In America successfully tested a modernized nuclear bombs B61−7 and B61−11, on 6 October announced the National authority for nuclear security (NNSA). Ammunition without nuclear warheads were dumped on the ground in Nevada with the bombers invisible.
According to the Deputy head of the NNSA, General Michael Lutton, bombs of the type B61 are one of the most important elements of the nuclear triad of the United States and restraints. In the modernized version of the shells have a set control and a tail rudder that allows you to control the flight and increase accuracy. A new modification of the B61 bombs need to go into service with the us army in 2020.
It is symbolic that on the eve of a press release from the office of nuclear security in Washington hosted the annual conference of the Association of the U.S. army where the military came to the conclusion that the next America’s war with Russia and China, “almost inevitable.”
The chief of staff of the US army mark Milly said opponents, as is Russia, China, Iran and North Korea, are not asleep — they spent years studying the experience of the Americans and took over their technology and doctrine to defeat in the future. But Millie assured that the us military, despite all the problems that can “destroy any enemy at any time” and “to arrange a thrashing, which is never satisfied.” A future war, according to Millie, will be accompanied by a large number of victims and become the most serious challenge of the American army since the Second world war.
Major General William Hicks predicted that any future non-nuclear conflict will be bloody as ever. This is due to the development of artificial intelligence and automation of the means of warfare. “Any conflict with conventional weapons in the near future will occur very quickly and lead to enormous casualties. We will not be able to stop it at will,” said Hicks. He added that the military successes of China and Russia has forced US to start preparing for war on such a scale that Americans have not fought since Korea.
Lieutenant General Joseph Anderson also said that the U.S. has to face “direct threats” that come from “modern States acting very aggressive, in a military rivalry.” So that the audience knew exactly whom he has in mind, Anderson added: “who does that sound like? On Russia”. The military stated that Russia and China are trying to achieve superiority in the air and on the ground, and this is extremely dangerous, so the U.S. army should develop a heightened pace and ready for anything, including possible future confrontation.
A number of experts writes off the bellicose statements of American generals on the campaign in the United States and the desire to get a new President, additional funding. However, even if so, the unanimity with which the military says about a future war with Russia and China, as something obvious and inevitable, can not disturb. The adviser to the Russian President Sergei Glazyev on meeting, the Byzantine club in Moscow noted that today, the United States losing the economic race with China, are in consistent aggression against Russia and provoking chaos all over the world — from the Middle East to Europe. In his opinion, “the US elite is trying to retain dominance through the use of force” and puts the world on the brink of a new world war, as is not afraid of military action in Europe.
Judging by the statements of the American military believe that the conflict with Russia or China, not to mention these two countries at once, does not escalate into nuclear and will be held only with the use of conventional weapons. This corresponds to the concept of “prompt global strike”, which is that the US army must be able to deliver a massive disarming strike conventional weapons anywhere in the country for one hour. In spring 2010, the U.S. Secretary of defense Robert gates said that Americans are ready to cause such rapid global strike anywhere in the world.
Leading researcher of the Institute of international security problems Russian Academy of Sciences Alexey Fenenko believes that the US government seriously prepared to apply their concepts in practice, and the talk of war is not just rhetoric.
— Even after the military operation in Iraq, around the end of 2005, the Pentagon came to two conclusions. The first — that a future war will be a war with the great powers. Then meant, first of all, China, which had differences over Taiwan, though Russia was also considered. And the second conclusion was that America has made too much of an emphasis on a new generation of warfare with non-state actors, and in the future we need to develop a full-fledged armed forces. Now we are promoting the implementation of these ideas 11 years ago.
“SP”: — Why Americans are so convinced that the “great war” with Russia or China is possible without the use of nuclear weapons?
— First of all, Americans remember the precedent of the Second world war, when all sides had chemical weapons, but never one was not applied, even France and Germany under the threat of complete defeat. Where is the guarantee that in a new war the same fate not befall a nuclear weapon, and it will not rest on warehouses of chemical weapons 70 years ago?
Second, the Americans from the time of the adoption of the national military strategy 1995, rely on the so-called indirect combat. Select the territory of a third country where there is a clash between the military forces of the great powers. For example, the US and China on Taiwan, the US and Russia in Ukraine, Georgia or the Baltic States. The parties tacitly limit the theater of operations.
Thirdly, the Americans like to say that the use of nuclear weapons, this situation is not military but political. Its use requires the commitment of top political leadership of the country. The question arises, will Russia because of Georgia, or China over Taiwan on the use of nuclear weapons? Americans believe that there is.
In military strategy 1995, the first time the Americans have written about what the psychological effect of nuclear deterrence is being blurred, and in the conditions when nuclear weapons are so destructive, it is unlikely someone will take notice. And since it is rarely used, it is possible to wage war by conventional weapons. And the key point is that in this war victory will reach someone who will quickly gain air supremacy on the local theater, and then dictate peace terms. Then the Americans worked through the scenario of the Taiwan conflict quickly to break the Chinese aircraft, and then put the ultimatum: or nuclear war, or surrender to save face. The same thing they had planned against Russia. They expect that no one will have enough political will to press the red button. Hence all their arguments about this war.
“SP”: — Williams Hicks said that such a war would be very quick and bloody. But the latest US war in the middle East can not be called fast. Where such confidence?
— Americans believe that the ideal option is “desert Storm,” which lasted for a month and a half, or Bosnian operation in 1995, which lasted a month. This is followed by not full occupation, and forced to a disadvantageous peace. In the middle East in the twenty-first century, the United States was not at war with the state actors. Whom they were forced to peace in Afghanistan? The Taliban, which they wanted to destroy?
“SP”: — Why now these concepts are starting to gain relevance among the us military?
— Because it threatens their leadership. Americans believe that Russia and China are two countries that have questioned their hegemony. They headed for opposition from the US and block the access of Americans to particular regions of the world. In Washington believe that the leader can not be blocked, otherwise it will lose its position. And if so, the leader must give an answer. Now they actively deliberate over how to renew its leadership with the help of local military operations. No rhetoric in this. It is a General trend in the development of American strategic thought over the past 12 years.
However, military commentator for TASS, a retired Colonel Viktor Litovkin convinced that a quick war against Russia or China without the use of nuclear weapons is a myth.
— In such discussions is not surprising. In the United States is growing hysteria about the fact that America is losing its strength and status as the most powerful state in the world. They see that deprived them of the hegemony, its right to be a lawyer, Prosecutor, judge, police and executioner for the rest of the world. It really bothers and Angers the American elite, particularly the neoconservatives. So they demonize Russia, trying to turn it into a new “evil Empire” and deployed public opinion against her.
They, of course, rely on the power possessed by America. And the US is really one of the strongest military countries in the world. It is sufficient to note that their annual military budget is around $ 600 billion, and following them, China is only 150 billion. Russia’s military budget is about 60 billion. It is easy to imagine how much you can do in the military sphere, despite its huge budget like the US. However, Russia and 60 billion has the necessary weapons so that no one could threaten her for real and expect to win.
The military of any country in the world are in two forms: they are either at war or preparing for war. What American generals today talk about how they will defeat Russia and China — this is normal. The military must always answer the question of his senior commanders about whether they will be able to defeat any opponent: “Yes, Mr. President.” So they swaggered, being able to defeat Russia.
“SP”: — And they are able?
— It is possible. Russia has nuclear weapons, and this figure has perfect balance with the United States, as recorded in the contract start-3 on the joint reduction of strategic offensive arms. By the way, Russia is the only country in the world with which America has a similar agreement.
The view that the possible non-nuclear war with Russia or China is a myth. In the Russian military doctrine is written down that Russia could use its nuclear weapons in two cases. The first is when she is going to attack a state or coalition of States with nuclear weapons. The USA in the event of such an attack will definitely get a nuclear strike in response. The second case is if the attack is carried out without the use of nuclear weapons, but questioned the survival of Russia. That is, if conventional weapons, our country will suffer a serious or unacceptable damage, the army will use nuclear weapons.
So when American generals and admirals say that can fight Russia without the use of nuclear weapons, they, to put it mildly, misled by their leadership and the public. If a war between NATO and Russia breaks out, it is sure to be nuclear. And I think this war will be no winners, to the detriment of all parties will be inflicted enormous. But Russia is still more likely to survive in this conflict, not least because of its vast territory, which is all covered with bombs impossible. But in place of the NATO capitals, as one of our publicists will be nuclear ash.
Americans understand this perfectly, so, no matter how much they advertise their power, they would not dare to attack Russia. It’s just rhetoric and elements of psychological and information warfare.
