Nuclear weapons of the United States - Nuclear weapons of the United States. Five Myths About US Nuclear Weapons Caribbean Crisis Started in Turkey

Every year, the systems installed here more and more resemble museum exhibits. At the top, more and more international treaties are being concluded, according to which these wells are closed one by one. But every day, the next crews of the US Air Force descend into concrete dungeons in anticipation of something that absolutely should not happen ...

Another day of service The next watch carries suitcases with secret documents, fastened with steel cables to overalls. People will descend into the bunker on a 24-hour watch, taking control of ballistic missiles hidden under the grasslands of Montana. If the fateful order comes, these young Air Force officers will not hesitate to unleash their apocalyptic weapons.

Joe Pappalardo

An inconspicuous ranch about fifteen meters from a bumpy two-lane road southeast of Great Falls, Montana. A primitive one-story building, a chain link fence, a garage set in the outskirts and a basketball backboard right above the driveway.

However, if you look closely, you can notice some funny details - a red-and-white lattice tower of a microwave radio tower rises above the buildings, here is a helicopter landing pad on the front lawn, plus another UHF cone antenna sticking out of the lawn like a white fungus. You might think that some university agricultural laboratory or, say, a weather station has settled here - only a red banner on the fence confuses, notifying that anyone who tries to enter the territory without permission will be met with fire to kill.

Inside the building, the security service scrupulously examines each incoming. The slightest suspicion - and guards with M4 carbines and handcuffs will immediately appear in the room. The massive entrance door moves vertically upwards - so even winter snow drifts will not block it.

After the checkpoint, the interior becomes the same as in a regular barracks. In the center there is something like a wardroom - a TV, sofas with armchairs and several long tables for common meals. Further from the hall exits to the cabins with bunk beds. Standard government-issued posters about stupid talkers and ubiquitous spies are hung on the walls.

The Malmstrom Air Force Missile Base controls 15 launchers and 150 silos. Its entire economy is spread over a territory of 35,000 km 2. The control bunkers were dug deep and spaced so far apart to survive a nuclear attack from the Soviet Union and retain the possibility of a nuclear retaliatory strike. To disable such a system, the warheads must hit each launch position without missing.

One of the armored doors in the living area leads to a small side room. Here sits the flight security controller (FSC), a non-commissioned officer, the commander of the security of the launcher. A three-meter chest next to it is packed with M4 and M9 carbines. There is another door in this arsenal, which neither the dispatcher nor the guards should enter in any case, unless an emergency situation requires it. Behind this door is an elevator that goes six floors underground without stopping.

In a calm voice, FSC announces the ciphers for calling the elevator over the phone. The elevator will not rise until all passengers have left it and the front door in the security room is locked. The steel elevator door is opened by hand in much the same way as the blinds are rolled up, which in small shops protect windows and doors at night. Behind it is a small cabin with metal walls.

It will take us less than a minute to descend 22 m underground, but there, at the bottom of the hole, a completely different world will open before us. The elevator door is built into the smoothly curved black wall of the circular hall. Along the wall, breaking its monotony, thick columns of shock absorbers are installed, which should absorb the shock wave if a nuclear warhead explodes somewhere nearby.

Outside the walls of the hall, something rumbled and clanged exactly as the lifting gates of an old castle should clang, after which a massive hatch smoothly leaned outward, 26-year-old Air Force Captain Chad Dieterle is holding on to the metal handle. A good meter and a half thick, this shockproof plug is screen-printed with the letters INDIA. Dieterle, Commander of the Launch Control Center (LCC) India, is now halfway through the 24-hour watch, and this launch position itself was organized here at Malmstrom Air Force Base, back when the parents of this brave Air Force captain went to school.

The mines and the launch control panel, located at a depth of 22 m underground, are guarded around the clock. "Rocket monkeys", as they call themselves, train in a training silo - the same as real rockets are in. They replace the cables leading to the gyroscopes and on-board computers. These computers are hidden in bulky boxes that protect electronics from radiation.

LCC India is connected by cables to fifty other mines scattered in a 10-kilometer radius. Each silo contains one 18-meter Minuteman III intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM).

The Air Force command refuses to report the number of warheads on each missile, but it is known that there are no more than three. Each of the heads can destroy all life within a radius of ten kilometers.

Having received the appropriate order, Dieterle and his henchmen in half an hour can send these weapons to any part of the globe. Hiding in silence underground, he turns an inconspicuous ranch, lost in the expanses of Montana, into one of the most strategically important points on the planet.

Small but effective

The US nuclear arsenal—about 2,200 strategic warheads that can be delivered by 94 bombers, 14 submarines, and 450 ballistic missiles—is still the backbone of the entire national security system. Barack Obama never tires of declaring his desire for a world completely free of nuclear weapons, but this does not contradict the fact that his administration unambiguously postulates regarding nuclear policy: “As long as there are stocks of nuclear weapons in the world, the United States will maintain its nuclear forces in state of full and effective combat readiness.

Since the end of the Cold War, the total number of nuclear warheads in the world has dropped drastically. True, now states such as China, Iran or North Korea are deploying their own nuclear programs and designing their own long-range ballistic missiles. Therefore, despite high-flown rhetoric and even sincere good intentions, America should not yet part with its nuclear weapons, as well as with aircraft, submarines and missiles that could deliver them to the target.

The missile component of the US nuclear triad has been in existence for 50 years, but year after year it finds itself at the center of tense discussions between Moscow and Washington. Last year, the Obama administration signed a new START III treaty with Russia on measures to further reduce and limit strategic offensive arms. As a result, the nuclear arsenals of these two countries must be limited to less than 1,550 strategic warheads within a seven-year period. Of the 450 active US missiles, only 30 will remain. In order not to lose the support of the "hawks" and simply skeptical senators, the White House has proposed adding $ 85 billion to modernize the remaining nuclear forces over the next ten years (this amount must be approved at the next meeting of Congress). “I will vote to ratify this treaty … because our president is clearly intent on making sure that the remaining weapons are really effective,” Tennessee Senator Lamar Alexander said.

Mine of intercontinental ballistic missile. These mines hide their terrible nature behind a completely inconspicuous appearance. Some trucker will pass by on the highway and not even look back. He will never know that these 30-meter-deep mines hide nuclear weapons, maintained in a state of continuous alert.

Nuclear missile umbrella

So why does the Strategic Missile Force, a symbol of the end of the Cold War, remain at the center of defensive strategy, politics, and diplomacy of the 21st century? If we take three types of delivery vehicles (aircraft, submarines and ballistic missiles), then of them, intercontinental ballistic missiles remain the means of the most prompt reaction to aggression from the enemy, and indeed the most operational weapon that allows a preemptive strike. Submarines are good because they are almost invisible, nuclear bombers are capable of delivering precision pinpoint strikes, but only intercontinental missiles are always ready to deliver an irresistible nuclear strike anywhere in the world, and they can do it in a matter of minutes.

The American nuclear missile umbrella is now deployed over the whole world. “As representatives of the Air Force, we are convinced that America is obliged to keep at gunpoint and under threat any enemy object, wherever it may be, no matter how serious the protection it may cover, no matter how deep it is hidden,” he said. Lieutenant General Frank Klotz, who just stepped down in January as head of the Global Strike Command, the agency that controls nuclear bombers and ballistic missiles.

The launch positions of strategic missiles represent a major achievement in engineering terms. All these mines were built in the early 1960s, and since then they have been in full combat readiness 99% of the time. More interestingly, the Pentagon built these launch sites for only a few decades. When the MinutemanIII missiles are retired, all silos and launchers at Malmstrom Base will be mothballed and buried for a period of 70 years.

So, the Air Force has the most powerful weapons in the world, and the equipment to control these weapons was created in the space age, and not at all in the 21st century of information technology. Nevertheless, these old launch systems do their job much better than one might think. “Building a system that will stand the test of time and still perform brilliantly,” says Klotz, “is a true triumph of engineering genius. These guys in the 1960s thought through everything to the smallest detail, generously laying in a few redundant levels of reliability.

Thousands of dedicated officers at three air force bases - Malmstrom, base them. F.E. Warren in Wyoming and Mino in North Dakota spare no effort to keep the silo launchers in constant combat readiness.

The Minuteman III was retired in the 1970s with a retirement date set for 2020, but last year the Obama administration extended the series' lifespan by another decade. In response to this demand, the leadership of the Air Force drew up a schedule for the reorganization of the existing missile bases. A tangible fraction of those billions of dollars that were recently promised by the White House should go towards this.

Norm is perfection

Let's return to the India Launch Control Center, hidden under an inconspicuous ranch. Little has changed inside since the Kennedy administration. Of course, teletype paper printers have given way to digital screens, and upstairs servers provide the underground crew with Internet access, and even live television when the situation is calm. However, the electronics here - hefty blocks inserted into wide metal racks and studded with many shining lights and illuminated buttons - resemble the scenery from the first versions of the Star Trek television series. Something really literally asks for an antique shop. Dieterle, with an embarrassed smile, pulls out of the console a nine-inch floppy disk - an element of the ancient, but still well-functioning Strategic Automatic Command and Control System.

Thousands of officers at US Air Force bases keep silo launchers on alert. Since 2000, the Pentagon has spent more than $7 billion to modernize this branch of the military. All work was aimed at ensuring that the Minuteman III model safely reached the retirement date, which was set for 2020, but last year the Obama administration extended the service life of this series for another ten years.

The missiles themselves and the equipment installed at ground level can still be somehow upgraded, but with underground mines and the launch centers themselves, everything is much more complicated. But time does not spare them. It is very difficult to fight corrosion. Any movement of the ground can break the underground communication lines.

The India Launch Control Center is one of 15 centers where missilemen from Malmstrom Air Force Base are on duty. “Take an ordinary house that is already 40 years old,” says Colonel Jeff Frankhauser, commander of the base maintenance team, “and bury it underground. And then think about how you will repair everything there. That's the same situation with us."

This missile base includes 150 nuclear ballistic missiles scattered across 35,000 km2 of launch sites in the mountains, hills and plains of Montana. Due to the large distance between the mines, the USSR could not disable all launch positions and command posts with one massive missile strike, which guaranteed America the possibility of a retaliatory strike.

This elegant doctrine of mutual deterrence implied the mandatory existence of a developed infrastructure. In particular, all these mines and command posts are interconnected by hundreds of thousands of kilometers of underground cables. The fist-thick bundles are woven from hundreds of insulated copper wires and laid in jackets that are pressurized. If the air pressure in the pipe drops, the maintenance team concludes that a crack has formed somewhere in the containment.

The communication system that spreads across the surrounding expanse is a matter of constant concern for the personnel of the Malmstrom base. Every day, hundreds of people - 30 teams at the control panels, 135 maintenance workers and 206 security fighters - go to work, keeping this whole economy in order. Some command posts are three hours away from the base. Heroes offended by fate, who are called Farsiders at the base, yearn in them. Jeeps, trucks and bulky self-propelled units dart around the surrounding roads every day to extract missiles from underground, and the total length of the roads at this base is 40,000 km, 6,000 of which are primers improved with gravel.

The mines were built on small plots purchased from the previous owners. You can freely wander along the fence, but you just have to go behind it, and the security service can open fire to kill.

The slogan reigns here: “Our norm is perfection,” and in order to ensure that no one ever forgets about this tough principle, a whole army of controllers looks after the staff. Any mistake may result in suspension from duty until the violator retakes the qualification exam. Such captious control applies to all services of the missile base.

The cook will receive a strict reprimand from the officer for using expired sauce for the salad or not cleaning the hood over the stove in time. And rightly so - food poisoning can undermine the combat readiness of a launch platoon with the same success as an enemy commando team would. Caution to the point of paranoia is a basic principle for all who serve on this base. “At first glance, it may seem that we are playing it safe,” says Colonel Mohammed Khan (until the very end of 2010 he served at the Malmstrom base as commander of the 341st Missile Battalion), “but look at this matter seriously, here we have real nuclear warheads ".

Weekdays of the bunker

To launch a nuclear ballistic missile, one turn of the key is not enough. If an appropriate command arrives at the India launch center, Dieterle and his deputy, Captain Ted Jivler, must verify the encryption sent from the White House with the cipher stored in the center's steel safes.

Then each of them will take their own triangular switch, fixing their eyes on the electronic clock ticking between the blocks of electronic equipment. At a given moment, they must turn the switches from the "ready" position to the "start" position. At the same moment, two rocket men on the other launcher will turn their switches - and only after that the ballistic missile will break free.

Each mine is suitable for only one launch. In the very first seconds, electronic components, ladders, communication cables, safety sensors and sump pumps will burn out or melt in it. Above the hills of Montana, a ring of smoke will rise, ridiculously exactly repeating the outlines of a mine vent. Relying on a column of reactive gases, the rocket will break out into outer space in a matter of minutes. Another half an hour, and the warheads would begin to fall on their targets.

The striking power of the weapons entrusted to these rocket men, and the entire measure of responsibility entrusted to them, is clearly emphasized by the harsh situation in the bunker. In the far corner is a simple mattress, fenced off with a black curtain so that the light does not hit the eyes. “It’s not a great pleasure to wake up in this nook,” says Dieterle.

And it's time for us to return to the world that rocket scientists call "real". Dieterle pulls on the handle of the black shockproof plug until it begins to rotate smoothly. He gives us a reserved smile as we leave, and the door slams shut behind us with a heavy thud. We are going up, and there, below, Dieterle remains and the same as him, in tense eternal expectation.

Donald Trump Doctrine

You may have thought before that America's nuclear arsenal, with its thousands of thermonuclear warheads that could destroy the entire population of the Earth, could convince any adversary not to use theirs against the US.

You were wrong.

The Pentagon expressed dissatisfaction with the fact that American nuclear weapons are inexpediently powerful. It is old, unreliable, and so destructive that perhaps even President Trump would not want to use it if the enemy used smaller nuclear bombs on a hypothetical battlefield.

American military experts and weapons designers decided to create something more suitable for warfare, so that the president would have more options in case of emergency. According to their plan, this will become an even more convincing deterrent for opponents. But it may turn out that such new bombs could increase the likelihood of nuclear weapons being used in armed conflict, with catastrophic consequences.

That Trump would be all-in-one for improving America's nuclear arsenal would come as no surprise, given his penchant for boasting about his country's unsurpassed military might. He was overjoyed when, in April 2017, one of his generals ordered the first ever drop on Afghanistan of the most powerful non-nuclear bomb available.

Under current nuclear doctrine, the Obama administration intended the US to use nuclear weapons only "as a last resort" to protect the vital interests of the country or its allies. Then it was forbidden to use it as a political tool to rein in weaker states.

But for Trump, who has already threatened to unleash "fire and fury like the world has never seen" on North Korea, this seems too harsh an approach. He and his advisers seem to want nuclear weapons to be used in conflicts of any severity with great force and brandished like the club of the apocalypse to scare those who disobey.

To improve the US arsenal, two kinds of changes in nuclear policy are required. Changing existing doctrine to remove restrictions on the deployment of such weapons in wartime, and allowing the development and manufacture of new generations of nuclear weapons, including for tactical strikes.

All this will be spelled out in the new Nuclear Posture Review (NPR), which will be formed by the end of this year or early next.

Until then, its exact content will remain unknown, but even after that, the Americans will have access to an extremely stripped-down version of the document, most of which is secret. However, some of the general provisions of the Review are already clear from the statements of the president and the generals.

And one more obvious fact. The review will remove restrictions on the use of weapons of mass destruction of any kind, regardless of their level of destructiveness, making the most powerful nuclear arsenal on the planet even more formidable.

Let's change the way we look at nuclear weapons

The strategic direction in the new Review is likely to have far-reaching implications. As former National Security Council Director of Arms Control and Non-Proliferation John Wolfsthal said in a recent issue of Arms Control, this document will affect "the image of America, the President, and nuclear capability in the eyes of allies and adversaries." More importantly, the review sets the vector for decisions that shape the management, maintenance, and modernization of the nuclear arsenal and influence how Congress views and finances nuclear forces.”

With that in mind, consider the recommendations outlined in the Obama Administration's Review of the Times. It came as the White House sought to restore America's prestige in the world following international condemnation of President Bush's actions in Iraq and just six months after Barack Obama won the Nobel Prize for his intention to ban the use of nuclear weapons. Non-proliferation was the priority.

As a result, the use of nuclear weapons was limited in almost any circumstances on any battlefield imaginable. The main purpose of the Review was to reduce "the role of US nuclear weapons in US national security".

As noted in the document, America only once considered the possibility of using nuclear weapons against Soviet tank formations, for example, in a major European conflict. It was assumed that in such a situation the USSR would have an advantage in traditional types of weapons.

In the military-political situation of 2010, of course, little remains of those times, as well as of the Soviet Union. Washington, as noted in the Review, is now the undisputed leader in the traditional understanding of defense. "Accordingly, the United States will continue to strengthen traditional capabilities and reduce the role of nuclear weapons in deterring non-nuclear attacks."

A nuclear strategy focused solely on deterring a first strike against the United States or its allies is unlikely to require a huge stockpile of weapons. As a result, this approach opened the way for further reductions in the size of the nuclear arsenal and led in 2010 to the signing of a new treaty with Russia, which ordered a significant reduction in the number of nuclear warheads and delivery systems for both countries.

Each side was to limit itself to 1,550 warheads and 700 delivery systems, including intercontinental ballistic missiles, submarine-launched ballistic missiles and heavy bombers.

However, this approach has never suited representatives of the defense department and conservative research institutes. Critics of this kind have often pointed to possible changes in Russian military doctrine that would make it more likely to use nuclear weapons in a large-scale war with NATO if Russia's position in the war began to deteriorate.

Such "strategic deterrence" - a phrase that has different meanings for Russia and the West - could lead to the use of low-yield "tactical" nuclear weapons against enemy strongholds if Russian forces in Europe were on the brink of defeat.

To what extent this version corresponds to Russian reality, no one really knows. However, something similar is often associated in the West by those who believe that Obama's nuclear strategy is hopelessly outdated and gives Moscow an excuse to increase the importance of nuclear weapons in its doctrine.

Such complaints were often voiced in the New Administration's Seven Defense Priorities, a December 2016 report by the US Department of Defense Science Council, which is a Pentagon-funded advisory group that reports regularly to the Secretary of Defense. "We are still not sure that if we reduce the importance of nuclear weapons for our state, other countries will do the same."

According to the report, Russia's strategy involves the use of low-yield tactical nuclear strikes to deter a NATO attack. While many Western analysts doubt the correctness of such claims, the Pentagon's Science Council insists that the United States should develop such weapons and be prepared to use them.

According to the report, Washington needs "a more flexible nuclear weapons system that can, if necessary, launch a rapid and accurate nuclear strike against a limited area of ​​destruction if existing conventional and nuclear weapons options prove ineffective."

This approach is now inspiring the Trump administration to do more in this area, as can be seen in some of the president's Twitter tweets. “The United States must strengthen and expand its nuclear capabilities so that the whole world again remembers the volume of our weapons,” Donald Trump wrote on December 22, 2016.

Although he didn't write specifically (because it was a short tweet), his thought is an accurate reflection of the views of Trump's Science Council and advisers.

Assuming the position of commander in chief, Trump signed a presidential memorandum instructing the secretary of defense to review the nuclear situation and ensure that "the US nuclear deterrent is modern, reliable, ready to use and can meet the challenges of the 21st century and be convincing in the eyes of allies" .

The details of the Review, which will appear in the Trump era, are not yet known. However, he will certainly undo all of Obama's achievements and put nuclear weapons on a pedestal.

Arsenal expansion

The Trump Review will advance the creation of new nuclear weapons systems that will be major players with an expanded set of strike options. In particular, the administration is believed to be in favor of acquiring "low-yield tactical nuclear weapons" and even more delivery systems, including air- and ground-launched cruise missiles. The justification for this, of course, will be the thesis that ammunition of this kind is necessary to match Russian achievements in this area.

According to inside sources, the development of such tactical ammunition is also being considered, which could, for example, destroy a large port or military base, and not immediately an entire city, as was the case in Hiroshima. As one anonymous government official put it in Politico, "Having this capability is critical."

Another politician added that "when compiling the Review, the military should be asked about what they need to deter enemies" and whether current weapons "will be useful in all scenarios that we envision."
It must be kept in mind that under the Obama administration, plans and initial multimillion-dollar design work to "modernize" America's nuclear arsenal for many decades to come have already been agreed upon. From this perspective, Trump's nuclear era was already in full swing at the time of his inauguration.

And, of course, the United States already possesses several types of nuclear weapons, including the B61 "gravity bomb" and the W80 missile warhead, which can be scaled down to several kilotons.

A typical delivery system would be a weapon used outside the air defense zone - a modern long-range cruise missile that could be carried by the B-2 bomber, its older brother B-52 or the B-21 under development.

A world ready for a nuclear winter

The publication of the new Review will undoubtedly spark debate about whether a country with a nuclear arsenal sufficient to destroy several Earth-sized planets really needs new nuclear weapons, and whether this will lead to another global arms race.

In November 2017, the Congressional Budget Office released a report showing that the cost of replacing all three branches of the US nuclear triad over 30 years would be at least $1.2 billion, not counting inflation and incremental costs that could push that figure up to $1.7 billion. billion dollars or more.

The problem of the justification of all these new types of weapons and their cosmic cost is extremely relevant today. One thing is certain: any decision to purchase such weapons will mean long-term budget cuts in other sectors - health care, education, infrastructure or the fight against the opioid epidemic.

Yet questions of cost and adequacy are the easiest part of the new nuclear puzzle. It is based on the very idea of ​​"applicability". When Obama insisted that nuclear weapons should never be used on the battlefield, he was talking not only about America, but about all countries. "To end the Cold War mindset," he said in Prague in April 2009, "we will reduce the role of nuclear weapons in our national security strategy and encourage others to do the same."

If the Trump White House supports a doctrine that would erase the distinction between nuclear and conventional weapons, turning them into equal instruments of coercion and war, that would make an escalation to total thermonuclear annihilation of the planet the most likely in the last few decades.
For example, there is no doubt that such a stance has prompted other countries with nuclear weapons, including Russia, China, India, Israel, Pakistan and North Korea, to consider using them in future conflicts. It may even encourage countries that do not currently have nuclear weapons to consider building one.

Obama's view of nuclear weapons was fundamentally different from the views of the Cold War, when the possibility of a thermonuclear holocaust between the planet's two superpowers was a daily reality, and millions of people went to anti-nuclear demonstrations.

With the threat of Armageddon gone, the fear of nuclear weapons gradually evaporated and the protests ended. Unfortunately, nuclear weapons themselves and the companies that created them are alive and well. Now that the peaceful period of the post-nuclear era is coming to an end, the zone, the idea of ​​using nuclear weapons, which during the Cold War was hardly even allowed in the mind, may cease to be something special.

Or at least it will, unless once again the citizens of this planet take to the streets to protest against a future in which cities lie in smoldering ruins and millions of people die of hunger and radiation sickness.

World leaders in October 2018 managed to inflame the international political situation to the limit. First, Donald Trump remembered US nuclear weapons and said that the country could withdraw from the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty, which was signed by Gorbachev and Reagan in 1987. This treaty regulated the elimination of a whole class of weapons intended, including including, for the delivery of nuclear warheads to the territory of the main conditional opponents of that time.

What did Putin say about nuclear war?

And after Trump expressed the opinion that the United States could reconsider its participation in the treaty, Vladimir Putin without thinking twice expressed his vision of this issue, which is best quoted:

“The aggressor must know that retribution is inevitable, that he will be destroyed. And we are a victim of aggression. We, as martyrs, will go to heaven. And they just die. Because they won’t even have time to repent”

These words reverberated across the planet like lightning, bringing peace back to the days of the Cold War, when the major superpowers regularly flexed their muscles and threatened to use nuclear weapons. It seemed to many that these times were long gone, because after the signing of the INF Treaty, Russia and the United States, in fact, lost the opportunity to launch a nuclear strike without harming the other side. To do this, it is necessary that missiles with nuclear charges have a minimum flight time, and this can only be achieved with the help of medium and short-range missiles. Despite the fact that, under the terms of the treaty, such missiles should have been completely destroyed almost 30 years ago, today not only these two superpowers, but also many others have them. The United States was especially successful in this, where, apparently, they were not going to curtail engineering and design work on the production of this type of weapon.

What nuclear weapons does the US have

The United States, as a pioneer country in terms of creating nuclear weapons, today has the most impressive potential of this deadly type of weapon. But you need to understand that the nuclear bomb itself and the means of its delivery, i.e. rocket is not the same thing. Therefore, even despite the large number of US-made nuclear weapons, the potential for their use remains limited by the delivery vehicles on which they can be placed.

Generally speaking, today the United States has:

Total nuclear charges - 1481 units, including:

- for intercontinental ballistic missiles and aircraft - 481 units;

- for submarines - 920 units.

Total nuclear charge carriers - 741 units, including:

- intercontinental ballistic missiles - 431 units;

- submarines capable of carrying ballistic missiles - 59 units;

- strategic bombers - 80 units.

US nuclear weapons are geographically distributed throughout the world. A significant part of the US nuclear arsenal is located in Europe and Turkey. Submarines with nuclear missiles ply the waters of the Atlantic, the Mediterranean Sea and the Persian Gulf. And, of course, on the North American continent itself there are dozens of places where nuclear weapons are concentrated, some of which do not look like military installations.

As you know, in 1963 and 1966. treaties were signed that introduced a ban on nuclear testing in the United States, the USSR and other countries. The superpowers constantly increased the power of exploding nuclear bombs, and when in 1961 the 50-megaton Tsar Bomba was tested in the USSR, the explosion of which was recorded by sensors all over the planet, many thought that the end of the world was already close. As a result of the signing of the 1966 treaty, countries lost the opportunity to test the types of nuclear weapons they produce, although some states did not join it for a long time. In 2015, when the United States needed to test the latest modification of the latest B61 atomic bomb, a variant of the rocket without a warhead was used for this. In addition, all nuclear tests in the US are simulated on a supercomputer.

Is the US preparing for a nuclear war with Russia?

Whether it is possible to use nuclear weapons in the near future, we already spoke when we discussed the prospects for an offensive. We repeat that from the point of view of the interests of those in power, such a conflict is unlikely in the coming years, because no one wants to cut the branch on which he “lives”, i.e. destroy their own planet, where people like Trump or Putin feel like masters. Even if we assume that the US will develop an ultra-fast and targeted version of a nuclear attack on Russia, this will inevitably provoke a response, similar to the one that Putin spoke about in the words already mentioned above. Yes, and if you look at the policy of the Russian president with an open mind, you can understand that he is closely, and in fact plays with her on the same side.

Therefore, all the words about withdrawal from the missile treaty, the use of nuclear weapons or martyrdom are just ostentatious bravado, designed to once again exacerbate the world political confrontation and make people live in constant fear of the future. We have already mentioned that he is a man put at the head of the United States in order to rock the boat of world politics and economics, and ideally turn everything upside down. And so far he has been successful in doing this, because if this continues, the world will slide into the abyss of global chaos by the beginning of next year.

Economist, analyst. He studied at a special gymnasium, then at the Donetsk National
University of Economics and Trade with a degree in Finance. Graduated from magistracy and
graduate school, after which he worked for several years as a researcher in one of the
institutes of the National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine. At the same time, I received a second
higher education in the specialty "Philosophy and Religious Studies". Prepared for
PhD thesis in economics. I write scientific and journalistic articles with
2010. I am fond of economics, politics, science, religion and many others.

In a recent televised debate, Republican nominee and businessman Donald Trump said Russia is "expanding its nuclear forces, adding that "they have much newer capabilities than we do."

Dr. Geoffrey Lewis, founder of Arms Control Wonk publishing house, refutes this claim - "although Russia has been updating its missiles and warheads lately, such a statement about Russia's capabilities is not true."

On paper, new, more sophisticated and terrifying weapons include Russia's nuclear arsenal. The Russian RS-24 Yars intercontinental ballistic missile, developed in the mid-2000s, can hit anything in the US, some reports suggest there are ten self-guided nuclear warheads.

Ten of these launched warheads will return to the earth's atmosphere at supersonic speeds, about 5 miles per second. China has developed similar platforms and the US simply does not have the ability to defend against such destructive nuclear weapons.

In comparison, the American Minuteman III ICBM enters the atmosphere at supersonic speeds but carries only one warhead and was produced back in the 1970s. The question of who is better is more philosophical than a direct comparison of possibilities.

Professor Lewis says US Strategic Commanders, who manage the US nuclear arsenal, have been asking for decades if they had a choice between arming the US and Russia, they would choose their own missiles and nuclear weapons each time.

In an interview with Business Insider, Lewis says the US arsenal, while lacking the capacity to devastate an entire continent, is far better suited to US strategic needs.

Russian and American arsenals

"The Russians used a different design solution in the design of ICBMs than we did." says the professor - "Russia has built nuclear weapons with increasing momentum of modernization", or, in other words, these weapons will need to be updated every ten years.

On the other hand, “US nuclear weapons are beautiful, complex and designed for high performance. Experts say that the plutonium core will last for 100 years. Moreover, the US stocks of Minuteman III ICBM, despite their age, are perfect systems.

“Russia’s nuclear weapons are new, but they reflect their design philosophy, which says “there’s no reason to build perfect because we’ll just upgrade in 10 years.”

"The Russians like to mount missiles on trucks," Lewis said, while the US prefers ground-based silos, which give precise targeting and lack of mobility. At the height of the Cold War, the US at some point tried to fit ICBMs onto trucks, but US weapon safety and durability requirements far exceed Russian requirements.

The US can't make systems like the Russians because we're not going to put missiles on a cheap truck,” Prof. Lewis argues. Russian philosophy relies on tricks to eliminate the threat, trying to invest less.

“The US is investing and developing robust systems that will actually provide protection,” Lewis explained. This is the main difference between American and Russian developments.

“Sergeants are the core of the American army, compared to Russia, where conscripts are still the main forces. The US prefers precision over destructive potential.”

“We love precision,” says Lewis. For the US, the ideal nuclear weapon is a tiny nuclear weapon that will fly right through the window and blow up the building. ‘And the Russians prefer to launch 10 warheads not only on the building, but on the whole city.

A clear example of this is the air campaign in Syria, in consequence of which the Russians were accused of using cluster bombs, incendiary munitions and bombing hospitals and refugee camps. This casual and brutal attitude is a defining feature of Russia's military.

Another example is the Russian Status 6 torpedo, which can travel 100 knots at a distance of 6,200 miles and can not only produce a nuclear explosion, but leave behind a radioactive field for years to come. The US does not welcome this kind of destruction.

How the US plans to keep Russia's nuclear power.

Professor Lewis explained that the US really cannot defend itself against Russia and the most advanced nuclear weapons. Russian nuclear ICBMs will go into orbit, deploy, split into warheads, and detonate individual targets moving at Mach 23. The US simply cannot develop a system that would destroy ten of these nuclear warheads hurtling at incredible speed towards the US.

One possible solution would be to destroy the missiles before they leave the atmosphere, which means shooting them down over Russia, which can also lead to other problems. Another option is to destroy the missiles from satellites in space, but according to Lewis, the US will then have to increase satellite launches 12 times before they have enough space assets to protect the US.

Instead of wasting time, trillions of dollars, and heating up the arms race, the US is hoping for a doctrine of mutually assured destruction. Lewis also explained that during the days of John F. Kennedy's presidency, the US was puzzled about how to raise its nuclear arsenal. The Kennedy administration decided to build enough nuclear weapons to destroy the Soviet Union if necessary. The administration called the doctrine "assured destruction," but critics pointed out that a nuclear deal would work both ways, so a better name would be "mutually assured destruction," which was contrary to Kennedy's policies.

Russian President Vladimir Putin once said that Russia could destroy the US in 'half an hour or less,' using its nuclear weapons. But the fact is that Minutemen III missiles will blow up the Kremlin seconds later.

The US believes it is more secure to have a nuclear triad available at any time. Submarines, land-based silos and bombers all have nuclear missiles. No attacks from Russia will be able to neutralize all three types of weapons at the same time.

Accurate, professionally controlled nuclear weapons are a reliable deterrent for the US without endangering billions of lives.

Report Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff of the United States Armed Forces General Martin Dempsey, which deals with targeting Russia's nuclear capability, is not some new word in American politics.

On the contrary, it is a continuation of a decades-long story about the attempts of the United States to force first the Soviet Union, and now Russia, to live with, figuratively speaking, a “nuclear gun” put to the temple.

The first plans for the use of American atomic weapons against the USSR began to be developed in 1945, that is, immediately after such weapons appeared in the US arsenal.

The first plan for inflicting an atomic strike on the USSR with the name "Totality" was developed at the end of 1945 and provided for an atomic strike on 20 largest cities of the Soviet Union.

Following this plan, another series of similar ones was developed, in each of which the number of targets and used atomic bombs only increased.

The tasks of the war against the USSR were formulated in a memorandum approved in August 1948 called "Tasks in relation to Russia." According to him, after the US victory, Russia:

1. should not be so strong militarily as to threaten neighbors;
2. must grant broad autonomy to national minorities;
3. must be economically dependent on the outside world;
4. should not install a new Iron Curtain.

As part of the military plans of the United States, atomic strikes on the territory of the Soviet Union were supposed to be carried out from military bases located in US allied countries in Europe and Asia.

The Caribbean Crisis started in Turkey

The appearance of its own atomic bomb in 1949 in the arsenal of the Soviet Union did not force American strategists to completely abandon such plans, but forced them to act with an eye on the response of the USSR.

Despite this, by the beginning of the 1960s, the superiority of the United States in nuclear forces remained undeniable. The United States was armed with up to 6,000 nuclear warheads against 300 Soviet ones.

The United States continued to increase pressure on the USSR. In 1961, by order of US President John F. Kennedy, 15 American PGM-19 Jupiter medium-range missiles with nuclear warheads were deployed near the Turkish city of Izmir.

The range of these missiles was 2,400 kilometers, which allowed them to hit the European part of the USSR, including Moscow.

The main advantage of medium-range missiles is the minimum time to reach the target. The flight time of American missiles from Turkey was less than 10 minutes. Thus, the ability of the Soviet side to take countermeasures in the event of a strike was reduced to a minimum.

The already shaky military parity was violated. The indignation of the Soviet side was not taken into account by official Washington.

It was in response to the deployment of American missiles in Turkey that Operation Anadyr was developed - a plan to deploy Soviet medium-range missiles in Cuba, which from Liberty Island could target Washington and American strategic bomber bases.

Thus began what in the history of the 20th century is known as the Caribbean Crisis.

American missiles in Turkey are rarely remembered in connection with this crisis, although it was their deployment that became the root cause of subsequent events.

After the crisis was resolved, the American side, without advertising this fact too much, declared the missiles deployed in Turkey "obsolete", dismantled them and took them to the United States.

Pershing vs Pioneer

In 1979, the NATO Council decided to deploy more than 500 American medium-range missiles with nuclear warheads in Europe. Such a decision, according to Western politicians, was supposed to be a response to the adoption of the Soviet Pioneer medium-range missile system. This then-new system, known in Europe as the SS-20, greatly frightened European politicians, who believed that with its help the Soviet Union was able to destroy NATO's European military infrastructure in a matter of minutes.

It is worth noting that Pioneer missile systems replaced obsolete Soviet systems and were placed exclusively on the territory of the Soviet Union.

Came to power in the USA President Ronald Reagan sought from the USSR the elimination of Pioneer missiles in exchange for the non-deployment of American missiles in Europe. The Soviet side reasonably pointed out that the US proposal did not take into account the presence in Europe of US and British medium-range missiles, which also carry nuclear weapons.

The situation escalated to the limit in 1983, when, after the well-known incident with the South Korean Boeing, Reagan called the USSR an "evil empire" and ordered the deployment of American nuclear missiles in Europe. Missile systems were deployed on the territory of Great Britain, Italy, Belgium and the Netherlands, and it was also decided to deploy missiles on the territory of Germany.

In response, the Soviet side announced the deployment of its missiles on the territory of Czechoslovakia and the GDR.

By 1987, 108 Pershing-2 missile launchers and 64 Tomahawk missile launchers were deployed in West Germany. There were 112 launchers of American Tomahawks in Great Britain, 112 in Italy, 16 in the Netherlands. In Belgium, the positions of American cruise missiles were curtailed.

Gorbachev-Reagan Pact

December 8, 1987 in Washington, the heads of the USSR and the USA Mikhail Gorbachev and Ronald Reagan signed the Treaty on the Elimination of Intermediate-Range Missiles, which entered into force on June 1, 1988. The parties to the treaty pledged not to manufacture, test or deploy ground-based ballistic and cruise missiles of medium (from 1,000 to 5,500 kilometers) and short (from 500 to 1,000 kilometers) range.

When signing this treaty, the Soviet side made significant concessions. In particular, at the insistence of the Americans, it included the latest Soviet Oka missile system with a launch range of less than 50 kilometers, which was not covered by the agreement.

Domestic military experts considered this step a mistake bordering on a crime.

By June 1991, the agreement was fully implemented: the USSR destroyed 1846 missile systems; USA - 846 complexes.

In 2000, after the US announced its withdrawal from the ABM Treaty, Russian President Vladimir Putin announced the possibility of Russia withdrawing from the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty. Subsequently, such an intention was voiced by both Putin himself and the Russian military more than once. At the same time, Russia has not officially announced its withdrawal from the treaty.

"Stone" in the bosom

Statements by the American side about Russia's violation of the 1987 treaty began to sound more and more often after the adoption of the Iskander operational-tactical missile system, according to NATO classification SS-26 or "Stone". The missiles of the Iskander complex can be equipped with both conventional and nuclear warheads. The declared range of the Iskander missiles does not violate the provisions of the agreement concluded between the USSR and the USA, but the American side is trying to dispute this.

According to the plans of the Russian Ministry of Defense, all missile brigades of the Russian ground forces by 2018 should be re-equipped with Iskander complexes.

The American side, speaking about the aggressive plans of Russia, does not like to mention that the US nuclear weapons are currently located in Europe. We are talking about tactical nuclear weapons - nuclear munitions, whose equivalent does not exceed a few kilotons, designed to destroy large targets and concentrations of enemy forces at the front and in the immediate rear.

After the withdrawal of the Russian army from the territory of the states of Eastern Europe, the Russian side repeatedly called on the United States to remove its tactical nuclear arsenal from the Old Continent. Despite this, between 150 and 250 US tactical nuclear weapons with a total yield of over 18 megatons are still stationed in Germany, Italy, Belgium, the Netherlands and Turkey.

At present, the behavior of official Washington suggests that we can talk not about reducing, but only about building up this potential.