Nuclear Gift to Russia from “Peacekeeping” Obama
While the "peacekeeper" Obama calls for total nuclear disarmament, the U.S. intends to increase the might of their strategic stockpile. It’s not about the issues related to further development of the U.S. missile defense system. Let us remind you that they refused to include this key clause for the START-3 treaty.
This time, the U.S. Air Force command intends to modernize their existing nuclear B61 bombs. As stated by the U.S. Secretary of Defense, Robert Gates, the aim of modernization is not in the sense of “capability but in terms of security, reliability and extending the life of our weapons systems.”
American military experts echoed him saying that the U.S. hasn’t violated any agreements with Russia and that Moscow can’t have any complaints with Washington because the matter in question is "to ensure the reliability of the U.S. nuclear deterrent force without building new weapons or adding capabilities.”
However, a number of scientists believe that the commanders and politicians are openly stretching the truth. According to Hans Kristensen, a nuclear weapons specialist at the Federation of American Scientists, these bombs, as a result of this modernization, may become more capable, in violation of the earlier stated policy by the U.S. president on total nuclear disarmament. “There’s no way this can happen without increasing the military capability,” said the expert. As a result, he believes, “war planners and adversaries might see such nuclear weapons as more usable, allowing some targets that previously would not have been attacked because of too much collateral damage to be attacked anyway.”
His colleagues speak more openly and say that after the implementation of the plan mentioned above, the nuclear warheads may not only have their accuracy increased but their capability as well.
Judging by the American press, the plan has already been approved by U.S. President Barack Obama. The cost of the project is estimated at $4 billion. We should also take into consideration that in this case we are talking only about the partial implementation of a global plan to strengthen the might of the U.S. strategic stockpile. It’s been budgeted to spend $80 billion for these purposes over the next 10 years.
The second issue is that the weapons to be modernized first are located in the countries “neighboring” Russia - Belgium, Germany, Italy, Netherlands and Turkey. Significantly, the U.S. refused steadfastly to remove their strategic stockpiles from there even after the end of the Cold War. More than that, they refused to discuss specific locations of where nuclear arms are stored.
According to information from the U.S. Office of Nuclear Security (NNSA), it is necessary to "ensure the nuclear protection of the European states promised them by NATO."
The question is: From whom do they want to ensure nuclear protection? It can’t be protection from Iranian ballistic missiles again. Another question is how this complies with the previously concluded START-3 treaty. Leonid Ivashov, head of the Main Directorate for International Military Cooperation and president of the Academy of Geopolitical Problems, answered these questions in an interview with Pravda.
"There are no START-3 violations in these actions of the U.S. There were too many contradictions on other issues of the treaty, and, apparently, they proceeded with the assumption that, if they focused on the possibility or impossibility of modernizing nuclear warheads the signing of the final agreement could remain up in the air.”
In any case, such plans of the U.S. are contrary to Obama's declarations of total nuclear disarmament. We see that after the signing of START-3, the strategic stockpile of the Americans is, in fact, not being reduced, while we, on the other hand, have to reduce ours.
The fact that the U.S. intends to modernize their nuclear bombs that are stored at our borders is of particular concern. Of course, it’s all intended against us. The Russian side has tried before to raise the question regarding the possibility of placing the U.S. nuclear stockpile in the Eastern European NATO countries but the Americans have been evading the matter in every possible way. The meaning of their answers would boil down to the fact that "since all members of the alliance are equal, we can’t prevent or prohibit them to have such weapons on their territory."
It has advantages for the Americans. One of the main problems for them now is to achieve a weakening of Russia's nuclear potential and thereby to reduce our might. After all, we are the only ones who can now compete with them in this regard. By developing missile defense and seeking further reductions of our nuclear stockpiles they are narrowing our advantages down to zero. Today we see yet another "gift" from the U.S. that entered the Black Sea and came in the form of a cruiser, equipped with a missile defense system. There is no guarantee it’s not going to remain there. However, it is most likely that nothing will prevent the cruiser and other similar ships from doing the same thing again. In fact, we’ve found ourselves in a situation of confrontation over conventional weapons where Russia yields considerably to the U.S. only.
But that's not all. Along the way Washington has been actively developing hypersonic weapons and cruise missiles capable of carrying nuclear warheads and working on increasing their power and range. These are other challenges that could undermine our confidence in our own security behind the nuclear missile shield. Moreover, they are creating a new class of nuclear ammunition, deployment of which in certain areas like tectonic faults, for instance, would be capable of causing natural disasters such as the most powerful earthquakes and tsunamis.
In considering recent tensions between Russia and the U.S. over missile defense issues and the ambitious plans of the U.S. to modernize its nuclear stockpiles, one can suggest respective conclusions. Here is such a "peacemaker," Obama. Of course, the American president is not the only one to blame for everything. He is a puppet in the hands of the oligarchy that controls the largest corporations and a part of the system that Jack London described as "plutocracy” 100 years ago. In fact, Obama is just "the voice of Sauron," the mouthpiece for those very plutocrats who are trying to reach goals advantageous for themselves.
Did we have to deceive ourselves by entering START-3 that isn’t worth a damn if it doesn’t limit the U.S.’s potential for improving cruise missiles, development of hypersonic weapons and missile defense systems as well as modernization of the U.S. nuclear stockpile?
As soon as we agreed to further reduce our nuclear stockpile, Obama began to insist on reducing tactical nuclear weapons within the general concept of total nuclear disarmament.
Of course, the Americans are once again demonstrating that the agreement with them is tantamount to a deal with a cardsharper who has already been caught but promised that he would play "a fair game.” We were already deceived once, during the implementation of previous agreements. While Moscow was destroying its nuclear stockpile, Washington simply stored theirs away, forming the so-called "return potential" which could be brought to operational readiness in a matter of hours. It would be naive to expect honesty from those who have deceived us before.
We “fooled” ourselves at the time of signing START-3. At least three weak points were left “unnoticed” before signing a treaty of such importance. It’s just too much. However, the recent actions of the Americans regarding missile defense and the intention to modernize their nuclear stockpile are sufficient grounds to revise certain provisions of the agreements on START-3. Of course, when events have taken such a turn, talks about reducing our tactical nuclear weapons must be stopped. It would be ridiculous to play “fool” [a popular Russian card game] alone again.
This time, the U.S. Air Force command intends to modernize their existing nuclear B61 bombs. As stated by the U.S. Secretary of Defense, Robert Gates, the aim of modernization is not in the sense of “capability but in terms of security, reliability and extending the life of our weapons systems.”
American military experts echoed him saying that the U.S. hasn’t violated any agreements with Russia and that Moscow can’t have any complaints with Washington because the matter in question is "to ensure the reliability of the U.S. nuclear deterrent force without building new weapons or adding capabilities.”
However, a number of scientists believe that the commanders and politicians are openly stretching the truth. According to Hans Kristensen, a nuclear weapons specialist at the Federation of American Scientists, these bombs, as a result of this modernization, may become more capable, in violation of the earlier stated policy by the U.S. president on total nuclear disarmament. “There’s no way this can happen without increasing the military capability,” said the expert. As a result, he believes, “war planners and adversaries might see such nuclear weapons as more usable, allowing some targets that previously would not have been attacked because of too much collateral damage to be attacked anyway.”
His colleagues speak more openly and say that after the implementation of the plan mentioned above, the nuclear warheads may not only have their accuracy increased but their capability as well.
Judging by the American press, the plan has already been approved by U.S. President Barack Obama. The cost of the project is estimated at $4 billion. We should also take into consideration that in this case we are talking only about the partial implementation of a global plan to strengthen the might of the U.S. strategic stockpile. It’s been budgeted to spend $80 billion for these purposes over the next 10 years.
The second issue is that the weapons to be modernized first are located in the countries “neighboring” Russia - Belgium, Germany, Italy, Netherlands and Turkey. Significantly, the U.S. refused steadfastly to remove their strategic stockpiles from there even after the end of the Cold War. More than that, they refused to discuss specific locations of where nuclear arms are stored.
According to information from the U.S. Office of Nuclear Security (NNSA), it is necessary to "ensure the nuclear protection of the European states promised them by NATO."
The question is: From whom do they want to ensure nuclear protection? It can’t be protection from Iranian ballistic missiles again. Another question is how this complies with the previously concluded START-3 treaty. Leonid Ivashov, head of the Main Directorate for International Military Cooperation and president of the Academy of Geopolitical Problems, answered these questions in an interview with Pravda.
"There are no START-3 violations in these actions of the U.S. There were too many contradictions on other issues of the treaty, and, apparently, they proceeded with the assumption that, if they focused on the possibility or impossibility of modernizing nuclear warheads the signing of the final agreement could remain up in the air.”
In any case, such plans of the U.S. are contrary to Obama's declarations of total nuclear disarmament. We see that after the signing of START-3, the strategic stockpile of the Americans is, in fact, not being reduced, while we, on the other hand, have to reduce ours.
The fact that the U.S. intends to modernize their nuclear bombs that are stored at our borders is of particular concern. Of course, it’s all intended against us. The Russian side has tried before to raise the question regarding the possibility of placing the U.S. nuclear stockpile in the Eastern European NATO countries but the Americans have been evading the matter in every possible way. The meaning of their answers would boil down to the fact that "since all members of the alliance are equal, we can’t prevent or prohibit them to have such weapons on their territory."
It has advantages for the Americans. One of the main problems for them now is to achieve a weakening of Russia's nuclear potential and thereby to reduce our might. After all, we are the only ones who can now compete with them in this regard. By developing missile defense and seeking further reductions of our nuclear stockpiles they are narrowing our advantages down to zero. Today we see yet another "gift" from the U.S. that entered the Black Sea and came in the form of a cruiser, equipped with a missile defense system. There is no guarantee it’s not going to remain there. However, it is most likely that nothing will prevent the cruiser and other similar ships from doing the same thing again. In fact, we’ve found ourselves in a situation of confrontation over conventional weapons where Russia yields considerably to the U.S. only.
But that's not all. Along the way Washington has been actively developing hypersonic weapons and cruise missiles capable of carrying nuclear warheads and working on increasing their power and range. These are other challenges that could undermine our confidence in our own security behind the nuclear missile shield. Moreover, they are creating a new class of nuclear ammunition, deployment of which in certain areas like tectonic faults, for instance, would be capable of causing natural disasters such as the most powerful earthquakes and tsunamis.
In considering recent tensions between Russia and the U.S. over missile defense issues and the ambitious plans of the U.S. to modernize its nuclear stockpiles, one can suggest respective conclusions. Here is such a "peacemaker," Obama. Of course, the American president is not the only one to blame for everything. He is a puppet in the hands of the oligarchy that controls the largest corporations and a part of the system that Jack London described as "plutocracy” 100 years ago. In fact, Obama is just "the voice of Sauron," the mouthpiece for those very plutocrats who are trying to reach goals advantageous for themselves.
Did we have to deceive ourselves by entering START-3 that isn’t worth a damn if it doesn’t limit the U.S.’s potential for improving cruise missiles, development of hypersonic weapons and missile defense systems as well as modernization of the U.S. nuclear stockpile?
As soon as we agreed to further reduce our nuclear stockpile, Obama began to insist on reducing tactical nuclear weapons within the general concept of total nuclear disarmament.
Of course, the Americans are once again demonstrating that the agreement with them is tantamount to a deal with a cardsharper who has already been caught but promised that he would play "a fair game.” We were already deceived once, during the implementation of previous agreements. While Moscow was destroying its nuclear stockpile, Washington simply stored theirs away, forming the so-called "return potential" which could be brought to operational readiness in a matter of hours. It would be naive to expect honesty from those who have deceived us before.
We “fooled” ourselves at the time of signing START-3. At least three weak points were left “unnoticed” before signing a treaty of such importance. It’s just too much. However, the recent actions of the Americans regarding missile defense and the intention to modernize their nuclear stockpile are sufficient grounds to revise certain provisions of the agreements on START-3. Of course, when events have taken such a turn, talks about reducing our tactical nuclear weapons must be stopped. It would be ridiculous to play “fool” [a popular Russian card game] alone again.