Military Review

Pentagon: US needs billions of dollars to modernize nuclear weapons

60
Pentagon: US needs billions of dollars to modernize nuclear weapons

In the next decade, the United States will need billions of dollars to modernize nuclear weapons, said Pentagon assistant chief Madeleine Cridon.


Cridon said this at a hearing in the Committee on the Affairs of the Armed Forces of the US House of Representatives, ITAR-TASS.

“Modernization of this kind is expensive, but there is no doubt about its necessity,” she emphasized, explaining that the development and production of new weapons and their carriers are necessary in connection with the obsolescence of the nuclear arsenal.

Madeleine Cridon also indicated that the creation of more reliable nuclear forces would allow the United States to carry out their further quantitative reduction.

She did not specify the amount required to implement the program. However, according to estimates of the Henry Stimson Center, the modernization will cost the United States approximately 400 billion dollars.

In turn, commenting on the state of affairs, General Robert Keiler, head of the US Strategic Command, noted that the United States had just begun "efforts to reorganize the structure of its nuclear deterrent forces and related infrastructure."

According to him, this process will take "several decades."

Independent experts have already criticized the approach of the US administration to the problem, pointing to the possibility of extending the duration of the warheads, which does not require such financial injections. In their opinion, a less costly approach would become more rational in the face of cuts in funding for some US military programs.

Recall that in June of this year, US President Barack Obama appealed to Russia with a call to reduce by one third the nuclear arsenals of both countries.

Russian President Vladimir Putin, responding to Obama's words, said that Moscow agrees on the need to reduce strategic weapons, but believes that all members of the nuclear club should do this. According to him, now not only the United States, but also other states are actively improving their offensive weapons.

Meanwhile, according to some analysts, Obama is unlikely to go into history as a person who has achieved a marked reduction in nuclear weapons.
Author:
Originator:
http://www.vz.ru/
60 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Alexander Romanov
    Alexander Romanov 30 October 2013 11: 29
    15
    Pentagon: US needs billions of dollars to modernize nuclear weapons
    The name is not true, or rather, you need to write so ...

    Pentagon: US billions of dollars needed to upgrade US nuclear weapons
    1. svp67
      svp67 30 October 2013 11: 33
      +6
      Quote: Alexander Romanov
      Pentagon: US billions of dollars needed to upgrade US nuclear weapons

      Maybe it's better this way "The Pentagon IS BEINGING to print an extra billion dollars to pay for the modernization of nuclear weapons"
      1. LaGlobal
        LaGlobal 30 October 2013 11: 58
        +2
        Quote: svp67
        Maybe it's better this way "The Pentagon IS BEINGING to print an extra billion dollars to pay for the modernization of nuclear weapons"


        Not an extra billion $, but extra billions of dollars!
      2. svp67
        svp67 30 October 2013 12: 57
        +6
        Quote: svp67
        "The Pentagon begs to print an extra billion dollars,

        Something like this...
        1. POCC
          POCC 2 November 2013 00: 43
          0
          This will definitely draw a couple of tons of toilet paper laughing
      3. Migari
        Migari 30 October 2013 14: 22
        +4
        Yes, you don’t have to beg anyone, he spars without stopping, but apparently he’ll have to let the second line go.
      4. Ingvar 72
        Ingvar 72 30 October 2013 15: 14
        +1
        Russian President Vladimir Putin, responding to Obama’s words, said that Moscow agrees with the need to reduce strategic weapons, but believes that all members of the nuclear club should do this.
        And for some reason, Putin did not mention ABM. Forgot? Without the introduction of a clause on limiting missile defense in strategic offensive arms, a reduction in nuclear weapons directly undermines the country's defense capabilities.
    2. Canep
      Canep 30 October 2013 11: 34
      0
      Quote: Alexander Romanov
      US needs billions of dollars to upgrade nuclear weapons

      And not only print but also saw. What modernization does a vigorous bomb need? Or does it become less vigorous over time?
      1. Tektor
        Tektor 30 October 2013 12: 25
        +4
        What modernization does a vigorous bomb need? Or does it become less vigorous over time?
        Exactly. Due to ionizing radiation and heat, electronics age and fail. And if the material itself was not clean enough (charges on average more than 30 years), then decay products accumulate. Especially harmful to a nuclear explosion - americium. If it accumulates even in small quantities, then a nuclear explosion may not happen at all. Therefore, fissile materials must be cleaned, but do the states have the technology necessary for this?
        1. Aleksey_K
          Aleksey_K 31 October 2013 14: 58
          0
          You seem to know something, but do not say, apparently you want to scare readers. Nuclear charges are divided into 3 categories. The first - are on alert. The second - are in conservation and storage. Still others are on the check of combat readiness and their further destiny is disposal, or on combat duty. And do not consider the Americans as idiots, they are mostly Jews, they created nuclear weapons a few years earlier and they solved the issue of combat readiness and disposal with 1945. The fascists did not even involve Niels Bohr (Danish, not Jew) in the nuclear project, because Although an outstanding physicist, in terms of creativity in creating nuclear weapons, a completely hopeless scientist.
      2. Avenger711
        Avenger711 30 October 2013 14: 16
        +2
        We learn materiel, it fails quite quickly.
      3. I do not care
        I do not care 30 October 2013 18: 03
        0
        A bunch of options.
        1 the most important thing is the reduction of secondary radiation, ideally its complete absence., I.e.
        explosion - environmentally friendly1.
        2 directional explosion
        3 miniaturization
        a lot of directions.
        1. Patriot.ru.
          Patriot.ru. 30 October 2013 19: 56
          0
          Plus maneuvering warheads.
        2. Aleksey_K
          Aleksey_K 31 October 2013 15: 24
          0
          Forget about a clean nuclear explosion. If the radiation level is less, then the force of the explosion is less. And that means a smaller radius of action of the charge. Or do you think that panic will seize the troops from the sight of a nuclear mushroom and the soldiers will die of fear themselves? As for the directed nuclear explosion, also nonsense. Terrestrial-underground explosions of directional action were carried out in the USSR and showed complete futility. This is not a cumulative artillery shell. Neutrons fly in all directions with the same energy. And there is no means to prevent this from an uncontrolled nuclear reaction.
      4. Aleksey_K
        Aleksey_K 31 October 2013 15: 14
        0
        A specific nuclear charge is not subject to modernization. We are talking about new nuclear charges, lighter weight, longer service life, new materials and more efficient nuclear materials, because most of the uranium or plutonium "evaporates" and is not used, about new means of delivery, for example, at supersonic speed so that Russian missile defense systems do not react, about high-speed launch characteristics, about invisible launches. And container launches of Russian design generally shock the Americans. Containers may end up in North America as well.
    3. Russ69
      Russ69 30 October 2013 11: 37
      +3
      Quote: Alexander Romanov
      Pentagon: US billions of dollars needed to upgrade US nuclear weapons

      To them, even a printing press may not help ...

      U.S. military budget for fiscal 2014 may undergo significant reductions, which in the aggregate will lead to its reduction to 415 billion dollars.
      This was reported by the American Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessment. According to American experts, the situation with a reduction in the military budget in FY2013 will be repeated when spending the country's defense funds in 2014
      FY2013 initial budget included, according to a request from the Obama administration, $ 525,4 billion in domestic defense spending and $ 88,5 billion in participation in various military conflicts. Amounts requested by the president for FY2014 changed slightly - up to 526,6 billion dollars and 79,2 billion dollars, respectively; additional military expenses of $ 6,5 billion were also included in the budget. Overall, the country's planned military spending fell in FY2014. compared to fiscal 2013 from 613,9 to 612,3 billion dollars.
      In fiscal 2013 the amount of sequestration - the forced reduction of the military budget - totaled $ 37,2 billion. According to analysts, in FY2014 this figure will increase significantly and may amount to, presumably, 51,6 billion dollars. At the same time, the final volume of reductions may lead to a decrease in the US military budget to 415 billion dollars, experts say.
      http://vpk-news.ru/news/18022
      1. Canep
        Canep 30 October 2013 11: 57
        +5
        Quote: Russ69
        its reduction to 415 billion dollars.

        For reference, the military budgets of countries:
        China .................... 114,200,000,000
        Russia .................... 71,200,780,000
        Great Britain ............ 58,985,000,000
        France ................... 58,244,330,000
        Japan .................... 56,907,569,000
        Germany .................. 45,200,000,000
        Saudi Arabia ......... 45,050,000,000
        India ..................... 36,000,000,000
        Italy .................... 34,730,000,000
        1. Russ69
          Russ69 30 October 2013 12: 10
          +5
          Quote: Canep
          For reference, the military budgets of countries:

          I know that we are in third place, but the same Americans spend a lot of money on maintaining a bunch of bases abroad and maintaining the army in general. After last year’s reduction, I had to reduce combat training and others.
          The amount is impressive, of course, but the expenses are different. A few more years of such reductions will be sad at all.
          1. Canep
            Canep 30 October 2013 12: 14
            0
            The reduction from 525 to 415 is a reduction for the entire military budget of China. But all the same, US defense spending goes off scale.
      2. Aleksey_K
        Aleksey_K 31 October 2013 15: 38
        0
        There is only one way out of the described situation - a local major war, when you do not need to deal with the disposal of obsolete weapons. Employment at the front and rear. The heyday of science, technology and industry. The conquest of cheap energy and minerals. At the 2 World War, the USA turned from a third-rate country into a major world power. Even the USSR, despite the terrible destruction, managed to profit at the expense of Europe. The USSR robbed Europe no less than the United States. And the heyday of the military and other industries! If it were not for the Nazis and the Americans, we would not have a jet, missile, nuclear, space and computer industry (yes, yes, the USSR had its own computers, more powerful than in the USA).
    4. a52333
      a52333 30 October 2013 12: 04
      +3
      Not really, dollars are not "colonial" they do not print as recklessly as for the rest of the world. This can be seen when they have no money for the bridge, and Egypt 1,5 billion (about 1,5 months ago) - but no question.
      1. POBEDA
        POBEDA 31 October 2013 07: 09
        0
        Competent remark!
    5. Lord of the Sith
      Lord of the Sith 30 October 2013 13: 33
      0
      Now the US FMS prints per month 85 billion dollars The cost of printing one 100 dollar bill - 14 cents.
      1. abdrah
        abdrah 31 October 2013 04: 14
        0
        14c paper has risen in price. recently it was 12s.
    6. Andrey Yuryevich
      Andrey Yuryevich 30 October 2013 14: 04
      +2
      the article, by definition, is empty, since millions of the budget are always required to modernize I O., but it’s not a pity, if only in the subject ... yes
    7. alone
      alone 30 October 2013 20: 58
      0
      it will be necessary to print and will not clap eyes.
      Americans are not a hunchback with Yeltsin, who launched their rockets for scrap. Their interests are most often
  2. mirag2
    mirag2 30 October 2013 11: 32
    +1
    Well, this, of course, cannot be called a dough cut, because it all moves their economy forward (jobs for 10 (or 000) migrants legalized by order of Obama (previously illegal), etc. etc.
    But the important thing is that they don’t need it — modernization of nuclear weapons.
    Their current military doctrine provides for the gradual abandonment of nuclear weapons, with the aim that Russia will be able to dissuade them from nuclear weapons, then we will have no luck. For the creation of missile defense with the defeat of missiles with a kinetic strike and hypersonic missiles, they are still ahead (let's hope so far)
    And this modernization is only a reflection of the fact that the United States nevertheless got out of the crisis. But with the losses and falling living standards, they got out.
  3. ziqzaq
    ziqzaq 30 October 2013 11: 33
    +2
    If everything develops as it is now, the USA will need not nuclear weapons, but drinking water and at least some kind of food .............
  4. faraon
    faraon 30 October 2013 11: 58
    0
    Well, this is a clear duck, why is it enough to upgrade what it is, the carriers of it are yes. The Pentagon lays in the US budget funds for the comfortable existence of an elite military elite from the army and also from the defense complex
    1. Lord of the Sith
      Lord of the Sith 30 October 2013 13: 51
      -1
      It’s not enough, articles on nuclear weapons and on nuclear weapons of the United States, in particular, are often laid out at HE, missiles cost 60-70 years there.

      Here is a link to one of these articles http://vg-news.ru/news/20120241074.html
      there, of course, everything is in a comic form, but in principle it is understandable.

      And the indicator is recent inspections and, as a result, general layoffs of officers on duty.

      In the best condition, they have 14 Los Angeles submarines. I think the B-52 with bombs you will not take into account.
  5. Algor73
    Algor73 30 October 2013 12: 03
    -2
    A new round of the arms race begins. If the US starts modernization, Russia cannot avoid it either. And it’s expenses, and that’s big
    1. Alexander Romanov
      Alexander Romanov 30 October 2013 12: 07
      +7
      Quote: Algor73
      If the US starts modernization, Russia cannot avoid it either.

      Russia has been carrying it out for a long time and introducing new weapons, unlike the United States. So, if anyone risks new costs, then this is definitely not Russia.
      1. Jurkovs
        Jurkovs 30 October 2013 13: 02
        +3
        Due to the uncontrolled decay of nuclei, plutonium is constantly contaminated. From time to time it is sent for cleaning and new warheads are made, often more advanced. In the 90s, such a problem faced Russia, we solved it in an original way: the United States sold the excess plutonium and processed the remaining into Topol warheads. Now the time has come for the United States, in a few years their warheads simply will not explode, they will have to re-deploy production facilities and spend a lot of money. And there is no arms race, it is just a physical necessity. Therefore, Obama wants to do everything possible to reduce the total number of warheads, which apparently no longer exists to replace all the forces.
        1. Ascetic
          Ascetic 30 October 2013 13: 25
          +4
          Quote: Jurkovs
          Due to the uncontrolled decay of nuclei, plutonium is constantly contaminated. From time to time it is sent for cleaning and new warheads are made, often more advanced.


          The most modern American nuclear weapons were produced in 1990. Moreover, it was based on technologies developed back in the seventies of the last century. In 1992, the U.S. ceased nuclear testing and has since relied on their computer simulations to repair old warheads to extend their life. The United States uses seven types of warheads. There will remain three types of warheads for ICBMs and two for bombs and cruise missiles. There are five.
          The design of American warheads includes primary and secondary charges. In accordance with the new approach, some elements of the primary and secondary charges will be mixed and combined again, and this requires more tests for their compatibility. Hence, additional costs. You can certainly not rely on theoretical calculations and computer modeling.
          Priority is given to the modernization and extension of the service life of nuclear aerial bombs B-61Designed in the 1950s and produced in the 1960s, they are the main weapon of the B-2 Spirit strategic bombers and are expected to become the "backbone" of NGB long-range bombers. modernization of the B-61 will not only make the ammunition more reliable and extend their service life. Also thanks to her, they can be used on promising F-35 Lightning II fighters and B-2 bombers. Most of these bombs are in Europe. There is a reason to think ... Europe is clearly being prepared for the role of a "scapegoat"
          1. Lord of the Sith
            Lord of the Sith 30 October 2013 14: 31
            +1
            That's it, that "free-fall bombs", not even aircraft missiles or guided bombs.

            It is very difficult, and in fact impossible, to use them in countering modern air defense. Otherwise, they will first need to use the Tomahawks and aviation from the aircraft carriers to "cut through" the corridor in the defense of the air defense.
          2. vostok1982
            vostok1982 30 October 2013 16: 32
            +1
            And when is the last Russian warhead?
            1. SPACE
              SPACE 30 October 2013 20: 04
              0
              YaB is the most secret topic. On the Internet, in the public domain, you can find some indirect information on Russian developments of third-generation nuclear weapons, the period of which fell on the beginning of the seventies, despite the fact that even then the main changes related mainly to the reliability and safety of storage and operation. Since then, the modernization process has never stopped for a minute, neither in 80x nor in 90x, nor now. I believe that already today, the 5 generation of nuclear weapons has allowed the nuclear test to be completely abandoned, and in the future, the 6 generation can be assumed to be aimed at the rejection of uranium and plutonium in nuclear stuffing.
              1. clidon
                clidon 31 October 2013 05: 27
                0
                Wow. And what will we replace uranium and plutonium with?
                1. abrakadabre
                  abrakadabre 31 October 2013 10: 20
                  0
                  How what ?! For rockets with cast iron and Giftonium, and for freely falling bombs with a bouncing rubber core.
                  wassat
                  Have not you heard?
        2. clidon
          clidon 31 October 2013 05: 25
          0
          We did not sell plutonium to the United States; the remaining was not processed. The process of updating ammunition is ongoing both with us and with them constantly.
    2. Aleksey_K
      Aleksey_K 31 October 2013 15: 41
      0
      You are like children. Yes, in Russia this process did not stop, despite the disarmament.
  6. shitovmg
    shitovmg 30 October 2013 12: 09
    +1
    They can turn to Russia for help in printing!
    1. Aleksey_K
      Aleksey_K 31 October 2013 15: 46
      0
      You might think that Russia is such a reckless virgin blonde. Yes, these dollars in Russia make as much and the same quality as in the Fed. This is one of the ways to undermine the US economy.
  7. rrrd
    rrrd 30 October 2013 12: 14
    +3
    What kind of contract can we talk about !? I hope that Putin understands that they are not partners to us! As he likes to call them in the press and for the press I hope!)))
    1. Lone gunman
      Lone gunman 31 October 2013 17: 28
      0
      And I hope that Putin understands - they are our partners who are from the bottom ... judging by the Forbes rating, he (Putin) "has" the whole world - there are only partners around ...)))
  8. ZU-23
    ZU-23 30 October 2013 12: 37
    +5
    In fools, it’s better to stop printing money in an ugly way, because you are far from us in this area, we are already developing a deputy of Satan, and you still have not caught up with Satan))). But trillions have been spent to finish off already poor nations.
  9. 222222
    222222 30 October 2013 12: 55
    +4
    On 29, it was mainly a program for extending the term of nuclear bombs of the B-10 type .. B2013 bombs (the B61-61, B61-3, B61-4, and B61-7) into a single Mod, the B61-10 ..... and the W61 ALT 12..W88 / 370-78 LEP program ... and the two other strategic air-delivered weapons program, the B88-1 and the B61 nuclear gravity bombs. The necessity of arming the new F-11 aircraft with a bomb was emphasized. B-83-35 ..
    ..Dr. Paul J. Hommert: "Chairman Rogers, Cooper's Responsible Member and distinguished members of the Strategic Forces Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to speak today on Nuclear Modernization Programs: Military, Technical and Political Requirements for the B61 Extension Program and Future Strategy ..."
    Why is there a modernization of both oroli and the importance of nuclear weapons:
    ..MADELYN R. CREEDON: "The role of nuclear weapons in NATO was considered only last year in the NATO Deterrent and Defense Policy Review (DDPR) and the guidelines on the use of nuclear weapons were not changed again. The review confirmed that nuclear weapons are" key a component of "NATO's defense and a reliable guarantee of the security of allies, provided by the strategic nuclear forces in particular the United States, and that" NATO will remain a nuclear Alliance "as long as nuclear weapons exist." "
  10. maksim
    maksim 30 October 2013 14: 07
    0
    where can they get the money - to unleash the next small victorious war?
  11. ramin_serg
    ramin_serg 30 October 2013 16: 26
    -3
    There is no greater evil than nuclear weapons. Down with Nuclear Weapons
    1. loisop
      loisop 30 October 2013 21: 35
      +1
      "Here you drown your half" © IVS
  12. vostok1982
    vostok1982 30 October 2013 16: 31
    0
    I would relax in their place and prepare to suppress future rebellions and revolutions that will inevitably begin when the standard of living drops below a certain limit. Then they will not be up to nuclear weapons. Not to fat - if only I live.
  13. donavi49
    donavi49 30 October 2013 19: 35
    +1
    Meanwhile, in Russia, a sudden check of aerospace defense and strategic missile forces.

    Russian nuclear submarines "Bryansk" and "St. George the Victorious", as part of a surprise check, fired ballistic missiles from the waters of the Barents and Okhotsk seas

    The combat crews of the Strategic Missile Forces carried out launches of RS-12M Topol ICBMs from the Plesetsk cosmodrome and the RS-20V Voevoda ICBM from the Dombarovsky positional area (Eastern Orenburg region)

    At the same time, as part of a surprise check, the Pantsir-S anti-aircraft missile and cannon systems were fired at the Ashuluk training ground. Combat crews of the S-300 Favorit, S-400 Triumph anti-aircraft missile systems and Pantsir-S anti-aircraft missile and cannon systems performed tasks to cover a conditional area in a difficult jamming environment

    The short-range missile launch was launched on Wednesday by a combat crew of the Aerospace Defense Forces at the Sary-Shagan training ground (Kazakhstan). During the firing of a missile defense system, the ABM system successfully hit a conditional target simulating a ballistic missile
    1. Onyx
      Onyx 30 October 2013 20: 06
      +2
      Quote: donavi49
      The combat crews of the Strategic Missile Forces have launched RS-12M Topol ICBMs from the Plesetsk cosmodrome

      Quote: donavi49
      at the Ashuluk range, the Pantsir-S anti-aircraft missile and gun systems were fired. Combat crews of the S-300 Favorit, S-400 Triumph anti-aircraft missile systems and Pantsir-S anti-aircraft missile and cannon systems performed tasks to cover a conditional area in a difficult jamming environment

      What can be called a sudden check if launches and firing were carried out not from places of constant deployment, but from a cosmodrome and a firing range? Anyway, how can you suddenly check the Nuclear Deterrence Force? To do this, you must first remove the warheads from the missiles and replace them with training ones, but this is not such a quick operation
      1. donavi49
        donavi49 30 October 2013 20: 47
        0
        This is a new fetish - all teachings not reported in a couple of months by "Sudden". All questions to the new leadership of the Ministry of Defense.
    2. abrakadabre
      abrakadabre 31 October 2013 10: 33
      0
      By the way, why do not our submarines arrange test launches of ICBMs at maximum range? For example, from the equator in the Indian Ocean or the Pacific. Or at worst from the central or western Mediterranean. And then Israel can arrange a similar moment at a critical moment. Why are we worse?
      I understand that pickling in the native "sandbox" is convenient for many reasons. But why not "please" your sworn friends with fireworks?
      If the technical characteristics of the ICBMs allowed, I would have blundered along the Kura from the Antarctic region. Estessno, with a warning to partners about the launch. That their NORAD was stocked with diapers, but didn’t make any extra movements. And for greater intrigue, the reported launch area was interpreted quite widely. For example, that the launch will take place in the interval of a day or two in a certain square of 1000X1000 km of the world's oceans. They lured the comb through the square with ships. We will also have to train in stealth and evasion.
      wassat
      After all, at one time they were pleased with the salvo firing of the ammunition of the entire submarine.
      1. Aleksey_K
        Aleksey_K 31 October 2013 15: 53
        0
        Published data on nuclear missile weapons are often not true. This is a military secret. I think that if they write - 8000 km range, then take it higher - 9000 km.
        1. abrakadabre
          abrakadabre 1 November 2013 10: 25
          0
          So am I against it? I would only be glad if 9000 km. Let both 10000 and 15000 km.
          The northern coast of Australia, the coastal region of the northern island of New Zealand, Yemen with saudas, and such a good piece of the Indian Ocean in general, the entire Mediterranean Sea, fall within the 8000 km circle from Kamchatka.
          By the way, during a training start from the western and central Middle-earth (it sounds straight along Tolkien wink) direct to Kura lies through the whole of Western Europe. Settle ... everything.
          In general, there is where to make training launches at the maximum range, not only in the interests of combat training, but also with a foreign policy meaning. The motivation is absolutely ironclad: despite the size of the territory, our own country is not enough to carry out "internal" tests for the maximum range. Well, what was shmallen from near Mecca or some Primarsel region is an accidental geographical coincidence. Built here, populated. Already and calmly shandarahnut "firecracker" nowhere.
      2. Misantrop
        Misantrop 1 November 2013 10: 37
        0
        Quote: abrakadabre
        But why not "please" your sworn friends with fireworks?
        At one time, 941 projects shot from the White Sea on a firing range in the Indian Ocean
        1. abrakadabre
          abrakadabre 1 November 2013 12: 26
          0
          At one time, a lot of things happened in the past.
          The past is sooner or later forgotten. Especially in the heads of sworn "friends". We need to remind.
          Yes, and conduct training of their own specialists. And checking products not only for the fact of launching, but also maintaining the declared limit characteristics.
  14. APASUS
    APASUS 30 October 2013 19: 47
    +1
    I really liked the line from the text:
    efforts to reorganize the structure of its nuclear deterrence forces and associated infrastructure. ”

    Straight peaceful pigeons? everybody holding back someone? whether it was Hiroshima and Nagasaki
  15. 222222
    222222 30 October 2013 19: 53
    +1
    donavi49 UA Today, 19:35 New
    "Meanwhile, in Russia, a surprise check of the Aerospace Defense Forces and the Strategic Missile Forces."
    OCH timely and competent actions of the Supreme Armed Forces of the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation. !!!
    Why
    The audit was carried out before the main stages of two strategic exercises:
    - NATO in Europe "Steadfast Jass 13" (2-8 11 2013)
    - nuclear forces of the US Armed Forces "Global Thunder 14" (26 10 -5 11 2013)
    Like, we know., We see and do not scare, but ... no, no
    By the way, earlier both the Yankees and tough Europeans tore their throats about the opacity of the exercises of the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation and Belarus "Zapad-2013" .. And now it seems that they have become dumb and blind ...
  16. Bort radist
    Bort radist 30 October 2013 21: 09
    +2
    Due to inconsistency of declarations, 200 officials were dismissed: Layoffs affected all levels of government. Among the retirees are eight high-ranking civil servants, including two defense ministers and the deputy head of Rosoboronzak. There are claims to the deputy commander of the Internal Troops of the Ministry of Internal Affairs, the head of the FSKN department for the Khanty-Mansiysk District. At the same time, inspections continue, and questions arose - as Ivanov put it - “so far only questions” to the assistant minister of finance. With respect to some officials, the head of the presidential administration added, the materials were handed over to law enforcement agencies for possible criminal cases. Sergei Ivanov also spoke about the results of inspections of expenditure declarations (such documents were submitted for the first time this year). Twenty cases of inaccurate information about large expenses were identified, serious checks also began on these facts, and on one specific case - an employee of the Nizhny Novgorod prosecutor's office - a decision was made to dismiss.
    Well, it seems to have begun. It is necessary to look at the telly do not show ballet.
  17. starhina01
    starhina01 31 October 2013 00: 19
    0
    Madeleine Creedon also indicated that the creation of more reliable nuclear forces! let the US carry out! their further quantitative reduction. laughing here even comments are not needed hi what is the meaning of the words hi