Nuclear deterrence is back in fashion
According to Russian and Western experts, the real relations of our country with NATO as a whole and the USA in particular have been experiencing great difficulties for several years. But it is also noted that very much in the modern world depends on the stability of these relations and the desire of each of the parties to avoid direct military confrontation. In the last period of time, the United States and NATO are beginning to realize that the position of Russia will also not change even because of the economic and political sanctions announced to it. But can mutual accusations, mistrust and growing tensions in Europe create a situation close to the possible start of hostilities between NATO and Russia? In order to find an answer to this question at the initiative of the NATO leadership, a bloc leadership meeting was held in Brussels at the beginning of May with our Permanent Representative to the Alliance.It is completely obvious to each of the parties that the main topics for discussion should be topics related to defense policy, weapons, and especially nuclear weapons. weapons. These questions are among the critical in the relationship of the parties. Almost immediately after the aforementioned meeting, the Secretary General of the North Atlantic Alliance, Jens Stoltenberg, said that NATO would not give up possession of nuclear weapons, that he did not see the need to reconsider the nuclear strategy of the block towards Russia. Stoltenberg also noted that NATO is now "further than ever from the use of nuclear weapons, but as long as it exists in the world, the alliance will remain nuclear."
Wishing to give his words some “softness” in expression, he stressed that NATO countries do not want confrontation or a new cold war with Russia and that all members of the alliance need to be “decisive, reasonable and strong” only to continue the political dialogue with it.
Jens Stoltenberg, however, did not rule out an additional Russia-NATO meeting before the Warsaw negotiations scheduled for July 2016 on new approaches to the use of nuclear weapons and the adoption of a new (revised) NATO nuclear strategy. At the same time, he said that for NATO “it is important that we keep the channels for political dialogue open and find new ways to reduce tensions and prevent trouble. Meanwhile, the Americans with enviable persistence continued to put pressure on Russia, insisting on the need to begin negotiations on reducing this time tactical and operational-tactical nuclear weapons. What is behind this?
DO NOT WANT TO BE THE ONLY RESPONDENT
According to the Western press, in Europe there is a program to modernize the F-16 fighter jets and the Tornado airplanes of the air forces of five NATO countries, which are equipped with equipment that allows the use of B61-12 nuclear bombs. Refitting complete. It is planned that by the year 2018 the program will be fully implemented and the planes of the Air Forces of Belgium, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands and Turkey will become carriers of nuclear weapons, almost equal to strategic ones due to a significant change in the technical characteristics of the induced thermonuclear bombs.
At the end of April 2016 in Washington, a meeting of the heads of almost 50 world leaders on world security, which was chaired by Barack Obama, the Americans put forward a number of proposals for controlling nuclear weapons and limiting the spread of nuclear weapons. In preparation for this meeting, Russia was asked to sign several documents, for which Russia was not invited to develop and review, and therefore did not wish to participate in this meeting. Russian President Vladimir Putin did not go to the meeting in Washington. Meanwhile, on the eve of the Washington meeting by the Americans, Russia made (and repeatedly) proposals on the need to continue dialogue and negotiations between Russia and the United States on measures to further reduce and limit strategic offensive arms (START-3).
Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov, responding to the proposals of the Americans, said that negotiations between the US and Russia regarding the reduction of nuclear weapons are not yet possible. According to Ryabkov, the Russian side has already reduced the nuclear potential to the level of 1950-s and the beginning of 1960-s, and that it has now reached the line when bilateral negotiations on the nuclear issue are not possible. Ryabkov pointed to the fact that the Americans are developing systems capable of delivering strikes at a range of destruction by strategic means, while not using nuclear warheads. According to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Russian Federation, Moscow can begin to discuss the issue of nuclear disarmament only when other countries with nuclear missile potential are involved in such negotiations.
According to Western analysts, the propaganda component dominates in the rhetoric of discussing the possibility of reducing tactical and operational-tactical nuclear weapons. It is known that at present, the number of non-nuclear weapons in the United States is very, very significant. In most cases, these tools are distinguished by the presence of high performance. They are also provided, which is very important, with a powerful, practically global information and communication infrastructure. And these opportunities have been used more than once by the United States in the last 15 – 20 years. Therefore, such a propaganda position has deep rationales in specific, very pragmatic calculations connected with the US military policy, with the policy of American national security.
Experts note that, discussing the issue of modernized nuclear bombs designed to wage a nuclear war in Europe or elsewhere against a fairly weak enemy, the Pentagon leadership expects that in new conditions, when Russia's capabilities to use have significantly increased aviation and nuclear missile systems on warships, B61 ammunition can significantly change the situation not only in Europe, but also in the world as a whole. However, the Pentagon believes that the B61 nuclear bombs are designed primarily to deter Russia.
TO AGREE AND WON'T
A wave of panicky publications swept through the American media in connection with information received from Turkey about the temporary measures of the Turkish authorities, who during the recent rebellion blocked the Incirlik airbase, turned off the power supply and closed the airspace for the US military aircraft. The concern was primarily caused by the fact that American tactical nuclear weapons (TNW) were stored on this base.
According to the Director of the Nuclear Information Project at the Federation of American Scientists, Hans M. Christensen, there are over 50 bombs (according to other sources - 70 bombs) B61 in the underground storage facilities of the Incirlik airbase. It is known that the armament of this class, located in Turkey, is 25% of the total arsenal of tactical nuclear weapons, which Washington holds in Europe under the auspices of NATO. The same repositories are located in Germany, the Netherlands, Belgium and Italy. According to the New Yorker magazine, up to 200 units of TNW are placed in the Old World, according to other data, their number exceeds 480 units. This weapon is aimed at deterring Russia. But the American media did not focus on this fact. Their concern is not connected with the fact that the Incirlik airbase is located near the Syrian border, that is, in the immediate vicinity of the combat zone. The American publications drew attention to the actions of the Turkish authorities related to the blocking of the military airbase, as a result of which, although a hypothetical, but still a threat to the safety of the US nuclear warheads arose. It is this, it must be supposed, that prompted the Americans to spread information about the alleged transfer of a nuclear arsenal from the Turkish Incirlik airbase to Romania.
Attempts to agree on the reduction of TNW on the European continent between Washington and Moscow were made in Soviet times. One of them - known as the “presidential initiative” - was almost a success in 1991 – 1992, but it was not subject to inspection and did not continue. According to the head of the group of advisers to the Director of the Russian Institute for Strategic Studies, Vladimir Kozin, earlier the inability to agree on a reduction of this class of weapons in Europe was due to the fact that “as a prerequisite for starting negotiations on reducing tactical nuclear weapons, the United States repeatedly asked tactical nuclear weapons from the European continent. "
After the events of winter 2014, the situation in Europe has changed dramatically. Now Washington and Brussels do not exclude forceful containment of Moscow. According to experts from the Pentagon, the armed forces of the NATO countries in the aggregate far exceed the Armed Forces of Russia, which, in turn, views its own TNW as a means of deterring the Alliance’s possible aggression. Russia does not deny that, with a threat to its existence, it may be the first to use the nuclear potential. According to many military experts, for Moscow this weapon has become political. For the United States, TNW always deployed in Europe has been largely classified as a strategic weapon, in view of the fact that it can be delivered to virtually any part of the European territory of Russia. Whereas for Russian TNW the territory of the United States is inaccessible.
OLD-OLD BOMB
According to media reports, in the United States in the near future there will be a new atomic bomb, created on the basis of the outdated B61. This was stated by the US National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA). According to the head of NNSA, Frank Klotz, the B61 bomb is now the oldest component base in the US arsenal, and the resource extension program will lengthen its life by another 20 years.According to analysts, the atomic bomb B61 is so old that it is sometimes called the “bomb of eleven presidents”. However, this proves only that it can be attributed to the most successful types of weapons that have been successfully used for decades. At the same time, its service life is regularly extended, and due to modernization, combat performance is improved.
History The B61 bombing began in 1960 year. The military then wanted to get a bomb that could be dropped at different speeds, from different heights and different carriers. It should have a weight of no more than 700 – 800 pounds (220 – 250 kg) and carry a thermonuclear charge of variable power. The first bomb that meets these requirements of the military, scientists have created by October 1966, and in 1967, the troops have already received its first production model.
As media professionals believed, the weapons were considered to be especially secret. The official name of the bomb was not spoken aloud either at meetings or in telephone conversations. Between themselves, the officers called her a “silver bullet”, since the new tactical thermonuclear bomb really reminded her — she had a cylindrical body with a conical silver head fairing.
The length of the bomb of the first B1-0 modification was 3,6 m with a case diameter of 33, see. The total weight of the product is 700 pounds (about 220 kg). But later new modifications were created, during which the weight and its dimensions changed somewhat, while the main thing remained: the carriers of this weapon could be heavy bombers, and tactical aircraft fighter-bombers.
Moreover, the combat characteristics of the new bomb allowed her to work in different modes. For example, the detonation of a warhead could occur both at a predetermined height, and at the time of contact with the ground. Moreover, in order for the carrier aircraft to leave the danger zone, the explosion occurred with some delay - up to 80 seconds after touching the surface. Later, the B61 anti-bunker modification with a reinforced body appeared.
Statistics show that in just the time B61 is in service with the US Army, 3155 of these ten different bombs were launched, each of which improved the combat characteristics of these weapons and extended the service life. But despite this, by the year 2002, more than 1900 units of the B61 units were still written off and disposed of, although at least 1200 units were still in stock. All of them were quite suitable for use, although they did not meet the requirements of the time. Then, in the 2010, the US Department of Energy (it is responsible for all nuclear and thermonuclear weapons projects) initiated the development of another modification of these tactical bombs, allocating about 2 billion dollars to it. The new modernization received the designation B61-12.
It was reported that the new bomb will receive a new tail section, where the most modern guidance system will be located. With the help of satellite navigation and rudders, a new bomb will be able to hit targets with increased accuracy, which will make it possible to abandon the equipment with high-power warheads The new B61-12 bomb, according to experts, will have 0,3 CT, 1,5 CT, 10 CT or 50 CT warheads in TNT equivalent. At the same time, it is planned to modernize the aircraft, which will become carriers of the B61-12. First of all, it is the F-35 fighter-bombers. The integration of such bombs is possible in the complex of weapons of promising LRS-B bombers. They can become the main carriers of these weapons, although before they are created, at least 10 – 15 years will pass.
WHAT WILL GIVE A MODERNIZATION
According to Western experts, the main concern of the Russian military is that by the year 2020, the United States plans to place B61-12 bombs on European bases. It was decided to adapt Tornado fighter-bombers from the combat strengths of the German and Italian Air Forces, as well as the Belgian, Dutch and Turkish F-16А / В. Earlier it was reported that 20 such bombs will be placed at the Büchel airbase in Rhineland-Palatinate, after which they appear in Italy and in Turkey (which now seems unlikely). So the oldest nuclear weapon of eleven previous US presidents will remain a threat to the world, at a minimum, even with the next owner of the White House.
Last summer, US President Barack Obama called for a significant reduction in Europe of Russian and American tactical nuclear weapons in order to reduce the risk of war. And therefore - its application. Obama announced the presence of 600 X61 nuclear bombs in Europe, which the United States distributed in five NATO countries, while the arsenal of Russia in Europe, according to Western media, is about 2000 nuclear weapons. But Russia also has a large territory beyond the Urals ...
According to analysts, since last summer, the hope of a reduction has disappeared. Russia's “refusal” from the events in Ukraine and the transparent hint at the possibility of using nuclear weapons, voiced by Russian President Vladimir Putin, brought to naught any chance that the US would withdraw its tactical nuclear weapons from Europe in some near future.
“Taking out a relatively small amount would be an absolutely wrong signal at the moment,” said retired admiral James Stavridis, who until 2013 was the commander-in-chief of NATO forces and is currently the Fletcher School din of the Institute of International Relations at Tuft University .
"During my tenure as Supreme Commander of NATO forces in Europe, my personal opinion was that the time had come to consider withdrawing weapons from Europe," he said. “However, taking into account Russian activity during the past months and the prospects for a return to a period of considerable friction between Russia and the allies, I am now confident that we must keep weapons in Europe, despite the cost and risks associated with it.”
Support for nuclear deterrence is spreading in Europe. New members of the alliance, including Poland, the Czech Republic, are in favor of continuing the deployment of American tactical nuclear weapons in the Old World. Nuclear weapons dispersed between countries on the continent are potential hazards and the occurrence of accidents. However, its presence is for some members of the NATO bloc, experts in the West believe, an element of additional security. Especially for those who believe that weapons are a significant US contribution to this security. After all, proposals for the modernization of the B61 bomb will require from the US Department of Energy expenditures in the amount of 8,1 billion dollars, which will be spent on improving the accuracy of bombing and, therefore, increasing their deterrent effect in relation to Russia.
According to experts, smoothing and more streamlined shape, improving the layout characteristics of explosives will make the thermo-nuclear B61, which is the last nuclear bomb of this type, the only tactical ammunition in the entire US nuclear arsenal. Unlike strategic nuclear weapons intended for the destruction of cities and fortified military targets, TNW are focused on using them directly on the battlefield, where they can be delivered by aircraft and dropped from a wide variety of heights.
The bomb was created in 1960 during the administration of President Johnson. It was the first compact nuclear bomb, making only 13 inches in diameter (about 33 cm). B61 bombs are available in five versions, one of which has a nuclear explosion power of about 2% of the power from a nuclear bomb of World War II and dropped on Hiroshima.
The United States began to deliver tactical nuclear weapons to Europe in the 1955s, when they feared substantial superiority in conventional weapons from the Soviet Union, which could inflict a complete defeat on Western European countries. All of these nuclear weapons, with the exception of the B61 universal bomb, were taken out of Europe long ago. However, over the past 15 years, the American nuclear umbrella has been spread over more than ten new Eastern European countries that have joined the alliance.
As soon as the crisis in Ukraine broke out, President Obama said that the Allies needed to organize specific investments in order to help Ukraine modernize and strengthen its security forces. Some pressure was taken in Washington on the Obama administration itself in order to make a more stringent policy towards Russia in the area of economic sanctions.
Former Commander-in-Chief of NATO Combined Forces in Europe, General Aviation Philip M. Breedlove told National Public Radio prior to his release from office that Russian actions pose a threat to the future, which forces NATO countries to rely on their own forces in order to determine their fate. “What recently happened in Ukraine is something that should never happen again,” the general said.
Fearing RUSSIA'S RESPONSES
The situation is in a problematic situation for the American nuclear complex. The Pentagon completed the third and final test flight for testing the upgraded thermonuclear bomb B61 Mod 12 delivered by aircraft. It is being modernized in order to create an improved, more accurate inertial guidance system, but with a significant decrease in the power of a nuclear warhead. It is believed that thanks to this modernization, the system will have improved technical characteristics, which will significantly reduce the threshold for possible use of tactical nuclear weapons. According to the deputy administrator of the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA), Madeleine Cridon, the end of the tests of the B61-12 aerial bombs will significantly affect the enhancement of the American and European security systems. Although the US Air Force Command and the NNSA leadership completed activities on this latest test of the 2015 bombs in October at a nuclear test site in Nevada, the US Department of Defense did not publish its results for a long time. F-15 fighter-bombers based at Nellis air base, Nevada were used during these tests. Depending on the profile of the terrain where the bombing target was located, the fighter-bomber pilot dived for several seconds to increase the speed of the dropping bomb, and after the plane passed the point of ammunition dropping, it sharply almost vertically went up. The bomb was dropped so that for some time it continued to fly by inertia after the plane, and then it turned around and went to the target immediately after the plane passed the target. According to one of the pilots, the diving plane had a speed of about 1,6 M, which is considered to be a high enough speed to save fuel for the plane to fly back home. The very same bomb should be at reset to reach speeds around 2,0 M.
According to information received from the NNSA management, all of the originally processed data and the technical characteristics of the test results seem to indicate that good and positive results were achieved during the tests. The last test confirms the conditions in which a new weapon would seem to be launched into the production process already in the 2016 year. Although initially it was thought that the development capabilities of the deployed American GPS system were used to develop the new B61-12 aerial bombs guidance system, the management of Boeing and NNSA did not confirm this view.
However, it should be noted that in most cases, American guided bombs use an external inertial guidance system, corrected using signals and GPS capabilities. Thus, the lack of special equipment on the new B61-12 aerial bombs, which depends on the American GPS system, to some extent reduces the accuracy characteristics of the aerial bomb control system.
The maximum power of a nuclear weapon, which can be equipped with the B61-12 bombs, is approximately 50 kt in TNT equivalent, which automatically classifies them as low-power nuclear weapons. However, if you reduce the power of a nuclear charge to 0,3 kt and significantly improve the accuracy of hitting the target, the practical effect of the use of such weapons will be about the same. According to a number of estimates, the existing inertial guidance system now allows to increase the power of the upgraded bombs, for example, to 360 CT or even to 400 CT, without increasing the number of likely victims of destruction.
A number of experts believe that it would be more acceptable to use those nuclear facilities that would suit the given situation according to the nature of operational use. Planning organizations and consultants may consider such nuclear munitions to be more acceptable for their nuclear strikes, since they could lead to significant collateral losses. Such a situation could lead to a wider use of nuclear ammunition delivered by bombers. These goals can be attributed to: the sites where nuclear targets and facilities are located, the concentration of new forces and facilities that consider nuclear weapons as usable and potentially smaller nuclear thresholds in a nuclear conflict.
The NNSA management carefully monitors the information that the B61-12 aerial bomb did not violate any treaties and agreements and did not add new nuclear capabilities, except to increase the accuracy of destruction of selected targets or objects. According to analysts, the research test carried out on an aircraft that performed the control task did not contain any radioactive elements — neither uranium nor highly enriched plutonium was on board the aircraft.
Nevertheless, many experts on armaments are concerned that new nuclear weapons and their combat capabilities, especially after the B61-12 aerial bombs will go to the troops, will be adapted to equip them with F-35 fighter-bombers. They believe that these decisions can trigger a response from Russia. In particular, if Russia manages its nuclear arsenal with similar self-guided air bombs and equips them with Stelts technology, such airplanes will be able to confidently overcome air defense zones and provide the command with guaranteed defeat of the assigned targets.
Information