US lawmakers demand to equip ships with nuclear cruise missiles

43

Pentagon executives face tough stance from US lawmakers over decision fleet postpone the development of the SLCM-N sea-launched nuclear cruise missile.

The Senate Armed Services Committee expressed concern about the plans of acting. Minister of the Navy Thomas Harker to cut funding for the creation of a nuclear CD. As explained in the Navy, equipping ships with this type weapons will create budgetary and logistical problems. The main obstacle to the development of a new sea-launched cruise missile is the operational constraints that the Navy will face when deploying nuclear weapons on surface ships or nuclear attack submarines.



According to the Center for Strategic and International Studies, US ships have carried only conventional weapons since the nuclear Tomahawks (TLAM-N) were withdrawn from the Navy's arsenal in the early 1990s.

Placing nuclear weapons on board ships will require strict adherence to the security protocol. In the past, she was provided with a special detachment of marines. In addition, US Navy ships may not be allowed into ports, since some countries have introduced a ban on visiting them with nuclear weapons pennants.

For example, in 1984, New Zealand strained relations with the United States after it refused to admit the US destroyer Buchanan (DDG-14) for the fact that the Navy did not disclose information about whether the ships possessed nuclear weapons. This decision was reversed only in 2016.

The Democrats are categorically opposed to the development of low-yield nuclear weapons in opposition to the Republicans.

The United States does not need new nuclear weapons. Our current arsenal is sufficient to meet containment demands

- stated the current head of the White House Joe Biden back in 2019.

Image of the Tomahawk CD with a nuclear warhead:

    Our news channels

    Subscribe and stay up to date with the latest news and the most important events of the day.

    43 comments
    Information
    Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
    1. 0
      14 June 2021 16: 47
      Explain who knows. Is it really that important YABCH in the CD. Considering that it is easier to intercept it than BR. ???
      1. +8
        14 June 2021 16: 59
        It's about tactical nuclear weapons. It is not regulated by START. The destructive effect is not as powerful as strategic nuclear charges, but more powerful and lighter than a conventional charge. Accordingly, the range of application of the CD increases and the lower cost of a miss.
        In general, a CD flying at an altitude of 5-10 meters is a very difficult target. A combination of AWACS + fighter is effective against them. Ground-based air defense can only see them at a distance of a couple of tens of kilometers, if you're lucky.


        If Tomahawks with tactical nuclear warheads hit Syria, the airfields have not been exploited until now. And after being hit by conventional missiles, only equipment and people were damaged, the takeoff itself can be restored in a couple of days, the infrastructure is longer, but not critical.
        1. +4
          14 June 2021 17: 41
          To start a Nuclear War, a couple of madmen on a ship with nuclear weapons will be enough.
          And if there are many such ships, the probability increases dramatically
          1. 0
            14 June 2021 18: 15
            Quote: Shurik70
            To start a Nuclear War, a couple of madmen on a ship with nuclear weapons will be enough.
            And if there are many such ships, the probability increases dramatically

            This is what has stopped all these years from equipping these CDs with nuclear weapons. I think even now in the United States there will be opponents of this idea, especially in light of the fact that Arab terrorists in NATO countries have their own cells and can easily attack such a ship, for example, in Mediterranean ports. The consequences of an attack on such a ship in this case will be equal to the use of a "dirty bomb", so that even NATO members will hesitate about such a prospect.
          2. +1
            14 June 2021 23: 39
            Steven Seagal solves these in an hour and a half, so he is now a Russian and is also rushing to the deputies wassat
      2. 0
        14 June 2021 18: 48
        It is difficult to intercept it ... and when intercepted, it zhahnet.
        1. The comment was deleted.
    2. 0
      14 June 2021 16: 49
      Quote: Grim Reaper
      Explain who knows. Is it really that important YABCH in the CD. Considering that it is easier to intercept it than BR. ???

      Of course, not in terms of "strong country" vs "victim". And about the same "Enka size".
    3. +3
      14 June 2021 16: 50
      Then each ship of the US Navy becomes a carrier of nuclear weapons and, accordingly, the number one target. And if such a ship will enter the Black Sea? Does the RF military doctrine provide for this?
      1. KCA
        +4
        14 June 2021 17: 06
        This is not allowed by the doctrine of Montreux and the Turks will not let ships through the straits, I don’t know how they don’t run around our ships with dosimeters. "dad" "Caliber" "Garnet" differs only in that it was intended exclusively for YABCH
        1. +4
          14 June 2021 18: 24
          There is not a word in the Montreux Convention on nuclear weapons and it is not surprising that at the time of the conclusion of the Convention it simply did not exist
          hi
          1. KCA
            +1
            14 June 2021 19: 36
            Ships and ships with YSU too, but their entry and exit from the Black Sea is prohibited, apparently, some amendments were made
            1. +2
              14 June 2021 19: 37
              There are no such amendments to the Convention
      2. +1
        14 June 2021 17: 18
        Quote: Ash Poseidon
        Then each ship of the US Navy becomes a carrier of nuclear weapons and, accordingly, the number one target. And if such a ship will enter the Black Sea?
        100 goals # 1, isn't it too much for goals # 1?
        1. +2
          14 June 2021 17: 26
          100?
          AB - 11 pcs
          Arlie Burke - 67
          Ticonderoga - 22
          Zamvolt - 2
          Ohio SNF - 14
          Ohio with CD - 4
          Los Angeles - 32
          Virginia - 17

          There are already 169 targets that can be carried by strategic nuclear forces and tactical nuclear weapons. Their fleet will only grow in size.
          1. 0
            14 June 2021 17: 31
            Quote: OgnennyiKotik
            There are already 169 targets that can be carried by strategic nuclear forces and tactical nuclear weapons. Their fleet will only grow in size.
            Well, SSBNs will become the # 1 target twice, isn't it too much? laughing
            1. 0
              15 June 2021 01: 28
              The reason for the refusal (at the moment) may also be problems with the radiochemical industry in today's USA. They simply cannot today produce weapons-grade uranium and purify / process uranium from old warheads from transuranium elements and half-life products. The maximum guaranteed shelf life of a nuclear weapon is 30 years.
              The deadline has expired.
              There are no new facilities. Perhaps not yet.
              The old facilities have long been dismantled and disposed of.
              The US authorities do not want to declare this publicly, but they are physically unable to support the initiative to expand the nuclear arsenal in the TNW and RSD segment.
        2. +1
          14 June 2021 17: 28
          Quote: Vladimir_2U
          100 goals # 1, isn't it too much for goals # 1?

          Chasing them around the world? Only those who are nearby. And then the use of nuclear warheads by ours for ANY Tomahawk launch may be justified. Who knows what he has inside?
          1. +2
            14 June 2021 17: 34
            Quote: Mountain Shooter
            Chasing them around the world? Only those who are nearby.

            You write as if any US warship is not the # 1 target for our Armed Forces and Navy. By the way, personally, I am in favor of equipping as many ships of the Russian Navy with nuclear weapons.
            1. -4
              14 June 2021 18: 19
              Quote: Vladimir_2U
              By the way, personally I am in favor of equipping as many ships of the Russian Navy with nuclear weapons.

              What is the point in this if we do not cruise constantly off the coast of America? And the cost of maintenance and service will become very ruinous, so our fleet needs low-power nuclear weapons like a goat's button accordion. It is enough if our Long-Range Aviation has such cruise missiles - both more reliable and faster to deliver to the target.
              1. +1
                15 June 2021 01: 46
                For the submarine fleet of the Kyrgyz Republic, anti-ship missiles and torpedoes with nuclear warheads would not be superfluous. At least for all SSGNs and MAPLs. Well, for diesel-electric submarines in a threatened period, too, such equipment would not hurt.
                And at least to have in the arsenal a nuclear warhead with nuclear submarines to equip both submarines and surface ships, in the event that such missiles appear on the US NK, as soon as possible.
                When the composition of the surface fleet is renewed with ships of the oceanic zone of the new construction, their duty in the waters adjacent to the United States must be resumed.
                1. 0
                  15 June 2021 12: 19
                  Quote: bayard
                  For the submarine fleet of the Kyrgyz Republic, anti-ship missiles and torpedoes with nuclear warheads would not be superfluous. At least for all SSGNs and MAPLs. Well, for diesel-electric submarines in a threatened period, too, such equipment would not hurt.

                  We need to realistically assess the possibilities of financing defense, and therefore expensive submarine missile carriers should carry only strategic nuclear weapons - everything else is on the sidelines.
                  Quote: bayard
                  When the composition of the surface fleet is renewed with ships of the oceanic zone of the new construction, their duty in the waters adjacent to the United States must be resumed.

                  Of course, you can dream about it, but I am a realist and I don’t believe in it. We could not even keep the Ural on duty off the coast of America now, but you are talking about some kind of resumption of campaigns. There is no money for these fun - it is better to invest what you have in submarine missile carriers, they are of real benefit.
                  1. 0
                    15 June 2021 13: 29
                    Quote: ccsr
                    We need to realistically assess the possibilities of financing defense, and therefore expensive submarine missile carriers should carry only strategic nuclear weapons - everything else is on the sidelines.

                    I totally agree. Therefore, all new Yasen-Ms need to be equipped with Zircons and Caliber-Ms in special equipment and sent to the enemy shore on duty.
                    And the modernized "Pike-B" with "Calibers" - too.
                    And the modernized SSGN pr. 949 (it seems they were still engaged in their modernization) - too.
                    And "Caliber-PL" for "Varshavyanka" in special equipment should also be kept at the ready.
                    Quote: ccsr
                    Of course, you can dream about it, but I am a realist and I don’t believe in it. We could not even keep "Ural", so that it was on duty off the coast of America now, and you are talking about some kind of resumption of campaigns

                    I'm talking about the existing, laid down and ordered frigates of pr. 22350 and 22350.1 (10 pcs.) And the planned for bookmarks pr. 22350M. When they appear in service in acceptable quantities, send them on duty, say, in the Caribbean Sea. And to visit there, making from time to time transitions between Venezuela and Cuba.
                    These ships have been ordered and planned for construction, and when they are in service, it is a sin to keep them in their own bases.
                    Quote: ccsr
                    There is no money for these fun - it is better to invest what you have in submarine missile carriers, they are of real benefit.

                    There is money, you just need to dispose of it rationally and wisely.
      3. +2
        14 June 2021 19: 36
        Quote: Ash Poseidon
        Then each ship of the US Navy becomes a carrier of nuclear weapons and, accordingly, the number one target. And if such a ship will enter the Black Sea? Does the RF military doctrine provide for this?

        ========
        As far as I remember, the passage of ships with nuclear power plants and ships with nuclear weapons on board through the Black Sea straits (in both directions) is prohibited!
        1. 0
          14 June 2021 19: 39
          The Convention does not prohibit the passage of such ships and ships into the Black Sea.
    4. +5
      14 June 2021 16: 50
      US lawmakers demand to equip ships with nuclear cruise missiles

      At Hitler's headquarters, everyone is a little sick! .. fool
    5. +4
      14 June 2021 16: 51
      US lawmakers demand to equip ships with nuclear cruise missiles
      ... The shores have completely lost ... alas, alas, that is how they are.
      1. 0
        14 June 2021 16: 55
        The same smart people in Ukraine want to throw a nuclear bomb on Russia.
        1. +2
          14 June 2021 18: 14
          God did not give horns to the vigorous goat ...
          Unfortunately, there is one who has a nasty character, and she has horns, not small.
      2. +2
        14 June 2021 17: 01
        This is a reaction to the militarization of China. Their tactical nuclear weapons are already comparable to the United States in terms of charges and delivery vehicles; strategic nuclear forces have also begun to play a role.
        1. -1
          14 June 2021 17: 10
          Quote: OgnennyiKotik
          This is a reaction to the militarization of China. Their tactical nuclear weapons are already comparable to the United States in terms of charges and delivery vehicles; strategic nuclear forces have also begun to play a role.

          They have a reaction to everything and everyone, nervous-patients apparently
          1. +1
            14 June 2021 18: 16
            There is a generation on the way, which can not think about anything at all, because the lack of fundamental knowledge is not a barrier to get into the legislators!
            Unfortunately, they are not alone in this.
        2. 0
          14 June 2021 18: 14
          Maybe so, but still not happy.
    6. 0
      14 June 2021 17: 02
      Those. the vigorous tomahawk was removed, and the new missile was abandoned. Actually, do American surface ships have nuclear-armed missiles today?
      1. +1
        14 June 2021 18: 26
        No
        Tomahawks sawed Obama
        Americans generally have few tactical nuclear weapons
    7. The comment was deleted.
    8. +1
      14 June 2021 18: 09
      Previously, they had Niko, he is a cook) who could save tomahawks from Yabch from Iowa, so now he has deserted to us laughing now there is no one to guarantee their safety laughing
      1. -1
        14 June 2021 18: 39
        Long gone nuclear Tomahawks
        They were destroyed under Obama yet.
        1. 0
          14 June 2021 23: 44
          Obama said? Here's what we sawed the Premier League and a lot of other things for their candy wrappers is known to everyone
    9. +1
      14 June 2021 19: 24
      Quote: Zaurbek
      It is difficult to intercept it ... and when intercepted, it zhahnet.

      Why would she?
    10. 0
      15 June 2021 03: 26
      Quote: Vladimir_2U
      Abl will enter the Black Sea? The military doctrine of the Russian Federation provides

      Let's share with the Chinese. 70/30 then everything is enough for everyone. Well, according to AUG, it is not necessary to bother with each ship, the main thing is to bother the uterus with something more powerful, the rest will be patted by a blast wave.
    11. 0
      15 June 2021 03: 28
      Quote: Zaurbek
      It is difficult to intercept it ... and when intercepted, it zhahnet.

      What is this new regime? Do you get such nonsense directly from the darpa?
    12. 0
      15 June 2021 11: 50
      Americans therefore maintain a large fleet in order to nightmare the whole world. BANDITS what else to say.
    13. 0
      15 June 2021 11: 57
      Quote: OgnennyiKotik
      If Tomahawks with tactical nuclear charges hit Syria, then


      We would respond in kind
    14. 0
      15 June 2021 11: 58
      Quote: ccsr
      This is what stopped all these years from equipping these CDs with nuclear weapons.


      Because YABZ was cut to them

    "Right Sector" (banned in Russia), "Ukrainian Insurgent Army" (UPA) (banned in Russia), ISIS (banned in Russia), "Jabhat Fatah al-Sham" formerly "Jabhat al-Nusra" (banned in Russia) , Taliban (banned in Russia), Al-Qaeda (banned in Russia), Anti-Corruption Foundation (banned in Russia), Navalny Headquarters (banned in Russia), Facebook (banned in Russia), Instagram (banned in Russia), Meta (banned in Russia), Misanthropic Division (banned in Russia), Azov (banned in Russia), Muslim Brotherhood (banned in Russia), Aum Shinrikyo (banned in Russia), AUE (banned in Russia), UNA-UNSO (banned in Russia), Mejlis of the Crimean Tatar People (banned in Russia), Legion “Freedom of Russia” (armed formation, recognized as terrorist in the Russian Federation and banned)

    “Non-profit organizations, unregistered public associations or individuals performing the functions of a foreign agent,” as well as media outlets performing the functions of a foreign agent: “Medusa”; "Voice of America"; "Realities"; "Present time"; "Radio Freedom"; Ponomarev; Savitskaya; Markelov; Kamalyagin; Apakhonchich; Makarevich; Dud; Gordon; Zhdanov; Medvedev; Fedorov; "Owl"; "Alliance of Doctors"; "RKK" "Levada Center"; "Memorial"; "Voice"; "Person and law"; "Rain"; "Mediazone"; "Deutsche Welle"; QMS "Caucasian Knot"; "Insider"; "New Newspaper"