According to a number of materials from the American press and other sources, the Pentagon leadership in March 2016 presented the military budget for the 2017 fiscal year in the amount of about $ 582,7 billion to the country's congress. According to Minister of Defense Ashton Carter, the military budget of the country is necessary for this development and development. the so-called new strategic era and ensuring the high combat capability of the US Armed Forces.
PENTAGON RATES FOR EUROPE HELP
The greatest changes in the financing of the Pentagon of the requested funds - about 3,4 billion dollars (by 789 million more than in the previous fiscal year for the same purposes) are planned to be funded by the European Allied Confidence Growth Initiative.
This "Initiative" was proposed to the Pentagon two years ago by US President Barack Obama. According to Ashton Carter, during the implementation of the program, the United States must be able to withstand the massive military threat posed by Russia, China and a number of other countries, and must maintain its troops and NATO troops in a constant state of readiness to counter the possible offensive of the Russian armed forces in the venue of the European theater of operations (theater of war), from wherever this threat was organized and undertaken.
To increase the combat capabilities of the United States, it is planned to spend at least 2021 billion from upgrading its nuclear arsenal in the period from 2035 to 250.
So, only in the next five years it is planned to spend about 13 billion dollars to design and build several new submarines armed with nuclear ballistic missiles, purchase new strategic bombers, and continue to work on the creation of new nuclear ICBMs.
The first plan is to start with the modernization of nuclear submarines of the Ohio type of the Trident system and the creation of a new generation of SSBNs. Moreover, for each SSBN it is planned to spend about 6,5 billion dollars. According to the plans of the Navy, new SSBNs will be able to hit with their ballistic nuclear missiles certain regions of the country undergoing nuclear strikes against it.
The implementation of the articles of the new military budget, according to Ashton Carter, will allow the US Navy to actively resist the buildup of China’s military power in the South China Sea, and with the modernization of the country's nuclear forces, change the existing US nuclear strategy and allow Washington to “return to the confrontation of the great nuclear powers and thereby use the full range of the military and combat power available to the United States. "
As Carter stated, the current situation in the world "is significantly different from the situation of the confrontation of the world nuclear powers, which was 25 years ago." Despite this and the fact that even now the United States occupies a leading position in the world, "being a recognized world leader since the end of the Second World War," the new situation in the world allegedly requires the United States to be at a military and economic level to confidently and constantly be ready "for confrontation with those states that believe that the time has come to take these leadership positions from the United States and not to allow them to govern the world as freely as they have done up to now."
SAVE GLOBAL CONTROL
According to military experts, the whole complex of military events and US plans outlined in the military budget for the 2017 fiscal year by the US Secretary of Defense are definitely directed and underscore the willingness of the US military command and White House administration to continue to retain regional or global control, economic and military influence point of the globe. According to American analysts, the path of increasing the combat and nuclear power of the US Armed Forces definitely leads the country to a third world war.
A characteristic point of Ashton Carter's repeated speeches with a discussion of the intentions and plans of the military leadership of the country over the next five years and their plans for a radical modernization of the nuclear forces in the period up to 2035 is the former aggressive line of the US military command to preserve the previously noted trends in preparing the armed forces for combat actions against former and new opponents of the United States in various theaters of war.
The existing Pentagon documents and analysis of these documents by US military experts as of the middle of 2010 show that the US command, following the instructions of Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld and President George W. Bush and responding to the large-scale terrorist attacks of September 11 2001, almost immediately after the latter took unprecedented steps to accelerate military planning and prepare national armed forces to wage several large wars and military actions personal regions of the world and in various theaters of war.
The instructions of the Minister of Defense instructed the central planning agencies of the Pentagon, the commands in the zones and the commands in the regions to develop and prepare specific plans for the execution of armed formations for localizing or military suppression of the speeches of armed groups, hostile countries or groups of countries against the US and its close allies, as well as a number of activities in the event of crisis situations and various events that, according to the American estimate, required urgent military intervention for eniya conflict or contain the spread of the conflict beyond the region or zone.
Military planning for the preparation of plans for the use of the US Armed Forces after the events of September 11 and 2001 in subsequent years has improved and accelerated. The actions of military structures at all levels were radically revised, and the assessments of situations in which US troops could be used, and the lists of emergency situations that require rapid intervention using military force, were expanded and fundamentally changed.
The country's Ministry of Defense has significantly reduced the time allowed for the development of any plans, requiring all types of headquarters to prepare military plans for 4 – 6 months instead of the previously adopted development time from 12 to 22 months.
In accordance with the requirements of the Secretary of Defense, up to now, the United States Armed Forces have been developed and were available for possible combat use around 70 of various warfare and combat plans. Each of the above plans has many forms. Some of them represent plans to wage a global or major war in a particular theater of military operations, others represent generalized plans designed to determine the degree of participation of American troops to ensure so-called stability in a theater of war or in a particular region.
Of the above 70 military plans, only 48 considers and assumes the conduct of real combat operations against certain countries in various regions of the world. The 10 military plans consider the actions of the US Armed Forces to repel an attack by military air and aerospace groups of troops of unfriendly states on US territory, the direct protection of the country from invasion of enemy forces from different directions and various forces.
11 “genetically” existing military plans (FUNCPLAN plans) consider issues, techniques and methods of providing humanitarian assistance to friendly states, plans to combat drug trafficking, plans to maintain peace in certain regions, as well as military plans to conduct military and other military operations in other permitted conditions.
Of the previously mentioned 48 military plans, 5 are real operational plans or real operational plans. Such operational plans are prepared for specific (specific) theaters of war (meaning plans to conduct combat operations against specific hostile countries and states) when large-scale combat operations are planned with detailed elaboration of individual operations, with the creation of real lists of targets for applying nuclear weapons. strikes with the use of strategic offensive forces, logistic and combat support plans and plans for the interaction of formations and units of the US Armed Forces during the entire period of oennogo conflict.
Of the five actual operational plans (current OPLANs) - one, the single and most detailed US strategic plan for conducting a thermonuclear war, OPLAN 8044, was previously known as the Single Integrated Operational Plan, or the SIOP plan.
It is characteristic that since June 1992, all plans for conducting a general nuclear war, the plans of SIOP, have been constantly created and improved. Each new SIOP plan received a new, different name. For example, a nuclear war plan was adopted and signed by the US president in June 1992 of the year and was called the SIOP-92 plan. In subsequent years, the plans for conducting a nuclear war SIOP were processed and signed by the president of the country in October of the next year and accordingly were called SIOP-93, SIOP-94, SIOP-95, etc. Since March 2003, the SIOP nuclear war plan was once again amended to receive the name OPLAN 8044 Revision 03. The latest publicly known operational plan for nuclear warfare was developed in February of the 2009 of the year and was called OPLAN 8010-08 with the changes to Change 1.
The American command pays great attention to questions of joint combat training with the allies, especially in the Asia-Pacific region. Reuters Photos
In addition, there are two more constantly corrected plans for the conduct of hostilities in Asia using nuclear weapons in the Committee of the Chiefs of Staff of the US Armed Forces. weapons. One of these concerns the involvement of the US Armed Forces in defending South Korea against possible intervention and attack by troops or the use of nuclear weapons by North Korea (OPLAN 5027). Another similar plan is designed to ensure the protection of the Korean Peninsula from the invasion of troops of potential adversaries in the event of any other emergency actions and events that may occur on this Peninsula (OPLAN 5077).
There are two plans for the conduct of hostilities of American troops with the possible use of nuclear weapons in the Middle East. One such plan is the OPLAN 1003 warfare plan. This operational plan was at one time put into effect by the entry of a group of US forces into Iraq in 2003. This plan continues to be in operation, and it will be carried out by American troops stationed in this region until their final withdrawal from Iraq.
Another operational plan is constantly being updated - the plan of warfare in the Middle East, against Iran. This plan calls for the use of US ground forces and aviation from military and air bases in the Middle East. Under this plan, all military and combat operations of warships of the US Navy, permanently located in the waters of the Persian Gulf and the northern part of the Indian Ocean, including aircraft carrier strike formations and SSBNs, are planned.
To ensure the protection of its own territory of the United States from an attack on the continent of any enemy, there is another operational plan - the sixth operational plan OPLAN 1002. The plan mainly determines the actions of the American troops on the continent and the involvement of troops from other theaters and regions of the world in combat operations.
The 39 remaining of the 43 operational plans, the so-called CONPLANs, are the conceptual operational plans - Operational Plans in Concept Forms. These plans, drafted in a simplified, conceptual form, are military planning documents designed to solve less complex military tasks in situations that may arise in a particular region in a relatively remote period of time.
Such plans can be used by the relevant American commands as the basis for developing plans for the conduct of combat operations of troops in small regional conflicts. They can also be used to plan the use of US troops for non-specific purposes or tasks.
In addition to OPLANs and CONPLANs in the United States, there are four strategic concepts that have been created by the Pentagon’s planning authorities. The need for these concepts was dictated by the events of September 11 2001. Although each of OPLAN or CONPLAN includes provisions for a specific strategic concept, each regional command of the US Armed Forces must develop its own specific concepts for the use of the forces and means at their disposal. These plans provide for a detailed assessment of the forces and means opposing the groupings of troops, the likely areas of engagement, the compilation of a list of strategic objectives and objects in the region in addition to the plans already listed or mainly OPLAN or CONPLAN.
By regional command, OPLAN and CONPLAN plans, as well as strategic conceptual plans, are broken down as follows:
- Central Command (Middle East) has 2 OPLAN, 7 CONPLAN and 2 strategic concepts;
- The European Command has 10 concepts of using troops CONPLAN;
- The command of the US Armed Forces in the Pacific has 2 OPLAN, 12 CONPLAN and 2 strategic concepts;
- Southern Command (Latin America) has 7 CONPLAN.
The US Strategic Command (STRATCOM), in addition to participating in the preparation and development of the main American nuclear war plan OPLAN 8044, is also responsible for developing three global CONPLANs, one nuclear war plan and a global nuclear warfare plan. hitting (CONPLAN 8022). These plans represent the embodiment of real military plans directly proposed by President George W. Bush. All of these plans provide for the possibility of a preemptive nuclear strike.
In the arsenal of the Pentagon there is another operational plan - a plan for organizing and conducting operations to organize and conduct operational missile defense operations (CONPLAN 8055). There is also a plan codenamed CONPLAN - for waging informational and psychological warfare (or cyberwarfare). The tasks of waging these wars are entrusted to the Strategic Command.
The Committee of the Chiefs of Staff of the US Armed Forces, among other things, is also responsible for developing two plans for the use of weapons of mass destruction or creating an operational plan for CONPLAN 0400. This plan defines the activities of the US military to conduct active activities aimed at preventing the proliferation of nuclear weapons. The next plan, CONPLAN 0300, is being developed to conduct special operations to prevent and prevent incidents with weapons of mass destruction. The third operational plan of the Committee of the Chiefs of Staff of the US Armed Forces, although it exists, but its purpose and features are secret and are not yet known.
And finally, the US Special Operations Command (SOCOM) in the recent past developed a CONPLAN plan for waging war on global terrorism.
For a number of conceptual directions, such as North Korea, there are several OPLAN and CONPLAN plans. These include the plans of CONPLAN 5026, 5027, 5029 and 5030, each of which determines the action of the American forces in the conduct of hostilities in various situations that may arise on the Korean Peninsula.
Each US command has its own operational plans for the conduct of hostilities for the so-called protection of American interests and its main allies. For example, to protect Israel, there is a situational operational plan CONPLAN 4305, to protect Japan - a situational plan CONPLAN 4055. Given the existence of various multilateral and bilateral agreements and treaties with allies and allied states, the Americans have created around 20 appropriate situational and operational plans.
Within the framework of the US Armed Forces, there are also several situational operational plans of a number of commands that orient the actions of the US Armed Forces in a limited scale and scope. For example, the European Command has a whole set of operational plans of action in the specific conditions of the situation that may arise in the Caucasus, the Baltic States, West Africa, Equatorial Africa and South Africa.
The US military command in the Pacific zone has regional troop action plans in South Asia, Southeast Asia, the continental Southeast Asia, and also on the islands of Southeast Asia.
The US Central Command has a regional plan for troop operations in the Horn of Africa region.
The southern command of the US Armed Forces has one operational plan of warfare in the Caribbean.
AREA OF INTEREST
When President Barack Obama came to power in the US, the military leadership of the country outlined and made minor adjustments to plans for the use of troops, especially plans for the use of nuclear weapons. In one of Obama's first visits to the Pentagon at the beginning of 2009, he was given a brief briefing on the strategic plan for the use of nuclear weapons and his role as Supreme Commander-in-Chief of the United States Armed Forces in the event of a situation requiring the use of military force. He was informed that if the operational plan of the SIOP is launched - the OPLAN 8044 strategic plan for thermonuclear war, hundreds of millions of people in the world can be destroyed, entire nations or states can be completely destroyed, and climatic changes on a global scale can occur.
In this regard, President Obama has repeatedly stated at the international level that he set the goal of abandoning the customary approach of the Cold War to solving international issues and reducing the role of nuclear weapons in national security strategies. They decided to adjust the Nuclear Posture Review (NPR) plan for the deployment of nuclear weapons and weapons, which was noted in reducing the role of nuclear weapons in the national security strategy.
History shows that the administration of President Bush Junior also publicly announced the end of a series of activities in the spirit of the Cold War and the reduction of its reliance on nuclear weapons. However, in fact, she advocated the creation of new types of weapons and the search for new ways and methods of using nuclear weapons.
As a result, the Pentagon’s specialists, under the leadership of President Obama and on his personal instructions, developed and put into operation an OPLAN 8010 operational plan, signed by him on February 1 of 2009 of the year and providing for strategic deterrence and global nuclear strikes. This plan was developed and maintained in working order by the Strategic Command of the US Armed Forces and is based on direct instructions from the President, the Secretary of Defense and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. The OPLAN 8010 Operational Plan was created and based on the strategic planning guidelines of the Bush Jr. Administration, prepared in 2001 and 2002 in US NPSD-10 directives (US Strategic Nuclear Forces, 21 in December 2001) and NSPD-14 (US Weapons Planning Guidance) , 28 June 2002 of the year).
The OPLAN 8010 Operational Plan differs significantly from the Cold War nuclear war plans and is mostly not aimed at delivering nuclear strikes to Russia and China. In general, it consists of a set of military plans defining US military actions, with or without the use of nuclear weapons against six countries potentially dangerous to the United States (presumably against Iran, North Korea, Syria, China and Russia). However, the number of countries in which nuclear weapons can be used includes countries where. According to US intelligence, weapons of mass destruction — chemical, biological, and nuclear — can be located and stored. According to a number of American experts, American planning authorities take into account the experience of the United States in combating international terrorism and the experience of events related to the September 11 attacks. They believe that certain circles of terrorists can use samples of weapons of mass destruction and strike at the territory of the United States or the territories of their main allies from the territories of the above states.
In general, the breadth of interests of the military-political leadership of the United States on a global scale is so voluminous that one can only be amazed at the presence in the Committee of the Chiefs of Staff of the US Armed Forces and in the relevant commands of plans to conduct military operations in almost any region of the planet. According to American military experts, a specific threat to the interests of the United States may arise when the situation or the internal situation aggravates or relations between countries or within countries, such as, for example, Iran or China, become aggravated. They do not exclude the existence of military plans and plans for conducting combat operations against the Armed Forces of Russia or on the territory of Russia in the event of an aggravation of the internal situation in our country. Of course, there are the US military command and plans for a war against Cuba, Syria, the DPRK and a number of other states and countries of the world.