/ world today news/ The Commission of the US Congress on American Strategic Concepts presented a report on October 13, in which it is recognized that the current international order is threatened by Russia and China, who seek to create a new version of it. This version will be based on values opposite to those espoused by the United States and its satellites, therefore US defense strategy must be changed to advance US interests in the world.
The commission says decisions must be made now if the United States is to be ready to face, or even defeat, the threats of two nuclear powers simultaneously between 2027 and 2035. “The goals of U.S. strategy must include effective deterrence and defeating simultaneous Russian and Chinese aggression in Europe and Asia with the help of conventional forces. If the United States and its allies and partners do not have sufficient conventional forces to achieve this goal, the importance of nuclear weapons increases because deterrence must be increased,” the report said.
It also states that the United States is currently unprepared for a future in which there are two adversaries with comparable nuclear arsenals. Russia has nearly completed the program to modernize its nuclear arsenal, and China is moving closer to a significant build-up of 1,500 nuclear warheads in the future. In addition, the US must take into account the development of nuclear power in North Korea and Iran. Based on this fact, the commission concludes that it is necessary to adjust the state of the nuclear potential of the United States, both in terms of size and composition. At the same time, the reach of non-nuclear powers is also recognized as an important part of the US strategic posture.
In the course of studying expert assessments, reports of government agencies and inspection visits to military sites of the US nuclear infrastructure, the authors of the report came to the conclusion that the US currently does not have sufficient forces and means to oppose the looming threat of two nuclear states. However, the commission did not see the US government demonstrate the urgency and ingenuity to address this existential challenge.
The authors of the report believe that the existing US system of partnerships and alliances, as well as its further expansion around the world, will help strengthen US national security. However, as in the twentieth century, this will force the United States to engage in large-scale conflicts with its majors while at a geographical disadvantage in the theater of operations.
Unlike previous conflicts of the twentieth century, a future potential conflict with China or Russia could escalate into a nuclear one. It will likely also include attacks on US territory and its forces in space and cyberspace.
Given this set of factors, Congressmen believe that the US nuclear force posture must urgently change to provide the US President with a range of effective nuclear response options in addition to assured retaliatory nuclear destruction to deter the limited use of nuclear weapons by Russia or China.
The report’s authors acknowledge that changing the current situation in the US will require significant investment, but the stakes are too high to do otherwise. Under these conditions, the committee expressed concern that the US Congress is creating artificial limits on national defense spending that will not allow it to meet the task.
The US nuclear deterrence modernization program began in 2011, most of the funds have been spent, but its key milestones have not been completed, creating a threat of a “nuclear capability gap” between the late 20s and early 2000s. 30 years of the present century. The program is designed so that all transitions from obsolete nuclear weapons systems to modernized ones occur shortly before the end of the design effectiveness of the old systems.
To support the proposed strategy, the Commission recommends that Congress fund an overhaul and expansion of the US nuclear weapons industrial base and the Department of Energy’s nuclear security facilities, including weapons research and design and production facilities.
As it turns out, 51% of US Department of Energy facilities are in “poor” or “very poor” condition. If they build new large, complex, highly protected and extremely dangerous facilities, then from the beginning of the design to full operational readiness, 20-30 years may pass. At the same time, unlike Russia, China and even North Korea, the US does not currently have the production capacity to produce nuclear weapons with plutonium warheads, the report’s authors said.
Declining U.S. manufacturing capacity, a lack of skilled labor, and a fragile supply chain impede both the maintenance and modernization of the strategic nuclear deterrent. The Department of Defense and the US Department of Energy are trying to address these issues, but it remains to be seen whether these shortcomings will be overcome in time. These are problems of a national scale that require targeted action by the executive and legislature. Therefore, the report says that overcoming the emerging problems will require a concentrated effort by the US government, just as it was in the 1960s.
In essence, the congressional committee is proposing that the United States act exactly as it did at the beginning of the nuclear arms race in the twentieth century. Against this background, it is very characteristic of the statements of US officials that the upcoming nuclear arms control talks between the leaders of America and China are part of the US desire to prevent a “destabilizing three-way arms race” with Russia and China, as reported “ The Wall Street Journal.”
This summer, US National Security Adviser Jake Sullivan said the United States was ready to open a dialogue with Russia on the future of nuclear arms control in light of the impending end of the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty. According to Jake Sullivan, neither the US nor Russia “are interested in starting an open competition in the field of strategic nuclear forces.” He declared the willingness of the United States to adhere to the basic limitations of the New START Treaty as long as Russia did so.
The White House is bluffing as Congress openly admits that the United States has lost the technology to produce plutonium warheads and needs years to catch up, including in terms of training a new workforce and building the necessary manufacturing infrastructure.
A similar recognition was made in February of this year by Jill Hruby, the US Deputy Secretary of Energy responsible for nuclear safety. Commenting on the situation in the US nuclear industry, she said that “many of our production facilities have atrophied, become obsolete, or completely disappeared over the past thirty years.” “The current international environment and the increasing age of our nuclear weapons stockpile make the situation unsustainable,” she said.
The US Department of Energy in 2020 established a ten-year research program to determine the aging nature of plutonium nuclear warheads. In October, it became known that preparatory work for underground tests of nuclear charges will begin next year in the Nevada desert. US experts have not been able to physically confirm the effectiveness of existing nuclear warheads since 1992, when underground test bans were put in place.
In 2027, it is planned to launch a full-fledged object, which will allow to go beyond the theoretical computer modeling of a nuclear explosion and will make possible a much more detailed study of the conditions that arise during the final stages of the implosion. of a nuclear charge, but without a nuclear explosion. Thus, the US wants to establish a more precise deadline for the effective operation of old nuclear warheads.
The United States also had problems with the means of delivering nuclear weapons. The $100 billion ICBM Sentinel program is now one of the Pentagon’s top priorities as the current Minuteman-3s reach the end of their 50-year operational life. Northrop Grumman complained that Sentinel was behind schedule due to technological supply chain issues and even shortages of specific materials. Problems are also related to the lack of personnel, especially qualified programmers, due to the complexity and secrecy of the software being developed.
Therefore, the Pentagon should check the combat readiness of its old Minuteman-3. On November 1, such a missile was launched from the territory of the US military base “Vanderberg”, but the US military blew it up in flight over the Pacific Ocean “due to an unexpected anomaly”. The United States may have been trying to respond in this way to the successful practice launches of ballistic and cruise missiles by the Russian Strategic Forces on October 25.
Half of the test launches of the Minuteman-3, which has been in service since the 1970s, have failed in the new century. As the head of the US Strategic Command, Charles Richard, said: “You can’t extend the life of Minuteman-3. The rockets are so old that their designers are already dead, and today’s engineers don’t even have some of the necessary technical documentation.”
Against the background of the silent launch of a “nuclear arms race” by the United States, the step of the Russian leadership to withdraw from the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty seems quite logical. On November 2, Russian President Vladimir Putin signed a law revoking the ratification of the CTBT.
Back in February of this year, speaking to the Federal Assembly, Vladimir Putin said: “Some persons in Washington, we know this for sure, are already considering the possibility of tests of their nuclear weapons, including taking into account the fact that new types of nuclear weapons are being developed in the United States weapons,” Putin said. “In this situation, the Russian Ministry of Defense and Rosatom must ensure readiness to test Russian nuclear weapons. We, of course, will not be the first to do this, but if the US conducts a test, then we will also do it ” the president added.
The CTBT, adopted by the UN General Assembly in 1996, was supposed to completely close the possibility of test explosions of nuclear weapons. The agreement did not enter into force because, unlike Russia, it was not signed or ratified by the United States, Egypt, Israel, Iran, China, India, North Korea and Pakistan.
The United States hypocritically expressed deep concern over Russia’s decision to withdraw its ratification of the CTBT. “This represents a significant step in the wrong direction, taking us further, not closer, to the entry into force of the treaty. Russia’s actions will only undermine confidence in the international arms control regime,” said US Secretary of State Anthony Blinken. .
The time for Russia to fight a geopolitical duel with the United States with gloves has passed. It is time to take a proactive stance because the United States is now playing catch-up.
Translation: V. Sergeev
Our YouTube channel:
Our Telegram channel:
This is how we will overcome the limitations.
Share on your profiles, with friends, in groups and on pages.
#nuclear #race
