US nuclear forces. US tactical nuclear weapons in Europe and Turkey. Dossier What nuclear weapons does the United States have?

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.

US development program atomic weapons launched 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 of deadly weapons - 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.

First in human history nuclear explosion 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 a feeling of a very bright light that flooded everything around, and when I turned around, I saw the now familiar picture of a fireball... Soon, literally 50 seconds after the explosion, a 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.

At the latest televised debate, Republican candidate and businessman Donald Trump said that Russia is “expanding its nuclear forces, adding that "they have much newer capabilities than we do."

Dr. Jeffrey Lewis, founder of Arms Control Wonk, refutes this claim - “even though Russia is updating its missiles and warheads in Lately, yet such a statement about Russia’s capabilities does not correspond to reality.”

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, with some reports suggesting there are ten nuclear warheads with autonomous guidance.

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 United States simply does not have the ability to defend itself against such destructive nuclear weapons.

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

Professor Lewis says US Strategic Command leaders, who manage the US nuclear arsenal, have been surveyed for decades that if given a choice between US and Russian weapons, they would choose their own missiles and nuclear weapon every time.

In an interview with Business Insider, Lewis says the US arsenal, while lacking the capacity to devastate an entire continent, is much 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.” states the professor - “Russia has built nuclear weapons with increasing dynamics 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 the plutonium core will last for 100 years. Moreover, the US stockpile of Minuteman III ICBMs, despite their age, are advanced 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 offer precise targeting and no mobility. During the height of the Cold War, the United States at one point tried to adapt ICBMs to trucks, but the US requirements for the safety and durability of weapons far exceeded Russian requirements.

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

“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.

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

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

A clear example of this is the air campaign in Syria, as a result of which the Russians were accused of using cluster bombs, incendiary munitions and bombing hospitals and refugee camps. This careless and cruel attitude is a defining feature of the Russian military.

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

How does the US plan to keep nuclear power Russia.

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

One possible solution would be to destroy the missiles before they leave the atmosphere, which would mean shooting them down over Russia, which could also lead to other problems. Another option would be to destroy missiles from satellites in space, but Lewis said the US would then have to increase satellite launches 12 times before they have enough space capabilities to defend the US.

Instead of wasting time, trillions of dollars and escalating the arms race, the United States is relying on the doctrine of mutually assured destruction. Lewis also explained that during the days of John F. Kennedy's presidency, the United States 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 noted that the nuclear agreement would work both ways, so a better name would be “mutually assured destruction,” which was contrary to Kennedy's policy.

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

The US believes that it is more reliable to have a nuclear triad available at any time. Submarines, land-based silos and bombers all have nuclear missiles. No attack from Russia could neutralize all three weapons simultaneously.

Accurate, expertly controlled nuclear weapons provide a credible deterrent for the United States without putting billions of lives at risk.

Since 1945, the United States has produced 66.5 thousand. atomic bombs and nuclear warheads. This assessment was made by the director of the nuclear information program at the Federation of American Scientists, Hans Christensen, and his colleague from the Defense Council natural resources Robert Norris, in the pages of the Bulletin of The Atomic Scientists in 2009.

In two government laboratories - in Los Alamos and Livermore. Lawrence - since 1945, a total of about 100 different types of nuclear charges and their modifications have been created.

Story

The very first atomic bombs, which entered service at the end of the 40s of the last century, weighed about 9 tons and could only be delivered to potential targets by heavy bombers.

By the early 1950s, the United States had developed more compact bombs with less weight and diameter, which made it possible to equip US front-line aircraft with them. Somewhat later they entered service Ground Forces nuclear charges for ballistic missiles, artillery shells and mines. The Air Force received warheads for surface-to-air and air-to-air missiles. A number of warheads have been developed for the Navy and Marine Corps. Navy SEAL sabotage units received light nuclear mines for special missions.

Carriers

The composition of US nuclear weapons delivery vehicles and their jurisdiction have changed since the first atomic bombs appeared in service with the US Army Aviation. IN different time, the Army (medium-range ballistic missiles, nuclear artillery and nuclear infantry ammunition), the Navy (missile-carrying ships and nuclear submarines carrying cruise and ballistic missiles), the Air Force (intercontinental ground-based, silo- and bunker-based, bottom-based ballistic missiles, railway combat missile systems, air-launched cruise missiles, guided and unguided aircraft missiles, strategic bombers and missile-carrying aircraft). As of the beginning of 1983, offensive weapons in the US nuclear arsenal were represented by 54 Titan-2 ICBMs, 450 Minuteman-2 ICBMs, 550 Minuteman-3 ICBMs, 100 Peacekeeper ICBMs, about 350 Stratofortress strategic bombers "and 40 APRC with various types SLBM on board.

The control of land and air delivery vehicles for nuclear weapons is the responsibility of the United States Air Force Global Strike Command. Seaborne delivery vehicles are operated by the Fleet Forces Command (NAS Kings Bay - 16th Submarine Squadron) and the Pacific Fleet (NAS Kitsap - 17th Submarine Squadron). Collectively they report to the Strategic Command.

Megatonnage

Since 1945, the total yield of nuclear warheads has increased many times and reached its peak by 1960 - it amounted to over 20 thousand megatons, which is approximately equivalent to the power of 1.36 million bombs dropped on Hiroshima in August 1945.
The largest number of warheads was in 1967 - about 32 thousand. Subsequently, the Pentagon's arsenal was reduced by almost 30% over the next 20 years.
At the time of the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989, the United States had 22,217 warheads.

Production

Production of new warheads ceased in 1991, although [ When?] [ ] its resumption is planned. The military continues to modify existing types of charges [ When?] [ ] .

The US Department of Energy is responsible for the entire production cycle - from the development of fissile weapons materials to the development and production of ammunition and their disposal.

Enterprise management is carried out

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

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

Joe Pappalardo

An inconspicuous ranch about fifteen meters off a rough two-lane road southeast of Great Falls, Montana. A primitive one-story building, a chain-link fence, an out-of-the-way garage, and a basketball backboard right above the driveway.

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

Inside the building, the security service scrupulously examines everyone entering. The slightest suspicion and guards with M4 carbines and handcuffs will immediately appear in the room. The massive entrance door slides vertically upward - 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 there are exits to cabins with bunk beds. The walls are covered with standard official posters about stupid talkers and ubiquitous spies.

Malmstrom Air Force Missile Base controls 15 launchers and 150 silos. Her entire farm spreads over an area of ​​35,000 km 2 . The bunkers with control panels were buried too deep and scattered so far apart to survive nuclear attack from the outside Soviet Union and maintain the possibility of a retaliatory nuclear strike. To disable such a system, the warheads must hit each starting position without missing.

One of the armored doors in the living area leads to a small side room. The dispatcher responsible for safety (Flight Security Controller, FSC) sits here - a non-commissioned officer, commander of the launcher security. The three-meter chest next to him is filled with M4 and M9 carbines. In this arsenal there is another door, which neither the dispatcher nor the guards should enter under any circumstances, unless an emergency situation requires it. Behind this door is an elevator that goes straight six floors underground without stopping.

In a calm voice, FSC communicates over the phone the codes for calling the elevator. The elevator will not rise until all passengers have exited and the front door in the security room is locked. The steel elevator door is opened manually in much the same way as the blinds used in small shops to protect windows and doors at night are rolled up. Behind it is a small booth 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 up before us. The elevator door is built into the smoothly curving black wall of the round hall. Along the wall, breaking its monotony, there are thick columns of shock absorbers, which should absorb the shock wave if a nuclear warhead explodes somewhere nearby.

Behind the walls of the hall, something rumbled and clanged exactly as the lifting gates of an ancient castle should clang, after which a massive hatch smoothly leaned outward, the metal handle of which was held by 26-year-old Air Force captain Chad Dieterle. Along the perimeter of this shockproof plug, which is a good one and a half meters thick, there are stenciled letters INDIA. Dieterle's 24-hour watch as commander of India's Launch Control Center (LCC) is now halfway through, and the launch site itself was established here at Malmstrom Air Force Base back when the brave Air Force captain's parents went to school.

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

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

The Air Force command refuses to disclose 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 living things within a radius of ten kilometers.

Having received the appropriate order, Dieterle and his assistants can send this weapon to any point within half an hour globe. Hiding in silence underground, he turns an inconspicuous ranch, lost in the vastness of Montana, into one of the most strategically important points on the planet.

Small but effective

The American nuclear arsenal—approximately 2,200 strategic warheads that can be delivered by 94 bombers, 14 submarines and 450 ballistic missiles—remains the basis 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 regarding nuclear policy clearly postulates: “As long as there are stockpiles 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 dramatically. True, now states such as China, Iran or North Korea are developing their own nuclear programs and constructing their own long-range ballistic missiles. Therefore, despite the high-flown rhetoric and even sincere good intentions, it is not right for America to part with its nuclear weapons, as well as with the planes, submarines and missiles that could deliver them to the target.

The missile component of the American nuclear triad has existed for 50 years, but year after year it is the focus of intense discussions between Moscow and Washington. Last year, the Obama administration signed with Russia new agreement on measures for further reduction and limitation of strategic offensive weapons - START III. As a result, the nuclear arsenals of these two countries should be limited to fewer than 1,550 warheads within a seven-year period. strategic purpose. From 450 on combat duty American missiles only 30 will remain. To avoid losing support from 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 clearly intends to ensure that the remaining weapons are truly effective,” says Tennessee Senator Lamar Alexander.

Intercontinental ballistic missile silo. These mines hide their terrible nature behind a completely inconspicuous appearance. Some truck driver will pass by on the highway and not even look back. He will never know that nuclear weapons are hidden in these 30-meter-deep mines, maintained in a state of continuous combat readiness.

Nuclear missile umbrella

So why are the strategic missile forces, the symbol of the end cold war, remain at the center of 21st century defense strategy, policy and diplomacy? If we take three types of delivery vehicles (airplanes, submarines and ballistic missiles), then intercontinental ballistic missiles remain the means of the most rapid response to enemy aggression, and indeed the most rapid weapon, allowing for a preventive strike. Submarines are good because they are practically invisible, nuclear bombers are capable of delivering precision targeted strikes, but only intercontinental missiles are always ready to launch an irresistible nuclear strike anywhere on the globe, and they can do this 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 has an obligation to keep any enemy target at gunpoint and at risk, no matter where it is located, no matter how strong the defense covers it, no matter how deeply hidden it is,” he said Lieutenant General Frank Klotz, who just in January left his post as head of Global Strike Command, the structure that controls nuclear bombers and ballistic missiles.

Starting positions strategic missiles represent a major engineering achievement. All of these mines were built in the early 1960s, and since then they have been fully operational 99% of the time. What's even more interesting is that the Pentagon built these launch positions to last just a few decades. When MinutemanIII missiles are retired, all silos and launchers at the Malmstrom base will be preserved and buried for a period of 70 years.

So, Air Force manage the most powerful weapon in the world, and the equipment for controlling these weapons was created back in the space era, and not at all in XXI century information technologies. And yet these old launch systems do their job much better than you might think. “To build 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 everything through, generously building in several layers of redundant reliability.”

Thousands of dedicated officers at three Air Force bases - Malmstrom Air Force Base, F.E. Warren in Wyoming and Mino in North Dakota spare no effort to ensure that silo launchers are in constant combat readiness.

The Minuteman III model was stationed in mines in the 1970s and its retirement date was set for 2020, but last year the Obama administration extended the life of the series by another decade. In response to this demand, the Air Force leadership drew up a schedule for the reorganization of existing missile bases. A significant portion of the 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 house. Not much has changed inside since the Kennedy administration. Of course, paper teletype printers have given way to digital screens, and servers installed above provide the underground team with Internet access and even live television broadcasting 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 television series " Star Trek" Some things really just beg to be found in an antique shop. With an embarrassed smile, Dieterle pulls out of the console a nine-inch floppy disk, part of the ancient but still functional Strategic Automatic Command and Control System.

Thousands of officers at US Air Force bases keep the silo launchers operational. Since 2000, the Pentagon has spent more than $7 billion on modernizing this type of military. All the work was aimed at ensuring that the Minuteman III model would safely reach its 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 modernized, 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 ground movement can break underground communication lines.

The India Launch Control Center is one of 15 centers manned by missile crews at Malmstrom Air Force Base. “Take a regular house that's been around for 40 years,” says Col. Jeff Frankhauser, base maintenance team commander, “and bury it underground. And then think about how you will repair everything there. This is the same situation with us.”

This missile base includes 150 nuclear ballistic missiles scattered at launch sites over 35,000 km2 of mountains, hills and plains in Montana. Due to the large distance between the silos, 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 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 encased in sheaths that support high blood pressure. If the air pressure in the pipe drops, the operations team concludes that a crack has formed somewhere in the containment.

The communications system, which extends throughout the surrounding expanse, is a constant source of concern for Malmstrom Base personnel. Every day, hundreds of people - 30 teams at control panels, 135 operating workers and 206 security guards - go to work, maintaining this entire facility in order. Up to some command posts three hours drive from the base. They are grieved by heroes offended by fate, who are called “Farsiders” at the base. Every day, jeeps, trucks and bulky self-propelled units scurry along the surrounding roads to retrieve missiles from underground, and the total length of roads at this base is 40,000 km, 6,000 of which are dirt roads, enriched with gravel.

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

The slogan reigns here: “Our norm is excellence,” and to ensure that no one ever forgets this strict principle, a whole army of inspectors looks after the staff. Any mistake may result in removal from duty until the offender retakes the proficiency test. Such meticulous control applies to all services of the missile base.

The cook will receive a strict punishment from the officer for using expired sauce for the salad or not cleaning the hood above the stove in a timely manner. And it is right - food poisoning can undermine the combat readiness of a launch platoon with the same success as a team of enemy special forces would do. 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 "

Everyday life in a bunker

To launch a nuclear ballistic missile, just turning the key is not enough. If the India launch center receives the appropriate command, Dieterle and his deputy, Captain Ted Givler, must check the encryption sent from the White House with the one stored in the center's steel safes.

Then each of them will take hold of his triangular switch, fixing his gaze on Digital Watch, ticking between 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 at another launcher will turn their switches - and only after that the ballistic missile will break free.

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

The striking power of the weapons entrusted to these rocket men and the full extent of the responsibility assigned to them are clearly emphasized by the harsh situation in the bunker. In the far corner lies a simple mattress, fenced off with a black curtain so that the light does not shine in 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 the handle of the black shockproof plug until it begins to turn smoothly. He smiles reservedly in parting, and the door slams behind us with a heavy thud. We go up, and there, below, Dieterle and others like him remain, in tense, eternal anticipation.

Donald Trump Doctrine

You may have once thought that America's nuclear arsenal, with its thousands of thermonuclear warheads that could wipe out the entire population of the Earth, could dissuade any adversary from using itss against the United States.

You were wrong.

The Pentagon expressed dissatisfaction that American nuclear weapons are inappropriately powerful. It's old, unreliable, and has such destructive potential that even President Trump might not be willing to use it if an enemy were to use it. nuclear bombs smaller on a hypothetical battlefield.

American military experts and weapons developers decided to start creating something more suitable for warfare, so that the president would have more options if something happened. According to their plan, this will become an even more convincing deterrent for opponents. But it may be that such new bombs could increase the likelihood that nuclear weapons will be used in armed conflict, with catastrophic consequences.

That Trump would be all for improving America's nuclear arsenal would come as no surprise, given his penchant for boasting of unrivaled military power of your country. He was delighted when, in April 2017, one of his generals ordered the first drop of the most powerful conventional bomb available on Afghanistan.

Under existing nuclear doctrine, the Obama administration intended the United States to resort to nuclear weapons only “as a last resort” to protect the vital interests of the country or its allies. It was then forbidden to use it as political instrument to rein in weaker states.

However, Trump, who had already threatened to bring down North Korea“fire and fury like the world has never seen,” this approach seems too harsh. He and his advisers seem to want nuclear weapons to be used in conflicts of any severity great strength and swing it like the baton of the apocalypse to intimidate those who do not listen.

Making the US arsenal more sophisticated requires two types of changes in nuclear policy. Changing existing doctrine to remove restrictions on the deployment of such weapons in wartime, and authorizing the development and production 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 year.

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

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

Let's change our view of nuclear weapons

The strategic guidance in the new Review is likely to have far-reaching implications. As a former director of the Council said national security US Arms Control and Nonproliferation Commissioner John Wolfsthal wrote in a recent release of Arms Control that the document will influence "the image of America, the President, and nuclear capabilities in the eyes of allies and adversaries." More importantly, the review sets the direction for decisions that shape the management, maintenance and modernization of the nuclear arsenal and influence how Congress views and funds nuclear forces.”

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

As a result, the use of nuclear weapons was limited under almost any circumstances on any battlefield imaginable. The Review's primary goal was to reduce "the role of U.S. nuclear weapons in U.S. 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 weapons.

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

A nuclear strategy aimed solely at 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 up the possibility of further reductions in the size of the nuclear arsenal and led to the signing of a new treaty with Russia in 2010, which ordered significant reductions in the number of nuclear warheads and delivery systems for both countries.

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

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

Such “strategic deterrence” is a phrase that for Russia and the West has different meaning, could lead to the use of low-yield "tactical" nuclear weapons against enemy strongholds if Russian forces in Europe were on the verge 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 a reason to increase the importance of nuclear weapons in its doctrine.

Such complaints were often voiced in the Seven Defense Priorities new administration" - in the report Scientific Council US Department of Defense (December 2016), which is a Pentagon-funded advisory group that regularly reports to the Secretary of Defense. “We remain unsure that if we reduce the importance of nuclear weapons to our nation, other countries will do the same.”

According to the report, Russian strategy involves the use of low-yield tactical nuclear strikes to deter a NATO attack. While many Western analysts question the validity of such claims, the Pentagon Science Board insists that the United States must develop similar weapons and be ready to use them.

The report says Washington needs "more flexible system nuclear weapons, which could, if necessary, carry out a quick and accurate nuclear strike on a limited affected area if existing non-nuclear and nuclear weapons options turn out to be ineffective.”

This approach is now inspiring the Trump administration to new achievements in this area, which is clearly visible in some of the president's Twitter posts. “The United States must strengthen and expand its nuclear capabilities so that the whole world will once again remember the size of our weapons,” Donald Trump wrote on December 22, 2016.

Although he did not write specifically (because it was a short post on Twitter), his thought is an accurate reflection of the opinion of the Science Council and Trump's advisers.

Upon assuming the position of commander in chief, Trump signed a presidential memorandum in which he instructed the secretary of defense to conduct a review of the situation with nuclear weapons and make sure that the "means nuclear deterrence The US is modern, reliable, ready and can meet the challenges of the 21st century and be credible to its allies."

Details of the Survey that will emerge 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 promote the creation of new nuclear weapons systems that will become major players with an expanded range of strike options. In particular, the administration is believed to favor the acquisition of “low-yield tactical nuclear weapons” and more more delivery systems, including air and cruise missiles ground-based. The justification for this, of course, will be the thesis that ammunition of this kind is necessary to comply with Russian achievements in this area.

According to internal sources, the development of tactical munitions that could, for example, destroy major port or a military base, and not immediately the whole city, as it was in Hiroshima. As one anonymous government official put it in Politico, “Having this capability is critical.”

Another policymaker added that "the Review needs to poll the military on what they need to deter their enemies" and whether current weapons "will be useful in all the scenarios we envision."
It must be borne in mind that during the Obama administration plans and initial multi-million dollar design work to “modernize” America’s nuclear arsenal for many decades to come. From this perspective, Trump's nuclear era was already well underway 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, the yield of which can be adjusted down to several kilotons.

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

A world ready for nuclear winter

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

In November 2017 Budget management Congress has released a report showing that the cost of replacing all three legs of the US nuclear triad over 30 years would be at least $1.2 billion, not including inflation and additional costs that could push that figure to $1.7 billion 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 clear: 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 just about America, but about all countries. “To end Cold War thinking,” 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 blur the distinction between nuclear weapons and conventional weapons, turning them into equivalent instruments of coercion and war, this would make an escalation to complete thermonuclear annihilation of the planet the most likely in decades.
For example, there is no doubt that this position has prompted other countries with nuclear weapons, including Russia, China, India, Israel, Pakistan and North Korea, to consider using them in future conflicts. It might even encourage countries that don't currently have nuclear weapons to consider producing them.

Obama's views on nuclear weapons were fundamentally different from those of the Cold War, when the possibility of a thermonuclear holocaust between the planet's two superpowers was an everyday reality and millions of people turned out in antinuclear 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 contemplated, may no longer be something special.

Or at least it will be if, once again, the citizens of this planet do not 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.