In the aftermath of the New Start Treaty with Russia agreed to by President Obama, the United States for the first time in history, assumed a position of nuclear inferiority.
The numbers are clear. As noted by the Arms Control Association, Russia has 7,700 warheads to America’s 7,100. Russian sources, however, note that in one category, Moscow has an even greater lead. The Moscow Times reports that “By most estimates, the United States today deploys just between 200 and 300 tactical nuclear weapons in Europe, compared to Russia’s arsenal of between 2,000 and 3,000.”
The Kremlin’s commanding lead goes beyond mere numbers. While Russia has diligently modernized its nuclear arsenal, its U.S. counterpart is aged and deteriorating.
The Heritage Foundation notes:
“there is still an enormous disparity between U.S. efforts and those of Russia and China with respect to nuclear modernization, not to mention the difference between their force expansion and U.S. reductions in nuclear capability.
“The U.S. currently does not plan to replace the existing elements of the U.S. nuclear triad until they are 40–80 years of age. This is dangerous because a large part of the U.S. deterrent will reach this age within 15 years. It is also uncertain whether or not all elements of the existing force can survive this long and still be effective…Until 2021, there will be no procurement of modernized systems. This is clearly not the case in Russia, China, Iran, or North Korea. While the Obama Administration has apparently shifted its views about the Russian threat, the actual nuclear force modernization plans are essentially the same as those adopted in 2010–2011, a period in which the Obama Administration was in complete denial about the seriousness of the Russian nuclear threat… Moreover, planned U.S. modernization is distant and only partial.”
Generic medicine and branded drugs have similar side buy viagra cheapest effects. If a website doesn’t care about the viagra purchase uk privacy of its users, how can it be trusted? To counteract this effect (and bad reputation), make sure that a privacy statement is clearly defined when a newsletter signup form is present. This aphrodisiac is also well known for preventing numerous men from getting the medical attention order viagra viagra that they need. With homeopathy, all of the ingredients are diluted, so each india sildenafil ingredient in a homeopathic product has the letter “X” after it. The Bulletin of Atomic Scientists outlines the specifics:
“Russia is modernizing its strategic and nonstrategic nuclear warheads. It currently has 4,500 nuclear warheads, of which roughly 1,780 strategic warheads are deployed on missiles and at bomber bases. Another 700 strategic warheads are in storage along with roughly 2,000 nonstrategic warheads. Russia deploys an estimated 311 ICBMs that can carry approximately 1,050 warheads. It is in the process of retiring all Soviet-era ICBMs and replacing them with new systems, a project that according to Moscow is about halfway complete. The outgoing ICBMs will be replaced by the SS-27 Mod. 1 (Topol-M), the SS-27 Mod. 2, two follow-on versions of the SS-27 which are still in development, and a new liquid-fuel “heavy” ICBM. Following technical problems, the Russian Navy is also rolling out its new Borey-class nuclear-powered ballistic missile submarine. “
Compare Moscow’s modernization program with the dismal condition of the U.S. deterrent, described by American Progress: “Nearly every missile, submarine, aircraft, and warhead in the U.S. arsenal is nearing the end of its service life and must be replaced…these weapons systems are nearing retirement and must be replaced.”
A further complication has been caused by Moscow’s refusal to abide by long standing nuclear arms treaties, which Washington faithfully adheres to. Foreign Policy worries that: “Not only did Russia violate the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty, signed by President Ronald Reagan and Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev in 1987, it did so while negotiating with the Obama administration over New START, a 2010 arms reduction treaty. The White House was at best naïve to Russian duplicity; at worst it was complicit…The administration negotiated a new arms control treaty with the Russians before resolving the potential INF treaty violation. It is not clear why. Beyond that problem, cajoling the Russians to return to compliance with the INF treaty, even if possible, fails to get at the most important question: Why was Russia developing an INF treaty-prohibited nuclear weapon at the same time it was negotiating a new strategic nuclear arms treaty with the United States in 2009 and 2010? What did the Kremlin hope to gain militarily or strategically? …The Russian deception of negotiating a nuclear arms.”
The National Institute for Public Policy is concerned that, beyond numbers and modernization, an additional threat exists. Unlike other nations, Russian military doctrine does not shy away from the use of atomic weaponry.
“While western leaders, particularly in the United States and United Kingdom continue to advocate policies supporting the ultimate elimination of nuclear weapons, Russia’s nuclear posture appears to be heading in the opposite direction…Russian military and civilian leaders increasingly brandish nuclear threats and declare nuclear weapons to be of growing importance to the Russian Federation. Moreover, despite a roughly 80% drop in the number of U.S. nuclear weapons and a cut of more than one-third in the U.K. nuclear stockpile since the end of the Cold War, Russia has made nuclear weapons the centerpiece of its military modernization program…Russia’s military doctrine places primacy on nuclear forces, including sanctioning their use preemptively against conventional threats…”