American nuclear weapons. How are US nuclear weapons different from Russian ones? How the US plans to maintain Russia's nuclear power
Report Chairman of the Chiefs of Staff Committee armed forces US General Martin Dempsey, which examines those targeting the Russian nuclear potential, is not some new word in American politics.
On the contrary, it is a continuation of a decades-long history of attempts by the United States to first coerce Soviet Union, and now Russia has to live with, figuratively speaking, a “nuclear pistol” to its head.
The first plans for the use of American atomic weapons against the USSR began to be developed in 1945, that is, immediately after similar weapons appeared in US service.
The first plan for an atomic strike on the USSR, called “Totality,” was developed at the end of 1945 and included an atomic strike on 20 of the largest cities of the Soviet Union.
Following this plan, a series of similar ones were developed, in each of which the number of targets and atomic bombs used only increased.
The objectives of the war against the USSR were formulated in a memorandum approved in August 1948 entitled “Objectives regarding Russia”. According to him, after the US victory, Russia:
- should not be so militarily strong that it threatens its neighbors;
- must grant broad autonomy to national minorities;
- must be economically dependent on the outside world;
- should not establish a new “iron curtain”.
As part of the military plans of the United States, it was planned to launch atomic strikes on the territory of the Soviet Union from military bases located in countries allied to the United States in Europe and Asia.
The Caribbean crisis began in Turkey
The appearance of the Soviet Union's own atomic bomb in 1949 did not force American strategists to completely abandon such plans, but forced them to act with an eye on the USSR's response.
Despite this, by the beginning of the 1960s, the US superiority in nuclear forces ah remained undeniable. The United States had up to 6,000 nuclear warheads in its arsenal, versus 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 missiles were deployed near the Turkish city of Izmir. medium range PGM-19 "Jupiter" with nuclear warheads.
The range of these missiles was 2,400 kilometers, which allowed them to hit European part 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 Soviet side's ability to take countermeasures in the event of an attack was reduced to a minimum.
The already precarious military parity was broken. 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 keep Washington and American strategic bomber bases at gunpoint.
Thus began what is known in 20th-century history as the “Carribean 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 too much this fact, declared the missiles stationed in Turkey “obsolete”, dismantled and transported them to the United States.
"Pershing" versus "Pioneer"
In 1979, the NATO Council decided to deploy more than 500 American medium-range nuclear-tipped missiles in Europe. Such a decision, according to Western politicians, should have been a response to the adoption of the Soviet medium-range missile system Pioneer. This then-new system, known in Europe as the SS-20, greatly frightened European politicians, who believed that with its help the Soviet Union would be able to destroy NATO's European military infrastructure in a matter of minutes.
It is worth noting that missile systems"Pioneer" replaced outdated Soviet systems and were located 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, also carrying nuclear weapon.
The situation became extremely tense in 1983, when, after the famous incident with the South Korean Boeing, Reagan called the USSR an “evil empire” and gave the order to deploy American nuclear missiles in Europe. Missile systems were deployed in Great Britain, Italy, Belgium and the Netherlands, and a decision was made to deploy missiles in Germany.
In response, the Soviet side announced the deployment of its missiles on the territory of Czechoslovakia and the GDR.
By 1987, 108 were deployed in West Germany launchers Pershing 2 missiles and 64 Tomahawk missiles. There were 112 launchers of American Tomahawks in Great Britain, 112 in Italy, and 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 Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty, which entered into force on June 1, 1988. The parties to the treaty pledged not to produce, test or deploy ballistic and cruise missiles ground-based medium (from 1000 to 5500 kilometers) and short (from 500 to 1000 kilometers) range.
Upon signing of this agreement the Soviet side made significant concessions. In particular, at the insistence of the Americans, it included the newest 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 1,846 missile systems; USA - 846 complexes.
In 2000, after the United States announced its withdrawal from the Treaty on the Limitation of the Missile Defense System, Russian President Vladimir Putin announced the possibility of Russia withdrawing from the Treaty on the Elimination of Intermediate-Range and Short-Range Missiles. Subsequently, such an intention was voiced by both Putin himself and the Russian military more than once. At the same time, Russia did not officially announce its abandonment of the treaty.
"Stone" in the bosom
Statements from the American side about Russia’s violation of the 1987 treaty began to be heard more and more often after the adoption of the Iskander operational-tactical missile system, according to NATO classification SS-26 or “Stone,” into service. The Iskander missiles can be equipped with both a conventional and a nuclear warhead. The declared flight range of the Iskander missiles does not violate the provisions of the treaty concluded between the USSR and the USA, but the American side is trying to challenge this.
According to the plans of the Russian Ministry of Defense, all missile brigades of the Russian ground forces should be re-equipped with Iskander complexes by 2018.
The American side, speaking about Russia’s aggressive plans, does not like to mention that US nuclear weapons are currently stationed in Europe. We are talking about tactical nuclear weapons - nuclear weapons, the equivalent of which does not exceed several kilotons, designed to destroy large targets and concentrations of enemy forces at the front and in the immediate rear.
After withdrawal Russian army From the territory of Eastern European states, the Russian side has repeatedly called on the United States to remove its tactical nuclear arsenal from the Old Continent. Despite this, from 150 to 250 US tactical nuclear weapons with a total yield of over 18 megatons are still stationed in Germany, Italy, Belgium, the Netherlands and Turkey.
Currently, the behavior of official Washington suggests that we may not be talking about reducing, but only about increasing this potential.
The new US nuclear doctrine, published in April 2010, declares that “ The primary purpose of US nuclear weapons is to deter a nuclear attack on the US, its allies and partners. This purpose will remain so as long as nuclear weapons exist" United States " will consider the use of nuclear weapons only in extreme circumstances to protect the vital interests of the United States, its allies and partners».
However, the United States are not prepared today to endorse a universal policy recognizing that deterring a nuclear attack is the sole function of nuclear weapons" With regard to nuclear-weapon states and non-nuclear-weapon states that, in Washington’s assessment, are not fulfilling their obligations under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), “ There remains a small set of additional contingencies in which nuclear weapons may still play a role in deterring a conventional or chemical and biological attack against the United States and its allies and partners.».
However, it is not disclosed what is meant by the above-mentioned unforeseen circumstances. This should be regarded as a serious uncertainty in US nuclear policy, which cannot but influence the defense policies of other leading states of the world.
To carry out the tasks assigned to nuclear forces, the United States has strategic offensive forces (SNF) and non-strategic nuclear weapons (NSNW). According to US State Department data published on May 3, 2010, the United States nuclear arsenal as of September 30, 2009 consisted of 5,113 nuclear warheads. In addition, several thousand obsolete nuclear warheads, removed from stockpiles, were awaiting dismantling or destruction.
1. Strategic offensive forces
The US SNA is a nuclear triad consisting of land, sea and air components. Each component of the triad has its own advantages, therefore the new US nuclear doctrine recognizes that “the preservation of all three components of the triad in the best possible way will ensure strategic stability with acceptable financial costs and at the same time provide insurance in case of problems with technical condition and the vulnerability of existing forces.”
1.1. Ground component
The ground component of the US SNA consists of strategic missile systems equipped with intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs). ICBM forces have significant advantages over other components of the SNA due to their highly secure control and management system, calculated in several minutes of combat readiness and relatively low costs for combat and operational training. They can be effectively used in pre-emptive and retaliatory strikes to destroy stationary targets, including highly protected ones.
By expert assessments, at the end of 2010, the ICBM forces had 550 silo launchers at three missile bases(silos), of which for the Minuteman-3 ICBM - 50, for the Minuteman-3M ICBM - 300, for the Minuteman-3S ICBM - 150 and for the MX ICBM - 50 (all silos are impact protected wave 70–140 kg/cm 2):
Currently, ICBM forces are subordinate to the US Air Force Global Strike Command (AFGSC), created in August 2009.
All Minuteman ICBMs– three-stage solid-fuel rockets. Each of them carries from one to three nuclear warheads.
ICBM "Minuteman-3" began deployment in 1970. It was equipped with Mk-12 nuclear warheads (W62 warhead with a capacity of 170 kt). Maximum range firing range - up to 13,000 km.
ICBM "Minuteman-3M" began deployment in 1979. Equipped with Mk-12A nuclear warheads (335 kt W78 warhead). The maximum firing range is up to 13,000 km.
ICBM "Minuteman-3S" began deployment in 2006. Equipped with one Mk-21 nuclear warhead (300 kt W87 warhead). The maximum firing range is up to 13,000 km.
ICBM "MX"- three-stage solid-fuel rocket. Began deployment in 1986. Equipped with ten Mk-21 nuclear warheads. The maximum firing range is up to 9,000 km.
According to expert estimates, at the time of the entry into force of the START-3 Treaty (Treaty between the Russian Federation and the United States on measures for the further reduction and limitation of strategic offensive weapons) On February 5, 2011, the ground component of the US SNA had about 450 deployed ICBMs with approximately 560 warheads.
1.2. Marine component
The naval component of the US SNA consists of nuclear submarines equipped with intercontinental-range ballistic missiles. Their established names are SSBNs (nuclear-powered ballistic missile submarines) and SLBMs ( ballistic missiles submarines). SSBNs equipped with SLBMs are the most survivable component of the US SNA. According to current estimates, in the near and medium term there will be no real threat to the survivability of American SSBNs».
According to expert estimates, at the end of 2010, the naval component of the US strategic nuclear forces included 14 Ohio-class SSBNs, of which 6 SSBNs were based on the Atlantic coast (naval base Kingsbay, Georgia) and 8 SSBNs were based on the Pacific coast (naval base Kitsan, Washington). Each SSBN is equipped with 24 Trident-2 class SLBMs.
SLBM "Trident-2" (D-5)- three-stage solid-fuel rocket. It began to be deployed in 1990. It is equipped with either Mk-4 nuclear warheads and their modification Mk-4A (W76 warhead with a yield of 100 kt), or Mk-5 nuclear warheads (W88 warhead with a yield of 475 kt). The standard configuration is 8 warheads, the actual configuration is 4 warheads. The maximum firing range is over 7,400 km.
According to expert estimates, at the time the New START Treaty entered into force, the US naval component of the SNA had up to 240 deployed SLBMs with approximately 1,000 warheads.
1.3. Aviation component
The aviation component of the US SNA consists of strategic, or heavy, bombers capable of solving nuclear problems. Their advantage over ICBMs and SLBMs, according to the new US nuclear doctrine, is that they “ can be demonstratively deployed in regions to warn potential adversaries in crisis situations about strengthening nuclear deterrence and to reassure allies and partners of American commitments to ensure their security».
All strategic bombers have dual-mission status: they can carry out strikes using both nuclear and conventional weapons. According to expert estimates, at the end of 2010, the aviation component of the US SNA at five air bases in the continental United States included approximately 230 bombers of three types - B-52N, B-1B and B-2A (of which more than 50 units are in stock reserve ).
Currently strategic air force, like ICBM forces, are subordinate to the US Air Force Global Strike Command (AFGSC).
Strategic bomber B-52N- turboprop subsonic aircraft. It began to be deployed in 1961. Currently, only air-launched cruise missiles (ALCM) are intended for its nuclear equipment. long range AGM-86B and AGM-129A. The maximum flight range is up to 16,000 km.
B-1B strategic bomber- supersonic jet aircraft. It began to be deployed in 1985. Currently it is intended to perform non-nuclear missions, but has not yet been removed from the count of strategic carriers of nuclear weapons under the START-3 Treaty, since the relevant procedures provided for by this Treaty have not been completed. The maximum flight range is up to 11,000 km (with one in-flight refueling).
- subsonic jet aircraft. It began to be deployed in 1994. Currently, only B61 aerial bombs (modifications 7 and 11) of variable power (from 0.3 to 345 kt) and B83 (with a power of several megatons) are intended for its nuclear equipment. The maximum flight range is up to 11,000 km.
ALCM AGM-86В- subsonic air-launched cruise missile. It began to be deployed in 1981. It is equipped with a W80-1 warhead of variable power (from 3 to 200 kt). The maximum firing range is up to 2,600 km.
ALCM AGM-129A- subsonic cruise missile. Began deployment in 1991. Equipped with the same warhead as the AGM-86B missile. The maximum firing range is up to 4,400 km.
According to expert estimates, at the time of the entry into force of the START-3 Treaty, there were about 200 deployed bombers in the aviation component of the US SNA, which counted the same number of nuclear warheads (according to the rules of the START-3 Treaty, one warhead is conditionally counted for each deployed strategic bomber, since V daily activities all of them do not have nuclear weapons on board).
1.4. Combat control of strategic offensive forces
System combat control(SBU) The US SNA is a set of primary and reserve systems, including primary and reserve stationary and mobile (air and ground) controls, communications and automated data processing systems. The SBU provides automated collection, processing and transmission of data on the situation, development of orders, plans and calculations, bringing them to the executors and control of implementation.
Main combat control system is designed for the timely response of the SNS to a tactical warning about the beginning of nuclear missile strike across the USA. Its main bodies are the stationary main and reserve command centers of the Committee of the Chiefs of Staff of the US Armed Forces, the command and reserve command centers United strategic command US military command posts air armies, missile and aviation wings.
It is believed that in any scenario of the outbreak of a nuclear war, the combat crews of these control points will be able to organize measures to increase the combat readiness of the SNS and transmit the order to begin their combat use.
Backup combat control and communications system in emergency situations unites a number of systems, the main of which are reserve control systems for the US armed forces using air and ground mobile command posts.
1.5. Prospects for the development of strategic offensive forces
The current development program of the US SNA does not provide for the construction of new ICBMs, SSBNs and strategic bombers in the foreseeable period. At the same time, by reducing the total reserve of strategic nuclear weapons during the implementation of the START-3 Treaty, “ The United States will retain the ability to “reload” a certain amount nuclear charges as a technical hedge against any future problems with delivery systems and warheads, as well as in case of a significant deterioration in the security environment" Thus, the so-called “return potential” is formed by “demiring” ICBMs and reducing the number of warheads on SLBMs by half.
As follows from the report of US Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, presented to the American Congress in May 2010, after the fulfillment of the terms of the START III Treaty (February 2018) in combat strength The US SNA will have 420 Minuteman-3 ICBMs, 14 Ohio-class SSBNs with 240 Trident-2 SLBMs and up to 60 B-52H and B-2A bombers.
Multi-year, $7 billion, improvement of the Minuteman-3 ICBM under the Extension program life cycle Minuteman-3" with the goal of keeping these missiles in service until 2030 is almost completed.
As noted in the new US nuclear doctrine, " Although there is no need to make a decision in the next few years on any subsequent ICBM, exploratory studies on this issue should begin today. In this regard, in 2011–2012. The Department of Defense will begin studies to analyze alternatives. This study will examine a range of different ICBM development options with the goal of identifying a cost-effective approach that will support further reductions in U.S. nuclear weapons while ensuring sustainable deterrence.».
In 2008, production of a modified version of the Trident-2 D-5 LE (Life Extension) SLBM began. In total, by 2012, 108 of these missiles will be purchased for more than $4 billion. The Ohio-class SSBNs will be equipped with modified SLBMs for the remainder of their service life, which has been extended from 30 to 44 years. The first in the Ohio series of SSBNs is scheduled to be withdrawn from the fleet in 2027.
Since it takes a long time to design, build, test and deploy new SSBNs, the US Navy will begin exploratory studies to replace existing SSBNs starting in 2012. Depending on the results of the study, as noted in the new US nuclear doctrine, the feasibility of reducing the number of SSBNs from 14 to 12 units in the future may be considered.
As for the aviation component of the US SNA, the US Air Force is studying the possibility of creating strategic bombers capable of carrying nuclear weapons, which from 2018 should replace the current bombers. Moreover, as proclaimed in the new US nuclear doctrine, “ air Force will evaluate alternatives to inform decisions in the 2012 Budget on whether and how to replace existing long-range air-launched cruise missiles that will expire at the end of the next decade».
In the field of nuclear development combat equipment The main efforts in the United States in the coming years will be aimed at improving existing nuclear warheads. The development of a highly reliable nuclear warhead, begun in 2005 by the Department of Energy as part of the RRW (Reliable Replacement Warhead) project, has now been suspended.
As part of the implementation of the non-nuclear prompt global strike strategy, the United States continues to develop technologies for guided warheads and non-nuclear warheads for ICBMs and SLBMs. This work is being conducted under the leadership of the Office of the Secretary of Defense (Advanced Research Projects Agency), which eliminates duplication of research conducted by the branches of the armed forces, spends money more efficiently and ultimately speeds up the creation of high-precision combat equipment for strategic ballistic missiles.
Since 2009, a number of demonstration launches of prototypes of intercontinental-range delivery vehicles being created have been carried out, but no significant achievements have been achieved yet. According to expert estimates, the creation and deployment of high-precision ICBMs and SLBMs with non-nuclear equipment can hardly be expected before 2020.
2. Non-strategic nuclear weapons
After graduation cold war The United States has significantly reduced its NSNW (non-strategic nuclear weapons) arsenal. As emphasized in the new US nuclear doctrine, today the United States maintains only a limited number of forward-deployed nuclear weapons in Europe, and no a large number of in U.S. warehouses ready for global deployment in support of Extended Deterrence for allies and partners».
As of January 2011, the United States had approximately 500 operational non-strategic nuclear warheads. Among them are 400 B61 free-fall bombs of several modifications with variable power (from 0.3 to 345 kt) and 100 W80-O warheads of variable power (from 3 to 200 kt) for cruise missiles sea-based(SLCM) long-range (up to 2,600 km) "Tomahawk" (TLAM/N), adopted for service in 1984.
About half of the above air bombs are deployed at six US air bases in five NATO countries: Belgium, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands and Turkey. In addition, about 800 non-strategic nuclear warheads, including 190 W80-O warheads, are inactive in reserve.
American F-15 and F-16 fighter-bombers certified to perform nuclear missions, as well as aircraft of US NATO allies, can be used as carriers of nuclear bombs. Among the latter are Belgian and Dutch F-16 aircraft and German and Italian Tornado aircraft.
Tomahawk nuclear SLCMs are designed to arm multi-purpose nuclear submarines (NPS) and some types of surface ships. At the beginning of 2011, the US Navy had 320 missiles of this type in service. All of them are stored in the arsenals of naval bases on the continental United States in 24-36 hour readiness for loading onto nuclear submarines and surface ships, as well as special ammunition transports, including transport aircraft.
As for the prospects for American non-nuclear weapons, the new US nuclear doctrine concludes that it is necessary to adopt following measures :
— the Air Force must maintain a “dual-mission” fighter-bomber (that is, capable of using both conventional and nuclear weapons) after replacing the existing F-15 and F-16 aircraft with the F-35 all-purpose strike aircraft;
— continue to fully implement the Life Extension Program of the B61 nuclear bomb to ensure its compatibility with the F-35 aircraft and improve its operational safety, security from unauthorized access and control of use in order to increase confidence in it;
— remove the Tomahawk nuclear SLCM from service (this system is considered redundant in the US nuclear arsenal, and moreover, it has not been deployed since 1992).
3. Nuclear cuts in future
The new US nuclear doctrine states that the President of the United States has directed a review of possible future reductions in US strategic nuclear weapons below the levels established by the START III Treaty. It is emphasized that the scale and pace of subsequent reductions in US nuclear arsenals will be influenced by several factors.
Firstly, “Any future reductions should strengthen deterrence against potential regional adversaries, strategic stability with Russia and China, and reaffirm American security assurances to allies and partners.”
Secondly, “implementation of the program “Maintaining readiness nuclear arsenal“and the funding of nuclear infrastructure recommended by the US Congress (more than $80 billion is planned for this - V.E.) will allow the United States to abandon the practice of keeping a large number of undeployed nuclear warheads in reserve in case of technical or geopolitical surprises and thereby significantly reduce nuclear arsenal."
Third, “Russia’s nuclear forces will remain a significant factor in determining how much and how quickly the United States is willing to further reduce its nuclear forces.”
Given the above, the US administration will seek discussions with Russia on further reductions in nuclear arsenals and increased transparency. As stated, “this could be achieved through formal agreements and/or through parallel voluntary measures. Subsequent reductions must be larger in scale than provided for in previous bilateral agreements, covering all nuclear weapons of both states, and not just deployed strategic nuclear weapons.”
Assessing these intentions of Washington, it should be noted that they practically do not take into account Moscow’s concerns caused by:
— the deployment of the American global missile defense system, which could in the future weaken the deterrence potential of Russia’s strategic nuclear forces;
- the enormous superiority of the United States and its allies in conventional armed forces, which may increase even more with the adoption of the developed American systems precision weapons long range;
— the reluctance of the United States to support the draft treaty banning the deployment of any types of weapons in space, submitted by Russia and China to the Conference on Disarmament in Geneva in 2008.
Without finding mutually acceptable solutions to these problems, Washington is unlikely to be able to persuade Moscow to enter into new negotiations on further reductions in nuclear arsenals.
/V.I. Esin, Ph.D., leading researcher at the Center for Problems of Military-Industrial Policy, Institute of the USA and Canada Russian Academy Sciences, www.rusus.ru/
Military operations in Europe had barely ended when the United States was the first in the world to test an atomic bomb. This happened on July 16, 1945. However, the US nuclear program began much earlier.
The US program to develop atomic weapons started in October 1941 - the Americans feared that Nazi Germany would receive superweapons earlier and be able to launch a preemptive strike. This program went down in history as the Manhattan Project. The project was led by the American physicist Robert Oppenheimer, who was constantly under surveillance because he actively sympathized with the leftist movement. However, last fact did not prevent him from taking part in the development lethal weapon- The physicist was very worried about the events in Europe.
Researchers developed the Fat Man bomb, which operated on the basis of the decay of plutonium-239 and had an implosion detonation scheme. In addition, Oppenheimer commissioned a separate group to develop a bomb of simple design, which was supposed to work only on uranium-235 and was called “Baby”. It was this bomb that the Americans dropped on the Japanese city of Hiroshima on August 6, 1945.
It was decided to detonate first an implosion-type plutonium bomb, the explosion of which is directed inward. In fact, it was an analogue of the “Fat Man”, which did not have an outer shell.
Due to the top secrecy of the development, it was decided to conduct the tests in the south of New Mexico at a test site located approximately 100 km from Alamogordo.
The Trinity atomic bomb was installed on a steel tower two days before the test, on different distances from which seismographs, cameras, and instruments recording radiation levels and pressure were located.
The first nuclear explosion in the history of mankind occurred on July 16, 1945 at 5.30 local time, and the power of the explosion was 15-20 thousand tons of explosives in TNT equivalent. At the same time, the light from the explosion was visible at a distance of 290 km from the test site, and the sound spread over a distance of about 160 km.
“My first impression was the feeling of a very bright light flooding everything around, and when I turned around, I saw a picture now familiar to many fireball... Soon, literally 50 seconds after the explosion, the shock wave reached us. I was surprised at its comparative weakness. In fact, the shock wave was not that weak. It’s just that the flash of light was so strong and so unexpected that the reaction to it temporarily reduced our sensitivity,” military director of the Manhattan Project Leslie Groves.
In addition, in the center of the explosion, in a circle with a radius of 370 m, all vegetation was destroyed and a crater appeared, and the metal and concrete structures located there were completely evaporated. The cloud formed during the explosion rose to a height of 12.5 km - while traces of radioactive contamination were observed even at a distance of 160 km from the test site, and the contamination zone was about 50 km.
“We knew that the world would never be the same. A few people laughed, a few people cried. Most were silent. I remembered a line from holy book Hinduism, Bhagavad Gita - Vishnu tries to persuade the Prince that he must fulfill his duty, and, in order to impress him, takes on his many-armed form and says: “I am Death, the great destroyer of worlds.” I believe that all of us, one way or another, have thought about something similar,” remembered later the “father” of the bomb, Oppenheimer.
The American president told Joseph Stalin about the successful testing of the bomb on July 17, when the Potsdam Conference, which allowed the United States to conduct a dialogue with the USSR from a position of strength. But the successful test of the first Soviet atomic bomb took place only after four years, on August 29, 1949.
A secret system from the Cold War that, in the event of a nuclear attack, was supposed to automatically launch in response soviet missiles and was known as “The Dead Hand”, now it is returning again, writes The National Interest. However, now Russia is openly talking about this system, which has become even more deadly, and this gives every reason for concern in the West, the article emphasizes.
Russian "weapon of nuclear apocalypse" the Cold War is returning, and this may herald a new dangerous nuclear race, warns Michael Peck in The National Interest. If the United States begins to deploy intermediate-range missiles in Europe, Russia may adopt the doctrine of preemptive nuclear strike, the author explains. Today this is openly discussed in public, so the West has every reason to be concerned, the article notes.
Russia knows how to design and create weapons that "terrifying": for example, cruise missiles with nuclear engines or unmanned submarines with 100 megaton warheads, writes The National Interest. But "the most terrible", according to the author, became a system from the Cold War, which in the event of a nuclear attack was supposed to automatically launch missiles in response without human intervention. Now this is automated Russian system, known as “Perimeter” or “Dead Hand”, is returning to service, and it has become "even more deadly", is emphasized in the article.
This is due to President Donald Trump’s decision to announce the US withdrawal from the 1987 INF Treaty, which eliminated huge arsenals of American and Russian intermediate- and shorter-range missiles, the author explains. Trump's claims that Russia "violates" this treaty, developing and adopting new "prohibited" missiles, infuriates Moscow, which seriously fears that America will again begin deploying nuclear missiles in Europe, the article says. After all, if American missiles will be located, for example, in Germany or Poland, then they are able to fly to Russian territory, even if they do not belong to the extended range category. While Russia can strike the continental United States only with the help of intercontinental ballistic missiles due to its geographical location, notes The National Interest.
General Viktor Esin, who commanded Russian forces in the 1990s missile forces strategic purpose, in a recent interview confirmed that the legendary Perimeter system still exists. According to him, if the United States begins to deploy medium-range missiles in Europe and thereby reduce the flight time to Russian borders to two or three minutes, then Moscow in response will consider switching to the doctrine of a preemptive nuclear strike. " The Perimeter system is functioning, it has even been improved. But when it works, we will have few resources left - we will be able to launch only those missiles that will survive the first strike of the aggressor.",” The National Interest quotes excerpts from Esin’s interview.
Although it is not entirely clear what he meant Russian general, saying that the system "functioning" And "improved" noted in the article. According to available data, Perimeter launches modified UR-100 ICBMs, which transmit the command to launch conventional nuclear-capable ICBMs hidden in silos.
The author of the book dedicated to “Perimeter”, David Hoffman, who called this system “Dead Hand”, describes the mechanism of its action as follows: “In the event of a likely nuclear attack, the political leadership had to give 'consent to access.' In this case, the officers on duty should have gone down to the “balls” ( underground bunkers) deep underground. If permission was given on time, if the system received seismic confirmation nuclear explosions on the ground, and if contact with the center was lost, those on duty in the bunkers had to launch command missiles. They would take off, transmitting the order to the ballistic missiles. And they would carry out the mission of retaliation.”
Periodically they came to light "implicit signs" that the Perimeter system still exists, the article says. “This points to the oddities of the Soviet government, which kept the existence of the Perimeter a secret even from the American enemy, whom this system was supposed to restrain and intimidate,”- notes the author. In his opinion, main principle actions " Dead hand"is initially based on fear: "On the fear of American first a blow that will decapitate Russian leadership before it orders a retaliatory strike. And also on the fear that some Russian leader will become cowardly and not give this order.”
But the fact that today in Russia they began to discuss “Perimeter” openly also gives the West "every reason for concern" concludes The National Interest.
In October 2018, world leaders managed to heat up the international political situation to the limit. First, Donald Trump remembered the 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 an entire 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 might 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 retaliation is inevitable, that he will be destroyed. And we are a victim of aggression. We, as martyrs, will go to heaven. And they will simply die. Because they won’t even have time to repent.”
These words spread like lightning across the planet, returning the world to the times of the Cold War, when the main superpowers regularly flexed their muscles and threatened to use nuclear weapons. It seemed to many that these times were long behind us, because after the signing INF Treaty Russia and the United States, in fact, have lost the opportunity to launch a nuclear strike without the other side suffering from it. 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, according to 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 had no intention of curtailing engineering and design work on the production of this type of weapon.
What nuclear weapons does the US have?
The United States, being a pioneer country in terms of creating nuclear weapons, today has the most impressive potential for 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 nuclear weapons produced in the United States, 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 located 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, Mediterranean Sea And 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 in appearance resemble military facilities.
As is known, in 1963 and 1966. Treaties were signed that introduced a ban on nuclear testing in the USA, USSR and other countries. The superpowers constantly increased the power of explosive nuclear bombs, and when in 1961 the USSR tested a 50-megaton Tsar Bomb, the explosion of which was recorded by sensors all over the planet, many thought that the end of the world was already near. As a result of the signing of the 1966 treaty, countries lost the opportunity to test the types of nuclear weapons they produced, 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 newest atomic bomb, the B61, a version of the missile without a warhead was used for this purpose. In addition, all nuclear tests in the United States are simulated on a supercomputer.
Is the US preparing for a nuclear war with Russia?
We have already talked about whether it is possible to use nuclear weapons in the near future when we discussed the prospects for an offensive. Let us 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 will want to cut the branch on which they “live”, i.e. destroy their own planet, on which people like Trump or Putin feel like masters. Even if we assume that the USA will develop an ultra-fast and targeted version nuclear attack to Russia, this will inevitably cause a response, similar to the one that Putin spoke about in the words already mentioned above. And if you look at politics Russian President unbiased, then you can understand that he is closely, and in fact plays with her on the same side.
Therefore, all words about withdrawal from the missile treaty, the use of nuclear weapons or martyrdom are just ostentatious bravado, intended to Once again exacerbate global political confrontation and force people to live in constant fear of the future. We have already mentioned that he is a person put in charge 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 this, because if this continues, the world will slide into the abyss of global chaos by the beginning of next year.
Economist, analyst. Studied at a special gymnasium, then at the Donetsk National
University of Economics and Trade with a degree in Finance. Completed master's degree and
graduate school, after which he worked for several years research fellow in one of
institutions National Academy Sciences of Ukraine. In parallel with this I received a second
higher education with a degree in Philosophy and Religious Studies. Prepared for
defending a candidate's dissertation in economics. I write scientific and journalistic articles with
2010. I am interested in economics, politics, science, religion and much more.