Removal of nuclear bombs from Europe: what the Americans have in mind


According to the Federation of American Scientists, the Pentagon secretly removed from five European countries 50 of the 61 B150 gravitational nuclear bombs stored there, reducing their arsenal by a third. Is this a victory for Russian diplomacy or, on the contrary, another step by Washington towards a "limited nuclear war"?


Recall that the United States is the only country that has actually used atomic weapons twice against Japanese cities. During the Cold War, nuclear weapons (NW) were the main deterrent and deterrent. It was believed that its destructive power and the assurance of an act of retaliation automatically made a nuclear war between two rival superpowers, the USSR and the United States, unthinkable. However, in recent years, the Pentagon has clearly again relied on the so-called "limited" nuclear war, in which low-yield nuclear weapons, more consistent with tactical nuclear weapons (TNW), will actually be used. For this, new low-power warheads were hastily developed for the Tridents, which had already taken up combat duty on American nuclear submarines, and now the turn of gravitational nuclear bombs in Europe has obviously come. Against whom they will be directed, it is not difficult to guess.

According to open sources, the United States has 150 B61-3 / -4 nuclear bombs deployed in Italy, Belgium, Turkey, Germany and the Netherlands. As carriers for them are considered strike fighters F-15E and multipurpose F-16C / D of the US Air Force, as well as aircraft of the European allies, which will receive bombs and access codes to them only in wartime. B61s are the oldest in the US nuclear arsenal, so the Pentagon announced a large-scale and expensive program to extend their life cycle, but in reality everything turned out to be somewhat different.

Instead, a modification of the B61-12 was created, which significantly changed the characteristics of a nuclear weapon. The mass of the bomb increased, and an inertial navigation system and controlled tail appeared in its tail section, which made it controlled and highly accurate. Tests have shown that the accuracy of hits has increased by 3,7-5,7 times, which greatly increases the damaging effect during detonation. Dropped from an airplane, the B61-12 will be able to glide over a considerable distance and hit the target with a deviation of no more than 30 meters, going deeper into the ground. The service life of the renewed nuclear weapon will be at least 20 years. Also, the United States has significantly expanded its fleet of possible carriers of the B61-12. Among the "strategists" these will be the proven B-2 Spirit bombers and the B-21 Raider coming to replace them. In tactical aviation, these are the already mentioned F-15E and F-16, as well as the fifth generation multirole fighters F-35. After nuclear certification, one Molniya will be able to take on board two B61-12s at once.

These are all very bad news for us and other opponents of the United States. The updated American aerial bomb, which has turned into a precision weapon based on stealth strategic bombers and fifth-generation multirole fighters, may become a great temptation to use it in a regional or local conflict. Washington deliberately and consistently lowers the threshold for the use of nuclear weapons. Undoubtedly, the Pentagon withdrew a third of its bombs from Europe not for disposal, but for their further modernization and replacement with new ammunition. Moreover, this was done behind the scenes, which is difficult to count as a victory for the Russian Foreign Ministry, whose representative Sergei Ryabkov anxiously declared:

This lowers what is called the threshold. And in fact, we are seeing the return of the concept of limited nuclear war. We believe that the US military doctrine took a step 50 years ago, when it was believed that, in principle, the use of nuclear weapons was an option for tactical war.

The Russian Defense Ministry will be forced to respond to such actions by the Pentagon by further militarizing the Kaliningrad region and Crimea, targeting American military infrastructure in Europe. Logic suggests that now Moscow too will have to seriously think about the possibility of waging a local nuclear war, betting on tactical weapons (TNW). Hypothetically, our Kaliningrad region, the main thorn in NATO's body, could be a theater of military operations. This exclave, in the event of the outbreak of hostilities, will be blocked by the North Atlantic Alliance from the air, sea and land, and a tactical nuclear strike may fall on Russian troops coming to its aid with the aim of unblocking.

Of course, all this is from the field of "extreme" options. Russia itself is a nuclear power with a full-fledged "triad". For the United States, there are goals and simpler ones, on which they can demonstrate to the whole world their status of the main "lawlessness". For example, a low-power tactical nuclear strike may well become the last argument in negotiations with Iran. Recall that the belligerent Japanese after this became the most loyal friends of the Americans.
Ad
We are open to cooperation with authors in the news and analytical departments. A prerequisite is the ability to quickly analyze the text and check the facts, to write concisely and interestingly on political and economic topics. We offer flexible working hours and regular payments. Please send your responses with examples of work to [email protected]
12 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. Indifferent Offline Indifferent
    Indifferent 21 March 2021 12: 12
    +3
    The difference in the number of bombs is so small that I would not seriously discuss this topic. Well, judge for yourself 100 bombs or 150? With 3000 nuclear warheads in service, plus or minus 50 is not serious. It will be necessary, one transport worker can bring so many bombs in one trip. Well, the fact that the accuracy of the bomb has increased is so it is. Usually, the accuracy is increased for conventional bombs to be cheap and reliable. And for atomic munitions, an extra hundred meters of accuracy has little effect.
    1. Bakht Online Bakht
      Bakht (Bakhtiyar) 21 March 2021 12: 24
      +3
      The main thing here is not the accuracy of the ammunition, but the reduction of the charge and its transformation into a tactical weapon. Plus the carriers of the F-35 weapons (unobtrusive) Previously, these were German Tornadoes. Now it is quite possible it will be the Polish F-35. The rearmament is scheduled to be completed by 2026. Plus an increase in the drop range (up to 30 km at the present time).

      the Americans envisage the combat use of a B61-12 nuclear bomb in the form of a gliding aircraft weapon, and in this case its flight range may be about 60-70 km, and in some cases even up to 100 km. This will allow the US Air Force carrier aircraft to avoid entering the affected area of ​​anti-aircraft missile systems and medium, short-range and short-range systems..

      The problem is lowering the threshold for the use of tactical nuclear weapons. Plus, for countries like Iran, 50 bombs are enough.
      1. Dmitry Petrovich (Dmitry Petrovich) 21 March 2021 20: 37
        0
        The Supreme Civil Code said unequivocally - all to the garden. The mattresses have no operating thermonuclear warheads, since the last plutonium "pellet" that initiates a thermonuclear explosion was released more than 20 years ago. The service life is approximately 20 years. So they give us a fly swatter, and we use them with a sledgehammer.
    2. Boa kaa Offline Boa kaa
      Boa kaa (Alexander) 21 March 2021 22: 25
      +2
      Quote: indifferent
      Judge for yourself 100 bombs or 150? With 3000 nuclear warheads in service, plus or minus 50 is not serious.

      Strange reasoning of an adult chela!
      1. +50 TVD SBP is a significant reserve for the Commander.
      2. Where does the figure come from - 3000 units? According to SIPRI, for 2020 we had 4310 operatively ready SBPs, of which 1570 units were deployed .... Ams once mentioned 7,2 thousand tactical SBPs. Ours seem to have confirmed 6370 units. Against the background of such figures, of course 50 units. like a trifle. But these are 50 primary goals in the theater of operations. And this is serious!

      Quote: indifferent
      It will be necessary, one transport worker can bring so many bombs in one trip.

      Don't talk nonsense. You can't even imagine a system for delivering SBP to carriers ... Nuclear bombs are not potatoes! They are not carried in sacks. These are products of special importance, and the attitude towards them is the same.

      Quote: indifferent
      for atomic munitions, an extra hundred meters of accuracy has little effect.

      It depends on the type of explosion, the power of the SBP and the resistance of the structure (silo) or the terrain. Therefore, a simplified approach is good in the bath, and not when assessing the effectiveness of the use of weapons for a specific target in certain conditions ...
  2. zzdimk Offline zzdimk
    zzdimk 21 March 2021 13: 14
    +3
    The problem is that NATO is doing everything to ensure that the Russian Federation has assembled defensive points that can be destroyed in two or three stages. It's stupid, of course, but they do.
  3. Kofesan Offline Kofesan
    Kofesan (Valery) 21 March 2021 13: 49
    +2
    Yes, this is no longer a secret ... They are going to modernize them.
  4. zzdimk Offline zzdimk
    zzdimk 21 March 2021 15: 18
    +2
    If only in Ukraine a new warehouse is not formed.
  5. Michael1950 Offline Michael1950
    Michael1950 (Michael) 21 March 2021 21: 35
    -1
    Quote: indifferent
    ... Usually the accuracy is increased for conventional bombs to be cheap and reliable. And for atomic munitions, an extra hundred meters of accuracy has little effect.

    - If an atomic bomb with TNT equivalent of 400 kilotons. And if it is with the equivalent of 0.1 kilotons, or 0.05 kt, then yes, hundreds of meters are already of great importance. The accuracy of the WTO is needed there.
  6. Kedrovich Offline Kedrovich
    Kedrovich (Alexa980) 22 March 2021 19: 31
    0
    It would detonate (independently) a couple of such old charges at bases in Europe and that's it. Either Europe will continue to be a mongrel of the United States, or they will be forced to withdraw everything.
  7. Michael1950 Offline Michael1950
    Michael1950 (Michael) 23 March 2021 18: 52
    -1
    Quote: Kedrovich
    It would detonate (independently) a couple of such old charges at bases in Europe and that's it. Either Europe will continue to be a mongrel of the United States, or they will be forced to withdraw everything.

    - If they do not detonate in Alapaevsk, Zazhopinsk and Mukhospansk - why will they detonate in Europe?
  8. Alex_3 Offline Alex_3
    Alex_3 (Alexey Tyukalov) April 12 2021 18: 59
    0
    Why waste your time for small things, you have to hit the continent immediately and in large size!
  9. Solomon Offline Solomon
    Solomon (alexey salomon) April 22 2021 05: 37
    0
    ... gravitational nuclear bombs, ..

    Marzhetsky, there are not enough adjectives ... I could add that they are metallic, oblong, gray / black, etc.