Gen. Paul Selva, Deputy Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff of the United States Armed Forces, said it was necessary to develop small-scale nuclear weapons to contain Russia.
"With the introduction of low-power nuclear weapons, we tried to fill the gap that exists in the concept of a potential escalation of the conflict, which, as we know, is part of the Russian doctrine," said Selva speaking to reporters on the eve.
According to the American commander, now the United States lacks the ability to give a proportional response to Russia if our country decides to strike at the United States with a low-power nuclear weapon. If such warheads appear in Washington, then, according to Selva, this will give the Strategic Command of the US Armed Forces the opportunity "to offer the Minister of Defense and the President the option of a commensurate low-power nuclear strike in response to a limited power strike from a nuclear enemy."
- Deputy Chairman of the Committee of Chiefs of Staff (CLS) of the US Armed Forces, General Paul Selva
- globallookpress.com
- © US US Staff
The US military stressed that he considers it necessary to deploy such warheads on Trident II ballistic missiles, which are deployed on Ohio-class strategic nuclear submarines.
Disturbing trend
It is worth noting that Russia has never before declared the need to develop low-powered nuclear weapons or the possibility of using them against the United States. But in the US, such plans are not discussed the first year. For example, they are referred to in the Review of the US Nuclear Potential, published in February 2018, the de facto new nuclear doctrine of the country. The document directly emphasizes the intention to deploy such weapons on submarine missile carriers.
At the end of January 2019, the production of reduced-capacity W76-2 warheads began in the United States. This is a modification of the strategic warhead W76-1 with a capacity of about 100 kilotons in TNT equivalent, which is just installed on submarines. However, the charge of W76-2 should not exceed 5-6 kilotons, which is 2-3 times less than that of a bomb dropped on Hiroshima in 1945.
Moscow sharply criticized the new step of Washington. Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov, noted that "the development of such low-power ammunition lowers the threshold for the use of nuclear weapons and, of course, increases the risks of nuclear conflict."
According to experts, such concerns are not unreasonable. Since the new weapon is declared as “low-powered”, the temptations to use it in combat situations increase. However, the destructive power of even such a nuclear weapon is very great, and its use can lead to an exchange of strategic nuclear strikes.
Another problem is that low-powered warheads will be located on the same missiles as their “brethren”, which have much more destructive power. And this means that for the warning systems of the enemy, their launch will look the same and the answer will be a crushing blow to the United States itself, analysts emphasized.
“Such plans of the Pentagon can have far-reaching and extremely negative consequences for international security and stability,” said Vladimir Batyuk, head of the Center for Military-Political Studies at the Institute of the USA and Canada, RAS, in a conversation with RT. - If indeed such weapons will be sent to the troops, then the threshold for the use of nuclear weapons in crisis conditions will decrease. The result could be the very nuclear war that, according to high-ranking American representatives, they are trying to prevent. ”
According to the expert, it is also a matter of concern that low-power nuclear weapons in the United States are not considered strategic weapons. As a result, the control measures developed earlier in the course of the dialogue between the Soviet Union (and then Russia) and the United States, in particular, spelled out in the START-3 treaty, are not applicable to them.
“START-3 does not affect non-strategic nuclear weapons. And also does not determine the power of strategic nuclear weapons, - said the expert. - Strictly speaking, the USA has no international legal restraints here. In general, this is a very alarming trend, which suggests that in the face of the degradation of the nuclear arms control mechanism, we are witnessing an acceleration of the arms race. ”
New approach
The head of the Bureau of Military-Political Analysis, Alexander Mikhailov, said in a conversation with RT that ideas about the use of "low-powered nuclear weapons" follow major changes in the ideas of the US military command about how conflicts will proceed in the future.
“Americans are now very actively modifying the approach to future wars,” Mikhailov said. “These are both low-power nuclear charges and the development of hypersonic and high-precision weapons. All of these weapons are high-speed ammunition; they are adapted in size and tactical characteristics to transport small warheads. This is in line with the US strategy of using medium and short range missiles.
One of the results of this process, according to the political scientist, can be considered the withdrawal of the United States from the 1987 INF Treaty. In addition, as experts note, in the current version of the American nuclear doctrine, it is proposed to deploy Tomahawk TLAM-N cruise missiles with warheads ranging from 5 to 150 kt on ships and submarines.
- Rocket "Tomahawk." Archival photo
- Reuters
According to Alexander Mikhailov, the US military leadership is also concerned about the idea of a preventive nuclear strike.
In March 2019, Joseph Dunford, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said that the United States should not give up the opportunity to strike at its opponents first if the need arises.
“Russia considers the use of nuclear weapons only as a retaliatory strike. And Washington is ready to deliver a warning nuclear strike if something threatens the interests of the US national security, ”the political analyst notes.
As experts emphasize, it is of fundamental importance not so much the development of the lowest-powered nuclear weapons or their presence in the US arsenals, as the constant statements of Americans about their readiness to use them.
“Washington’s rhetoric itself is aimed at legalizing the use of nuclear weapons, and these are already very dangerous bells,” says Alexander Mikhailov.
Criticism from within
Despite criticism from Moscow, the United States continues to develop and manufacture low-yield nuclear weapons.
For example, in March 2019, the US Department of Energy, responsible for development in the field of nuclear weapons, informed that in 2019, $ 65 million was allocated to the W76-2 warhead modification program. The agency requested another $ 10 million for 2020.
Another initiative in the same direction is the creation of a nuclear bomb of regulated power B61-12, a modification of the old aerial bomb B61, in which the power of the explosion must also be reduced to 50 kilotons. In 2019, the Ministry of Energy received over $ 794 million for work on this program and requested a little over $ 792 million for the next year.
However, this year, the W76-2 modification program met with resistance in the Democratic-controlled lower house of Congress. On June 10, Adam Smith, head of the House of Representatives Committee on Armed Forces, presented his version of the defense budget for 2020, in which he proposed to completely stop financing the development and installation of low-power warheads on Trident II missiles.
- Head of the House Armed Services Committee Adam Smith
- AFP
- © CHIP SOMODEVILLA / GETTY IMAGES NORTH AMERICA
Representatives of the Republican Party did not agree with this initiative and put forward a counter offer - to allocate $ 19.6 million for W76-2, reports the Defense News publication. However, on the voting on June 12 in the Committee on the Armed Forces, they were not able to push through a similar proposal, and therefore the fate of the new amendment also remains in question.
“We all agree that the US should maintain our military advantage over opponents of almost equal strength, but replenishing our arsenal with an even greater number of low-power nuclear warheads will not help us in achieving this goal, nor in strengthening the security of our country,” Democratic stance Adam Smith.
As noted by the American defense portal Breaking Defense, Smith stressed that such projects are simply dangerous because they allow politicians to "consider the options under which a nuclear war is permissible."
Also, as an argument for terminating the W76-2 program, the committee of the House of Representatives for the Armed Forces reported that the United States already has a thousand reduced-capacity warheads and simply does not need new ones.
MYTH: Without additional low-yield nuclear weapons strategy
FACT: we will have to make our country safer.
According to Vladimir Batyuk, the congress may impose some restrictions on the development programs of low-power nuclear weapons in the United States and even "prevent the implementation of these plans" within the framework of a political struggle against the administration of Donald Trump.
“Since the Democrats control the lower house of Congress, there is reason to think that in the conditions of the presidential campaign that has begun, the US Democratic Party will try to somehow use the concerns of the American and international community about these plans of the Pentagon,” the expert believes.
However, according to Alexander Mikhailov, the “political rhetoric of the democrats” has nothing to do with their real goals. They oppose the Pentagon’s nuclear plans, only because they are voiced by the Trump administration. If the representative of the Democratic Party wins the elections of 2020, he will, under the pressure of the American military-industrial complex, support the same militaristic programs himself, the political scientist asserts. The only effective means of deterring a nuclear conflict can only be maintaining parity between Russia and the United States.
“They can develop everything they want, but we have systems such as, for example, Poseidon, which they do not have. We are developing new military technologies that can asymmetrically overcome the American defense systems, thanks to which we are entering into a parity, restraining relationship with the United States, ”Mikhailov notes.