Does Russia Think Their New Nuclear Weapons Could Win World War III?
It certainly seems so. A new round of Russian nuclear weapons development, their new aggressive posture and their new spurning of joint nuclear programs with the United States, all point to a disconcerting trend in Russian thinking amid a growing confidence in the nation’s military capabilities.
Americans have short memories. Russians don’t. It’s only been 25 years since the Wall came down, but in Russia’s mind the Cold War didn’t end. If Russia’s invasion of Ukraine isn’t enough of a heads-up, then maybe their new generation of tactical nuclear weapons is.
That’s right – new tactical nuclear weapons - as in “yeah, we might use them since their only tactical.” No one would risk World War III over that.
Here in America, we’ve been a little full of ourselves, thinking we were so superior to Russia and everyone else in technology and weaponry. I mean, we could turn them into dust, right? But lately, in our obsession with drones and cyber warfare, we haven’t been paying attention to the whole nuclear weapons thing.
On September 10, Putin said Russia will develop a new guaranteed nuclear deterrent to counter the United States and NATO.
Actually, they already have. Russia reportedly thinks its tactical nukes are now better than both ours and NATO’s. NATO member countries have only 260 older tactical weapons. Sited in Germany, Italy, Belgium, the Netherlands and Turkey, the U.S. has 200 nuclear bombs with an overall capacity of 18 megatons. France has 60 atomic bombs.
As discussed in a report outlined in PRAVDA, Russia has 5,000 nuclear weapons of different tactical classes including Iskander warheads and torpedo, aerial and artillery warheads, all right next to Europe.
The US has 300 tactical B-61 bombs on its own territory, but this does not touch the imbalance. The United States cannot improve this situation as we have destroyed many of our Cold War tactical nuclear missiles, land-based missiles and sea-based Tomahawk cruise missiles. And we pinned ourselves with our own treaties.
The recent START 3 treaty was overwhelmingly favorable to Russia, and they have taken advantage of it with gusto.
Russia has developed long-range cruise missiles of a new generation that will soon be deployed on submarines of the Black Sea Fleet and missile ships of the Caspian Flotilla.
The U.S. State Department admitted as much in a report published at the beginning of September, stating that Russia has passed us in nuclear weapons capability for the first time in 40 years.
Letting our nuclear arsenal fall into disrepair is one thing (Washington Post), but allowing Russia to build a new strategic nuclear weapons force more advanced than ours is another thing altogether. And they even have a new generation of missiles.
So Russia does think it will win World War III if it erupts. And they might, if Putin and the hard-liners are willing to use force as much as they seem lately. And if they’re correct about the West being chicken when it comes to retaliating against them for anything.
Maybe it’s just coincidental that Russia plans to send long-range bombers to the Gulf of Mexico “just for practice”. Russia has decided not to participate in scheduled joint nuclear security efforts with the United States. Russia is boycotting a U.S.-hosted international security summit meeting in 2016.
When the heads-of-state gave Putin too much grief about the Ukraine at the G-20 meeting last week, he just got up and left.
These are not the actions of a beleaguered country concerned about world opinion.
The decline in U.S.-Russian relations is symptomatic of many things. Russia views our Congress as weak and ineffective, hamstringing our Commander-in-Chief. Russia is paranoid that they themselves will be seen as weak. And Kremlin hard-liners are reticent about letting U.S. experts into their nuclear sites.
For 60 years, the huge nuclear arsenals of both the U.S and Russia have been part of each country’s ego, but for Russia it was a much larger part. It’s why they’ve spent billions on upgrading their nuclear capability while many of their people suffer.
Which would be bad enough if our weapons actually worked well and were ready if we ever needed them.
But they aren’t.
Everyone was shocked and outraged when failures started to surface a few years ago at the sites of America’s nuclear strike forces.
- Six nuclear-tipped cruise missiles were flown across the country by mistake aboard a B-52 bomber. The crew was unaware they had them and no one knew they were missing.
- Nineteen launch officers were taken off duty for bad attitudes and weak performances in an inspection.
- The AP published a series of additional stories documenting signs of weak morale, training gaps, exam cheating, security violations and leadership lapses, including the firing in October 2013 of Maj. Gen. Michael Carey, commander of the entire ICBM force.
This is insane. We can do better than this. We do better in every other facet of nuclear.Why can’t we take care of our nuclear weapons?
Because we don’t respect our own people who handle these weapons, who are responsible for their maintenance, their preparedness, who keep the missiles armed, secured and ready for a launch order from the President.
No one wants to work at these nuclear weapon sites anymore. What were once highly sought-after, honored positions that garnered great respect and opportunities for promotion, are now shunned by soldiers as dead-end positions with no possibility of promotion, plagued by insufficient funding and poor logistical support.
Requests for help and supplies go unanswered by upper command.
And no wonder. Inspectors are obsessed over checklists, records and bureaucracy, but ignore aging blast doors that don’t seal shut and crews that have only a single special wrench to maintain 450 intercontinental ballistic missiles.
Some Commanders have tried to improve professionalism, discipline and morale within the missile force, but got little support from higher-ups.
Whether it’s the ICBM and Minuteman forces, or the Air Force’s nuclear bomber force, our nuclear strike forces are in disarray. The B-52 bombers are so expensive to replace that the plan is to let them get to be a hundred years old.
But things could change. On Friday, Defense Secretary Hagel told reporters at the Pentagon, “The internal and external reviews I ordered show that a consistent lack of investment and support for our nuclear forces over far too many years has left us with too little margin to cope with mounting stresses.”
“Routine neglect of our nuclear weapons programs over the years has compromised our ability to respond to an actual threat.”
To address this, Hagel announced a boost in funding for the Pentagon’s nuclear projects of 10% per year over the next five years, or an addition of almost $8 billion between 2016 and 2020 to the present $15 billion annual maintenance for our nuclear arsenal (RT.com).
And the Pentagon management may have gotten the message, announcing last week that it could change the way it funds our nuclear forces. It would shift money for ICBMs, nuclear bombers and nuclear submarines outside of the Defense Department’s budget and into a new account. Such a change would elevate the military’s nuclear mission among senior leadership to a status that would have some actual power.
“We will need to know what’s working and what’s not,” Hagel said. “We must restore the prestige that attracted the brightest minds of the Cold War era.”
The situation is very different for those who serve in the Nuclear Navy. There, moral is high. The ships are actually nuclear powered, so the nuclear is “active” and performing, not just something sitting there unused and decaying, never moving and unlikely ever to be used.
In the end, however, our nuclear force crews, and the American public, see the threat of full-scale nuclear war as “simply nonexistent.”
Not so in Russia. They’re ready. And what would we do if they used these tactical nukes against one of its neighbors? Would we start World War III? Would our weapons actually work?
This same question never seems to go away.
