The head of the United States Strategic Command, Admiral Charles Richard, has advocated expanding the treaty base to control the nuclear arsenal.

He made this statement during an Internet conference organized by the Brookings Institution.

According to Richard, the United States, Russia and China should reduce the role of nuclear weapons in the activities of the Armed Forces.

In this regard, the head of the US Strategic Command announced the need to start a dialogue with Moscow on weapons "not covered by the treaty."

“Speaking about the United States and Russia, it can be noted that even throughout the entire Cold War - with all the tension of certain stages of it - we have always had a dialogue, and this is very valuable,” Richard recalled.

In addition, according to him, it makes sense to involve China in the negotiation process, since the Pentagon is concerned about the programs for the modernization of the atomic arsenal, which are being carried out in the Russian Federation and the PRC.

In his speech, the head of the US Strategic Command drew attention to the fact that for the first time in history, the United States is simultaneously faced with two competitors of equal military power with nuclear weapons.

"Monitor the capabilities of opponents" "

Richard expressed a similar thought during his speech at the final stage of the online conference entitled "Project on Nuclear Issues" of the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS). Then the head of the US Strategic Command said that Russia had modernized its nuclear arsenal by almost 80% and recalled the appearance of a number of new types of weapons in Moscow: "a hypersonic maneuvering system equipped with a missile with a nuclear warhead" (apparently referring to the Avangard complex "-

RT

), and a nuclear underwater drone (Poseidon).

The Pentagon is also watching China's defense policy with concern.

Beijing, Richard says, intends to double its nuclear warheads by the end of the decade by increasing the number of solid-propellant intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs), improving strategic aviation and submarine nuclear warheads.

Against the backdrop of "growing threats", according to Richard, increasing the capabilities of its own nuclear triad is of paramount importance for the United States.

Talented young specialists should play a key role in this area, but, as the head of the Strategic Command admitted, the United States lacks them.

Problems in the field of updating the American nuclear arsenal and lagging behind the Russian Federation and China in this area are regularly discussed by the top military leadership of the United States.

So, at the end of February, the deputy head of the Joint Chiefs of Staff of the US Armed Forces, General John Hayten, said that the United States "must continue to invest in the triad and closely monitor all the capabilities of the opponents."

From the point of view of senior Pentagon officials, the country's army needs effective sea-based cruise missiles, low-power nuclear weapons on submarines and samples of offensive hypersonic systems for strikes from sea, air and land.

Alexei Podberezkin, director of the Center for Military-Political Studies at MGIMO, noted that the United States is carefully analyzing the progress of the programs for rearmament of the strategic nuclear forces of the Russian Federation and the PRC.

And statements by Richard and other Pentagon officials indicate that the US military command is aware of the technological gap in a number of weapons and is looking for ways to eliminate it.

“Americans fear that we are ahead of them in some programs.

For example, in projects for the creation of hypersonic missiles, Russia is ahead of the United States by about 5-7 years.

In terms of the effectiveness of intercontinental missiles, heavy submarine torpedoes and other weapons, we are also ahead, ”Podberezkin noted.

"Increase military pressure"

According to experts, Washington's greatest concern is caused by the latest strike weapons of the Russian Federation: hypersonic products "Sarmat", "Avangard", "Dagger", "Zircon", naval ICBMs "Bulava", long-range air-launched missiles Kh-101/102, complex "Caliber "And an underwater drone" Poseidon ".

“In connection with the difficulties of countering these weapons of destruction, the Americans are considering how to try to include them in various agreements.

In other words, how to create legal barriers for their further development, serial production and operation, ”Podberezkin argues.

At the same time, only one agreement in the nuclear missile sphere is currently in force between the Russian Federation and the United States - the Treaty on Measures for the Further Reduction and Limitation of Strategic Offensive Arms (START).

  • Launch of the American ICBM Minuteman III

  • © Air Force

During the presidency of Donald Trump, the existence of this document was threatened, but Joe Biden promised to roll over the START Treaty.

In early February, after Biden's inauguration, Moscow and Washington exchanged notes on the extension of this agreement for five years.

Accordingly, the agreement will be valid until February 5, 2026.

According to the document, the Russian Federation and the United States can keep in service no more than 700 deployed heavy bombers and ICBMs, including sea-based ones.

The total number of deployed and non-deployed launchers and strategic aviation units should not exceed 800 units, and the total number of deployed nuclear warheads should not exceed 1,550 units.

In an interview with RT, Vladimir Batyuk, head of the Center for Political-Military Studies of the Institute for the United States and Canada of the Russian Academy of Sciences, noted that Washington during the Trump period made a serious mistake by leaving the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty (INF Treaty) with a scandal.

The United States hoped that this step would provide them with new opportunities to deploy previously prohibited complexes, but the practical effect of canceling the INF Treaty turned out to be close to zero.

“Washington intended to increase military pressure on Russia and China, but US allies in Europe and Asia made it clear that they did not want to aggravate the security situation and therefore would not allow the deployment of new US strike weapons on their territories,” Batiuk explained.

Before the election, Biden's team criticized Trump's decision to withdraw from the INF Treaty.

In particular, the future US Vice President Kamala Harris, along with other congressmen, argued that the rejection of this agreement would lead to the collapse of the control system over the development of nuclear forces and "will allow Russia to expand the possibilities associated with the creation of a direct threat to the entire US territory."

Despite this, members of the Biden administration are currently refraining from commenting on the INF Treaty.

In turn, Moscow is in no hurry to put an end to the fate of the treaty, regularly warning Pentagon representatives about the inadmissibility of deploying intermediate and shorter-range ground-based missiles near Russian borders.

At the same time, the Russian Foreign Ministry does not see any prospects in reviving the INF Treaty in the state in which it has existed for the past three decades.

  • Multipurpose fighter MiG-31 with a hypersonic missile "Dagger"

  • RIA News

  • © Evgeny Biyatov

“It cannot be ruled out that the United States will try to raise the issue of reviving the INF Treaty in order to include new non-strategic weapons of the Russian Federation,” says Alexey Podberezkin.

As the expert explained, the INF Treaty concerned only land complexes and did not take into account the strike potential of the US Navy.

And the current statements of Charles Richards about the need to expand treaty obligations in the field of nuclear weapons indicate the readiness of the current White House administration to begin negotiations with Russia and China, "but only on American terms," ​​the analyst believes.

Vladimir Batyuk adheres to a similar view of the situation.

In his opinion, the United States is seeking to create the maximum number of legal obstacles for Moscow and Beijing in the development of strategic and operational-tactical missile systems.

“The Americans want to limit this arsenal of Russia and China.

They believe that new weapons threaten their interests and restrict the use of armed forces in the territories adjacent to the Russian Federation and the PRC.

As a result, we are witnessing the rhetoric that new types of weapons of Moscow and Beijing must be regulated by treaty obligations, ”Batiuk concluded.