US to increase nuclear potential in Europe

Washington is ready to adopt a plan for costly modernization of the American nuclear weapons, stationed in Europe, despite the overall cuts in Pentagon defense spending. The "B61 nuclear bombs life extension program will cost 8,1 a billion dollars," Jane's reported.

It is assumed that due to the upgrade of obsolete bombs that have been in service with the US since 1968, their strike potential will significantly increase. In particular, by installing a tailing control kit on nuclear charges, it is proposed to turn free-fall bombs into adjustable ones.

Upgraded munitions, the production of which may begin in the 2020 year, will be labeled B61-12. This type of weapon will be able to use both the strategic bombers B-2 and B-52, as well as tactical strike aircraft F-15, F-16, as well as the Fighter 5-generation F-35.

According to experts of the Federation of American Scientists (FAS), the significantly increasing combat potential of B61, which after the modernization can be applied to a point, contradicts the promises of the United States and NATO to reduce the role of nuclear weapons in Europe.

In addition, as FAS officer Hans Christensen points out, the US nuclear doctrine adopted at 2010 explicitly states that "programs to extend the life of nuclear weapons ... will not lead to the emergence of new military capabilities."

The exact number of US nuclear bombs in Europe is classified. Presumably, on the bases of the USA in Germany, Belgium and Italy is located near 200 ammunition B61. Meanwhile, many Europeans oppose the American nuclear presence in the Old World and demand the complete withdrawal of these weapons from Europe.

Recall that the total number of deployed strategic nuclear weapons and their carriers, which were in service with the United States and Russia, is limited to the ceiling in 1550 units, established in accordance with the START-3 agreement.

Currently, US President Barack Obama is actively seeking to include tactical nuclear weapons (TNW) in his disarmament agenda. Russia, which has a significant advantage in weapons of this type, is in no hurry to take on additional commitments and links possible progress in negotiations on reducing tactical nuclear weapons with the problem of deploying an American missile defense system in Europe.

Nevertheless, according to American experts, a new round of Russian-American negotiations on the reduction of nuclear weapons could begin as early as next year. According to Stephen Peifer, director of the Arms Control Program at the Brookings Institution, there could be a rational level of warheads for the USA and Russia in 1000.

"The level of 1550 warheads agreed to today is more than the US and Russia need to contain each other. I think that the prospect of striking the US with a thousand warheads from Russia, as well as the prospect of striking thousands of American warheads across Russia, will be quite deterrent and a sobering factor for the leadership of both countries, "the expert explained to the RG.

Comments

[Canep]

The 1550 warhead agreed on today is more than what the US and Russia need to deter each other

This is a minimum for containment. When the USSR and the USA each had 30000 nuclear weapons, it didn’t occur to the Americans to create a global missile defense system, of course there were fantasies like SDI, but it didn’t go further than beautiful commercials on TV. It’s just that with a 99% probability of hitting a warhead (this is fantastic), 300 nuclear charges reached the enemy (and this is Armageddon). Now, with the real probability of the destruction of the warhead by missile defense, 85% (a relatively real figure without countering the anti-missile defense) will reach 230 charges (this is also Armageddon). Further reduction will lead to the fact that there will be no guaranteed destruction of the enemy. And then you need to take into account CHINA. They are not bound by any treaties on the limitation or reduction of nuclear weapons.

[strannik595]

someday they will grow

[nazgul-ishe]

If 300 charges, then the point is in building up.

[Bronis]

Quote: Canep

Now, with the real probability of the destruction of the warhead by missile defense forces 85% (a relatively real figure without countering the anti-missile defense)

Probably, while this figure is unrealistic - the Americans themselves say that so far they can confidently (more or less) hit only the infantry fighting system. Naturally, only for now.
But, in any case, the missile defense system must repeatedly overlap the capabilities of the enemy's strategic nuclear forces. In fact, the US threshold for unacceptable damage has dropped markedly. 40 years ago, they considered the loss of 30-40% of the population and industrial potential acceptable. Now - the defeat of even several large targets is unacceptable. And this is already a mental attitude towards an incredibly powerful missile defense system. Which is impossible. Accordingly, it is necessary to take measures to reduce the enemy's strategic nuclear forces and (or) their preventive destruction. This gave rise to the concept of a "Rapid Global Strike" and agreements on the reduction of strategic nuclear forces.
Strategic nuclear weapons do not directly threaten US territory, but they can threaten their very numerous bases and allies of the same missile defense system.
Accordingly, fussing with your TNW is just a signal to us, implying the modernization of our TNW (which we most likely will not go to - resources) and indirect lobbying for us to abandon TNW as such in view of cost. However, Americans understand that failure will not happen in the near future (but for the future ...)
For Americans, the mutual reduction (destruction) of strategic nuclear forces is very beneficial - for them this is not the most critical element of the Armed Forces, for us it is much more significant.
We are waiting for new political games ...

[GSH-18]

Quote: Canep

And then you need to take into account CHINA. They are not bound by any treaties on the limitation or reduction of nuclear weapons.

This is the most important fact! And he will become more serious over time. Reduce the arsenal of nuclear weapons below 1500 warheads, without reducing the defense capability of the Russian Federation that the United States will not work. Narrow-frame agreement. It is necessary that all other countries-owners of nuclear weapons take part in it, then this agreement will make sense.

[pahom54]

Minesweeper, I agree with you 100%. For some reason, no one takes into account either China or other countries that possess nuclear weapons. And we need to have the strength to repel aggression, or even, for the worst case, for retaliation FOR ALL to be enough.

[INVESTOR]

Why cut them at all? these bombs ??? let them lie ... they don’t ask to eat and drink ..

[timer]

I agree with your komentom. The only thing I would like to add, you can not believe our enemies (and the United States is our enemy). Before signing such agreements, one must dance on one’s own interests.

[Bronis]

It’s interesting, but the United States interprets this as countering Iran or the DPRK ?

[Migari]

And they don’t interpret it anymore, now they just have modernization.

[domokl]

Russia once believed in overseas peace initiatives. RMD destroyed ... We are not sending our nuclear weapons to the United States, but to European American YaS ...

[Scoun]

Quote: domokl

We are not sending our TNF to the United States, but to European American YaS ...

so at least it starts to reach some Europeans ...

Meanwhile, many Europeans oppose the US nuclear presence in the Old World. and require the full withdrawal of these weapons outside Europe.

[andrei332809]

many Europeans oppose the American nuclear presence in the Old World and demand the complete withdrawal of these weapons from Europe.

fear the Yankees do something? judging by the latest news regarding America’s nuclear forces, they might ...

[Leisure]

Again, some uncle overseas, for us he counted how many weapons we need.

[andrei332809]

Quote: Lazer

counted for us how many weapons do we need

not US, but IM

[ZU-23]

This is the same type of evidence of concern for Europe, and those degenerates sacredly believe in this, it would be better to save their own economy, which drags the whole world,. Especially since Russia had long been offering cooperation on missile defense in Europe, the Americans would not have to spend money there at all, and we would protect Europe to the heap, besides, from its territory.

[GELEZNII_KAPUT]

The EU is mined by the United States, they will bend their fingers to burn the fuck!

[ZU-23]

haha, then these europros will fire at each other in automatic mode)))

[Mareman Vasilich]

Hmm, and Europeans believe that this is all solely for their protection.

[ZU-23]

So, from whom is this Pro, from us from the Chinese or from some friendly country, naturally it is from us, so they are planning against us, therefore they do not want to give us documentary evidence that their Pro is not directed against us.

[nazgul-ishe]

Let them build up. I think yesterday's heroes of the occasion put it on the cards and amendments to the warheads were made.

[chunga-changa]

Meanwhile, many Europeans oppose the American nuclear presence in the Old World and demand the complete withdrawal of these weapons from Europe.

Somehow mentioned in passing. These people should be known by name and carried on their hands. Any prizes to give, "For promoting peace and disarmament in Europe", naturally for the expansion of opposition.

[Peaceful military]

According to Stephen Pifer, Director of the Arms Control Program at the Brookings Institution, a level of 1000 warheads for the United States and Russia could be rational.

Yeah and they will all be in Europe.
In general, I am amazed at the puffing of cheeks by the gay people against the USA. Such independent, indignant and threaten with a finger, to whom? To your beloved occupier.

[Andrew 447]

Modernization by nuclear weapons of nuclear weapons in Europe is not important for us (a deviation of 100-200m does not make the weather). In my humble opinion, the quantitative and qualitative aspect of our nuclear weapons and delivery systems is more important for us. There are frames within this framework to improve nuclear weapons and delivery systems.

[Andrew 447]

Modernization by nuclear weapons of nuclear weapons in Europe is not important for us (a deviation of 100-200m does not make the weather). In my humble opinion, the quantitative and qualitative aspect of our nuclear weapons and delivery systems is more important for us. There are frames within this framework to improve nuclear weapons and delivery systems.

[vuvarovskiy]

No, you can’t take a word, especially Americans, and gunpowder must be kept dry !!!

[mithridate]

Russia should take a tougher position on the world stage

[Boa kaa]

Quote: Mithridates

Russia should take a tougher position on the world stage

Yeah, we'll only bring the economy up to the level of the Union, and then you look at the second position in industrial production we will rise, we will develop the domestic electronics industry to the envy of the Japanese, Chubais will all benefit from the wonders of nano technologies, and so on. Until this happens, you need to cleverly maneuver, protecting your national interests, not allowing yourself to be drawn into "any" costly adventures, and, God forbid, military conflicts, even of low intensity.

[Boa kaa]

According to experts of the Federation of American Scientists (FAS), the significantly increasing combat potential of B61, which after the modernization can be applied to a point, contradicts the promises of the United States and NATO to reduce the role of nuclear weapons in Europe.

It is only Obama who wants to eliminate our nuclear weapons on the battlefield, and delay Russia's withdrawal from the INF Treaty, so that during the threatened period we cannot quickly and effectively eliminate amerovsky bases and missile defense systems in Europe. And so, they are for peace! In which they have high-precision weapons, and we have "promising developments." This is the first thing.
and VO-2's, where did they drop their allies in NATO - England and France, who also have nuclear weapons? Or during hostilities art. 5 agreement is automatically canceled? The PRC is a good country, but it’s on my mind and we don’t have an agreement on friendship and mutual assistance, as was the case under the Union.
On reducing the level of strategic nuclear forces to 1000 carriers. Apparently this is the maximum number of missiles that by the 2020 year can try to intercept the US missile defense system with all its means, taking into account the Euro missile defense, Ajis, the orbital group, and so on. That’s why Putin stated that further reduction can only be taking into account all the countries-owners of nuclear weapons and their means of delivery.
About Iskander. This OTP can very easily turn into a BR SRD. Technology at one time was worked out on the Oka. I suppose she is not lost. In addition, there is also the P-26, which flies as they say in the flight mission, and it is said that even after the start it can change. So, amers have something to attend to.
Modernization of the B-61 is an attempt to extend the life of obsolete products. Planning ammunition is easier to shoot down than a BR. The main thing is that the air defense system should function normally.

[APASUS]

And we are thoroughly recommended to reduce our nuclear potential

[sedoii]

Before starting negotiations on how many and to whom to reduce warheads and their carriers, it is necessary for all states that have such weapons to return them to their states. This is one of the principles not to distribute nuclear weapons.

[wolf1945]

Yes, we are cutting back and the Americans are stirring something up !!!

[baku1999]

here Lyadi ah, everything is numb to them ...................

[kelevra]

Wow, in my opinion, somewhere there is a provision prohibiting the possession of nuclear weapons and in general any nuclear elements outside your country!