s and early 90s. But both we and the Americans have stocks of weapons-grade plutonium, which was obtained by extracting from the reduced warheads.
    Plutonium for spacecraft is not used for weapons-grade 239, but a different isotope.
  14. Andobor
    Andobor 30 March 2021 13: 25
    0
    The Americans hoped to destroy Russia, so they abandoned their nuclear weapons, as a result, they were hopelessly lagging behind, and are not able to catch up, especially taking into account the enchanting cut of the traditional American military-industrial complex.
    1. ironic
      ironic 30 March 2021 16: 37
      0
      Everything is according to plan and they did not lag behind anywhere. The mace has not yet reached Trident, that for the Minuteman, its replacement is a resolved issue, and if we consider that they have more accurate warheads, the effectiveness of the Topol-M may well be comparable, despite the more powerful warhead. They were not going to do anything like Sarmat. Gliders are interested in them more than a medium range than a strategic one. And again they refused on principle from Velikobaba. Sawing at them is legalized and taxed, which cannot be said about the budgets of the Ministry of Defense of many other countries.
  15. Maksim_ok
    Maksim_ok 30 March 2021 15: 22
    0
    "The production of nuclear weapons was discontinued in 1991 - yes, the most recent American warhead is already thirty years old!"
    - no, in the production of W76-2 low-power warheads for the Trident-2 SLBM, in addition, they screwed a "smart" fuse to the Trident, which estimates the deviation and issues a command to detonate over the conditional center of the target in case of a miss.
    Trident-2 is constantly being modernized, now work is underway to create a new ICBM to replace the Minuteman.
  16. Volder
    Volder 30 March 2021 20: 26
    +1
    The modernization of the main elements of the US nuclear triad is a big question. Minuteman ICBMs put on alert more than half a century ago can no longer be replaced with a new generation of missiles earlier than the early 2040s (if, of course, Minutemans even live up to this date). The Americans have not even begun to develop new generations of ICBMs yet. Over the past 50 years of inactivity, the scientific and design school for creating such missiles has been completely lost. And to create it anew in the context of the current internal crisis in the United States, to put it mildly, is very problematic. A striking confirmation of this crisis was an unprecedented fact: one of the main monsters of the US military-industrial complex, Boeing Corporation, which created the current Minutemans in the 1960s, voluntarily refused to fight for a state order for a new generation of ICBMs, despite its fabulous cost ($ 100 billion). dollars).
    The situation is no better with nuclear submarine missile carriers. The current Ohio-class submarines, the first of which entered service in the Navy in 1981, will begin to be written off as early as 2027, while the new generation Columbia-class nuclear submarines have not yet begun to be built. Although it was previously assumed that the lead ship of this type will enter service in 2021. Today, the official readiness date of the first (lead) Columbia has been postponed ten years ahead (2031). But experts are sure that this period is unrealistic; at best, we can talk about the early 2040s. By the way, the development of a new ICBM underwater launch to replace the current Trident II is not planned at all. Although the Trident II missiles were originally designed with a service life of 2024.
    The strategic aviation of the United States also has big problems. Its most combat-ready unit remains the ancient B-52 bombers, the youngest of which is already 58 years old. Moreover, the situation is so critical that the Pentagon was recently forced to return to service after repair 2 aircraft, which had previously been scrapped and had been in the aircraft cemetery for several years. Prospects for the creation of a new strategist B-21 Ryder remain very vague. It was supposed to be put into service in the mid-2010s, but it is still not known when it will be able to make its first experimental flight (after which, as the American experience with another B-1B Lancer strategist shows, it will pass not less than 10 years more). And no one can predict how many years it will take to produce the 100 units that Washington wants to order (also at least 10 years).
  17. iouris
    iouris 30 March 2021 21: 32
    0
    When you read these headlines, it gets scary. If this is an expert opinion, then mass consciousness is hardly adequate to the position of the state in the world.
  18. Armen Sologyan
    Armen Sologyan April 10 2021 08: 25
    0
    In my opinion, the United States has tried and tested all types of weapons of mass destruction on civilians. Nuclear on the Japanese, napalm as a chemical on Koreans and Vietnamese, "dirty" bombs or those with uranium filling on the Serbs, and the last is the coronavirus. If this did not affect the US nuclear and chemical weapons, then the bacteriological one - the coronavirus returned to them and is killing innocent civilian Americans, and not the military who invented it.