The head of the United States Strategic Command, the head of the country’s nuclear arsenalexplained in the US Senate a clear threat: the nation led by Joe Biden has to prepare for a nuclear war since its geopolitical rivals could arm themselves “very quickly” with new weapons of mass destruction.
Charles A. Richard was referring to Russia and China, the countries with which the Americans have had the most international clashes in recent years. If the US does not put the batteries and invest in nuclear defense it will be “at risk of losing credibility in the eyes of our adversaries.”
Richard warned that China is developing a new generation of nuclear power facilities that could generate large amounts of plutonium that would be used for this type of weaponry.
China, according to Richard, will double its arsenal of nuclear weapons by the end of this decade And you can mount your ICBMs on trucks to hide your location.
In his opinion, one of the objectives of the Chinese strategy is to subdue the United States in the Indo-Pacific and isolate Washington by attracting US regional partners in Asia under the orbit of Beijing. “China already is capable of executing any strategy in the use of nuclear weapons within its region and will soon be able to do so with intercontinental reach as well, ”added Richard.
China is developing fast reactors and reprocessing facilities looking to reduce their dependence on coal. But the plants also produce plutonium that could be used to make nuclear weapons. The first fast breeder reactor is expected to go online in 2023.
“With a fast breeder reactor, they would have a very large source of weapons grade plutonium at their disposal, which will change China’s ability to do whatever it wants, in terms of further expansion of its nuclear capabilities, “Richard explained.
There is no evidence that China has the intention to divert their potential plutonium arsenal to the use of weaponsBut concern has grown as Beijing is expected to at least double its number of nuclear warheads over the next decade.
China says its nuclear program is for peaceful purposes. The Chinese embassy in Washington has not responded to the commander’s words.
Last month, a report called “China’s Civil Nuclear Sector”, narrated that the Asian giant has begun to build a second plant to reprocess the spent nuclear fuel that could be commissioned before 2030.
Richard noted that US officials recently learned how quickly China is moving to build its civil nuclear program. About a week ago “we realized that and started the process to understand the implications it had,” Richard said.
Christopher Ford, a former State Department official during former President Donald Trump’s tenure, said US officials may not be able to do much about China’s nuclear advance beyond denouncing it and “pointing out how destabilizing it would be in the region.” ..) Y press for China not to make strategically dangerous moves“.
Nuclear waste processing has not been practiced for decades in the United States after former President Jimmy Carter detained it over proliferation concerns.
The Russian case
Regarding the Russian threat, the head of the United States Strategic Command explained to the Senate that they are aware that Moscow is dedicating great efforts to modernize its conventional and nuclear weapons. “Our nuclear forces must show Russia that it will never have any advantage from the use of nuclear weapons in any scene of violence.”
For Richard, one of the main Russian threats is the Petrel nuclear-powered cruise missile, which can reach any point on the planet. Emphasis has also been placed on the Poseidon nuclear torpedo, which can carry a nuclear warhead with a yield of up to 100 megatons.
The head of US nuclear weapons believes that “the maintenance and modernization of our nuclear forces, the weapons complex and the necessary capabilities of NC3 have gone from being something we should do to something we must do.”
The military expert considers that the distinctive feature of the current conflict is “that it is not linear or predictable”, therefore, he added, “we must take into account the possibility that this conflict creates conditions that could very quickly lead an adversary to consider the use of nuclear weapons as the least bad option ”.
Charles A. Richard, Chief of the United States Strategic Command and the head of the US nuclear arsenal, said it loud and clear during an appearance in the Senate: your country should prepare for a nuclear war since current conflicts could escalate “very rapidly”, in reference to clashes with China and Russia and its advances in nuclear weapons. If the US does not start investing more in nuclear defense and infrastructure, it will be “at risk of losing credibility in the eyes of our adversaries ”, he added.
“For the first time in our history, our country is moving towards confrontation with two strategic adversaries that at the same time have nuclear capabilities, but must be deterred in a different way,” said the military high command, who leads the Strategic Command in charge of managing the United States nuclear triad: strategic bombers, submarines and ICBMs.
China, according to Richard, will double its arsenal of nuclear weapons by the end of this decade And you can mount your ICBMs on trucks to hide your location. In his opinion, one of the objectives of the Chinese strategy is to subdue the United States in the Indo-Pacific and isolate Washington by attracting the regional partners of the United States in Asia under theto orbit of Beijing. “China is already capable of executing any strategy in the use of nuclear weapons within its region and will soon be able to do so with intercontinental reachRichard added.
#USSTRATCOM Posture Statement Preview: The spectrum of conflict today is neither linear nor predictable. We must account for the possibility of conflict leading to conditions which could very rapidly drive an adversary to consider nuclear use as their least bad option. pic.twitter.com/4Oe7xkl05L
Although the China’s nuclear capacity is more limited than that of the US and Russia in number of atomic warheads, according to the military high command these two countries are experiencing an “unprecedented expansion”. Not a week goes by without us discovering new advances from China in this area, he added. According to the START Treaty, Russia and the United States cannot add more than 1,550 nuclear warheads in deployed ICBMs, ballistic missiles launched from submarines and heavy bombers equipped for nuclear weapons. For its part, China would have 320 warheads, according to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute.
Regarding the Russian threat, the head of the United States Strategic Command explained to the Senate that Moscow is dedicating great efforts to modernize its conventional and nuclear capacity. “Our nuclear forces must include a sufficient range of capabilities so that Russia never misperceives any benefit from the use of nuclear weapons in any scenario of violence.”
Russian advances include nuclear-powered cruise missile Petrel, which has a practically unlimited scope. It also highlights the changes of the massive nuclear torpedo Poseidon, which can carry a nuclear warhead with a yield of up to 100 megatons at most.
Before such a threat, Admiral Richard considers that “the maintenance and modernization of our nuclear forces, NC3’s weapons complex and capabilities have gone from being something we should do to something we must do. ” The military expert considers that the distinctive feature of the current conflict is “that it is not linear or predictable”, therefore, he added, “we must take into account the possibility that this conflict creates conditions that could very quickly lead an adversary to conflict. consider the use of nuclear weapons as the least bad option ”.
The United States under the administration of Joe Biden has announced that it wants to modernize its nuclear arsenal, but for this it needs a “Consensus process” between the Democratic and Republican Parties, given that the budget figure amounts to 1.7 trillion dollars in 30 years. During the term of former President Donald Trump, the Pentagon recommended spending more than 6% of its budget on the so-called Nuclear Triad.
For his part, the army general James Dickinson, commander of the United States Space Command, spoke before the Senate about the space companies of the two countries, asserting that the armies of China and Russia “actively integrate advanced space and counterspace technologies into multidomain warfare strategies to challenge the regional superiority of the United States, position themselves as space powers, and create an improved balance of power dynamics in the near abroad. ”.
Russia it seems to be expanding its military arsenal and testing their newest weapons. This was revealed by images captured by a satellite that show its military power in the Arctic. This is an attempt to develop the region, secure its northern coast, and open a key transportation route from Asia to Europe that has drawn attention after the lock on the Suez Canal.
Russia is one of the Arctic nations that claim rights in the territory, so its arms presence has been reformed in recent times. Moscow has already installed a base on the remote island of Kotelny and has two other facilities in the Franz-Joseph Land archipelago.
The images, provided to CNNby space technology company Maxar, showcase underground storage spaces, housing bombers, MiG31BM aircraft and new radar systems near the coast of Alaska.
Nevertheless, as indicated CNN, weapons experts, as well as Western officials, are primarily concerned with a super-weapon that the country has. I know about the Poseidon 2M39 torpedo, which operates with the propulsion of a nuclear reactor and that it was specifically designed to bypass the coastal defenses found on the seabed, such as the belonging to the United States. It is also capable of launching a multi-megaton ball that would generate radioactive waves, rendering the target shoreline uninhabitable for decades.
Even thanks to its design, the torpedo could “flood the coastal cities of the United States with radioactive tsunamis”, as revealed in November Christopher A. Ford, US Under Secretary of State for International Security and Non-Proliferation.
Development of the Poseidon 2M39 is proceeding with great speed and multiple key trials are expected to take place in the remainder of 2021, on orders from Vladimir Putin.
The power of the Russian element has put experts in several countries in check and is already considered “part of the new type of dissuasive nuclear weapons”, even though it is barely in the testing phase.
In the latest review of the UK’s defense policy, which was published on March 16, 2021, the British government announced that it would lift the previous limit on the number of nuclear weapons to 180 warheads. The new goal: the number of a maximum of 260 warheads is to be achieved by the middle of the 2020s – an increase of more than 40 percent.
The integrated review of security, defense, development and foreign policy “Global Britain in a competitive age” sees a “minimal, credible deterrent” within the framework of NATO as essential in order to “guarantee” the security of Great Britain and its allies. In 2010 the British government decided to reduce nuclear weapons from 225 to 180 warheads. Given the “changing security environment, including the evolving range of technological and doctrinal threats,” the number will not be reduced, but increased to 260. In addition, the number of deployable or deployed nuclear weapons or delivery systems is no longer publicly disclosed in order to preserve a policy of “deliberate ambiguity”.
So far, government spokesmen have been reluctant to justify this decision. However, UK Defense Secretary Ben Wallace told the BBC on March 21, 2021 that the controversial decision was motivated by a perceived need to counter Russian missile defense.
The modernization of the submarine fleet, which is expected to go into operation in the early 2030s, should also ensure deterrence in the “immediate future”. The acquisition of these US-built submarines and the associated Trident nuclear weapons systems underscore the company’s intention to keep nuclear weapons for at least the next 30 to 50 years.
Nevertheless, the government claims that it is committed to the long-term goal of a world without nuclear weapons and is committed to the full implementation of the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), including nuclear disarmament.
The decision sparked a wave of criticism from many quarters. Stephane Dujarric, spokesman for UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres, said the decision could have detrimental effects on global stability and efforts for a world free of nuclear weapons. The German Foreign Minister Heiko Maas also criticized the British plans to expand their nuclear arsenal in an interview with Deutsche Welle.
Hans Kristensen, an expert at the Federation of American Scientists, recalled that Britain was obliged by the NPT to “negotiate in good faith on effective measures to end the nuclear arms race in the near future and to nuclear disarmament”. Increasing the nuclear arsenal seems to contradict that commitment, Kristensen said. Great Britain has itself linked its reductions in the past to its NPT obligations. Kristensen comments that the decision makes future criticism of Russia or China about increasing their arsenals less credible.
Conversely, the criticism of the Russian ambassador, Andrei Kelin, in Great Britain of British rearmament was criticized as not very credible. He said the British decision was illegal and that Moscow-London relations were “almost dead”. The Kremlin said the decision was regrettable and would damage international stability. Kelin also claimed that the increase was a violation of the NPT.
According to the BBC’s fact check, Mark Fitzpatrick of the International Institute of Strategic Studies said the decision was not directly against the NPT, but it may be against the spirit of the treaty. The UK Ministry of Defense itself claims that “the maintenance and renewal of parts of the UK’s nuclear deterrent capability is fully consistent with international legal obligations, including those under Article VI of the NPT”.
Anne Balzer from ICAN Germany commented: “The new defense strategy is a fatal signal to the international community. The upgrade plans do not provide an answer to the challenges of our time, they are wasting trust and financial resources. The announcement shows how concrete the danger of a renewed nuclear arms race is and that the existing control regime can easily be undermined. “
British Prime Minister Boris Johnson this week presented the “General Report on British Defense and Security Policy”, a document on the country’s strategic realignment after Brexit. In it he announces an intensification of military aggression against Russia, China and other states. He also promised an increase in the number of British nuclear warheads by no less than 40 percent.
The content of the document is blatant warmongering. In the midst of the corona pandemic, the government claims that there is no money to pay for nurses and doctors. Important social benefits are also being cut and the exploitation of workers intensified. At the same time, however, Johnson promises to allocate billions of pounds to weapons of mass destruction.
The Tories are apparently not yet satisfied with the horrific death toll and human suffering from their “herd immunity” policy. They openly plan to wage wars all over the world – even nuclear wars, which would endanger the survival of mankind, they do not shy away from.
The overall report envisages an increase in British nuclear warhead stocks from “no more than 225” to “no more than 260”. In doing so, the government is violating a 2010 obligation not to have more than 180 warheads by the mid-2020s. It would also be the first increase since the end of the Cold War.
The government is replacing the existing warheads that can be used on Trident-class nuclear submarines and plans to build four new dreadnought-class submarines by the early 2030s. These are intended to replace the currently active Vanguard class boats. A reduction is “no longer possible” because Great Britain is confronted with the “full spectrum of state nuclear threats” – this description obviously means China and Russia. The report even threatens the use of nuclear weapons if Britain falls victim to a cyber attack or other “future technology”. This violates the obligation to use nuclear weapons only to retaliate against another nuclear power or in response to extreme chemical or biological threats.
Britain will also “deploy larger armed forces overseas more often and for longer periods”.
The document envisages an increase in defense spending of more than £ 24 billion over the next four years. The British government is even exceeding the target of two percent of gross domestic product (GDP) set by the NATO powers. It is proud to say that Great Britain will “have the highest defense spending among the European NATO powers and the second highest in the entire alliance”. Furthermore, the size of the armed forces is to remain at over 100,000 (a reaction to criticism from the military in view of the decreasing number of personnel), the next generation of warships developed and the capacity of the aircraft carrier combat groups with at least 48 F-35 fighter jets by 2025 increase.
There are also plans to shift the focus to the Indo-Pacific region, which is “increasingly becoming the geopolitical center” and “the world’s growth engine”. Great Britain’s interests are to be secured there through military and economic alliances.
The development towards a “European partner with the largest possible and best integrated presence in the Indo-Pacific” is presented as a reaction to “China’s growing power and international self-confidence”. China is “by far the most important geopolitical factor in the world today”.
In response to China’s “systemic challenge”, the UK will deploy the aircraft carrier HMS Queen Elizabeth and its combat group to the Indo-Pacific at the end of the year in what has been described as “the UK’s most ambitious global operation in two decades”. There are also plans for the upstream stationing of soldiers and equipment, including warships in the Middle East, the Pacific regions, Japan, Australia and Singapore, as well as confirmed plans to triple the Royal Navy presence off the coast of Oman.
In its crackdown on China, Great Britain is being supported directly by the Biden government, which is also upgrading its armed forces in the Asian Pacific and is stationing missile systems worth $ 4.7 billion in Japan, Taiwan and the Philippines, among other things. The US is referred to in the document as “our main bilateral ally … trading partner and domestic investor”.
The defense policy considerations behind the actions of the British government, the analyst Con Coughlin puts in Telegraph Great Britain is now “free from the restrictive shackles of the EU … Another considerable advantage for the government is that in view of the increasingly dysfunctional EU, the Biden government will be more willing to deal with London instead of Berlin, Paris or Brussels to ally. “
Nonetheless, there was considerable unease among the Tories at the government’s attempt to combine the aggressive change of course with continued commitment to lucrative trade with Beijing. The document states: “Open, trade-based economies like the UK must interact with China and remain open to trade and investment with the country.”
The chairman of the intelligence committee, Julian Lewis, complained about the “greedy naivete” towards Beijing. Defense Committee Chairman Tobias Ellwood said Johnson should have called China “the geostrategic threat it is.”
As a counterbalance to such criticism, Great Britain has also announced diplomatic and military aggression against Russia, which is described as the “most acute threat to our security”. In military terms, this means that Great Britain is “at the forefront of the implementation of NATO’s new deterrence and defense concept … and other states in the Eastern European neighborhood and in the rest of the world in building their resilience.” supported against government threats. This also includes Ukraine, where we will continue to expand the capacities of the armed forces. “
According to a report by Daily Telegraph The armament commitments announced on Tuesday are just a foretaste. A Defense Command document is due to be released on March 22, detailing a modernization plan to “prepare the armed forces for the wars of the future.” Of the Telegraph writes of “£ 80 billion worth of armament … over the next four years. The total by the end of the next decade could be close to £ 200 billion. “
Global military aggression will be accompanied by domestic political and social oppression. The report combines the reference to “the intensification of competition between states” with “non-state actors” (including “large technology groups”). These could be used by hostile states as “representatives in conflicts” and “attack the weak points in democratic systems … and thus put the boundary between war and peace to the test.”
Claims of foreign influence over domestic politics and social life are used as a pretext for new surveillance and propaganda institutions, including a National Cyber Force. It is supposed to “track down, hinder and deter our opponents” and serve for the development of cyber weapons, an anti-terror operations center and a situation center in the cabinet.
This apparatus of repression goes far beyond all measures allegedly aimed at combating foreign influence. The document indirectly mentions the “decline in democracy and pluralism exacerbated by Covid-19” and an “increase in social and political discontent”. The following warning is then issued: “Governments may have problems meeting people’s demands for security and prosperity.”
The response to this will be another attack on democratic rights. According to the document, the internal threat posed by “terrorism” does not only come from Islamist and Northern Irish groups, but also from “right-wing and left-wing extremist, anarchist and monothematic terrorism”. This comprehensive definition enables the state to suppress all forms of political and social resistance, especially the newly identified threat from the “left”.
Not the slightest resistance to the Tories war criminals is typical of the poisoned political atmosphere created by the crisis of British and world imperialism. The Labor Party’s hypocritical criticism focuses on complaints that measures against China have not gone far enough and that military spending needs to be increased even further.
The Labor Party’s few criticisms of the report differ little from those from the right-wing ranks of the Tories. Labor party leader Sir Keir Starmer asked why the nuclear arsenal was expanding, but previously stressed that Labor’s support for nuclear deterrence was non-negotiable.
When Foreign Minister Dominic Raab spoke out against a “Cold War mentality” towards China, Starmer replied that the Tories would “ignore the human rights violations in China and invite the country to build our infrastructure”. He also accused the Tories of having “cut the armed forces’ resources every year for the past decade,” and that they were responsible for “an era of retreat.”
Workers must understand the declaration that nuclear war is not just an option, but is actively planned as a core element of “defense” and foreign policy, as a warning of the fundamental dangers they face.
Capitalism has turned the whole world into a powder keg, while politicians try to prepare the population for unbridled militarism and wars of conquest by constantly stirring up chauvinism and xenophobia.
The working class must learn the lessons of history and, in response to the course of the imperialist powers towards a third global conflict, build a united world movement against imperialism and war and for socialist revolution.
The British are masterful managers of perception and have a centuries-old history of reversing the truth. This strategic feature was fully demonstrated earlier this week with its recently completed integrated security, defense, development and foreign policy review which states that “Russia remains the most acute threat to our security.” As might be expected, the reality is actually the opposite: the UK remains the most acute threat to Russia’s security in Europe, albeit obviously behind the US. I explained last summer how “MI6 could become the CIA prosecutor to prevent Europe from moving to Russia” after London’s madness of fake news attacks against Moscow spanning everything from the false flag saga. Skripal on allegations of a secret Russian espionage base in the French Alps.
From these revelations, it can be concluded that the UK sees itself in a “spy war” with Russia, which it is waging both to pursue its traditional divide-and-rule interests in Europe, and on behalf of its US allies who share the same same goal. Manipulatively presenting Russia as the UK’s greatest threat is nothing more than a means of justifying further aggression against it under the pretext of so-called “self-defense”. It is noteworthy that the Integrated Review itself also revealed London’s plans to increase its arsenal of nuclear warheads by an astonishing 40% in a move that Moscow denounced as “a decision that harms international stability and strategic security. “where” an ephemeral threat from Russia was expressed as justification “. The Eurasian Great Power may therefore have no choice but to defend its interests in line with international law by taking all countermeasures it deems appropriate in the face of this threat.
The current dynamic of the British-Russian rivalry is a modern remix of their traditional juxtaposition that went on throughout the 19th century. At that time, the so-called “Great Game” took place mainly in Central Asia and parts of West and South Asia, the latter of which concerned the then Persia and Afghanistan respectively. The British Empire was actively trying to contain Eurasian great power as a continuation of the historical trend whereby maritime (thalassocratic) states try to contain terrestrial (tellurocratic) ones. This theory of international relations is increasingly being confirmed as practically law-like at this point, as evidenced by this example and other related ones such as the complementary efforts of the United States against other states of multipolar tellurocratic civilization such as China and Iran. It is therefore understandable why the United Kingdom for this purpose in Europe becomes the lesser “Lead From Behind” partner of the United States, albeit mostly in the sense of hybrid warfare.
With this in mind, the contours of the New Cold War are becoming increasingly evident and may remain lasting. The historical trend of thalassocracies versus tellurocracies continues to the extent that the United States and its lesser British partner are actively trying to contain Russia, China and Iran. The western Eurasian front of this global strategic competition remains complex considering the fact that Germany is dominated by thalassocratic influences despite being a tellurocratic state. This explains his schizophrenic stance of simultaneously waging his own hybrid war against Russia in parallel with the attempt to stabilize relations with Moscow via Nord Stream II, which is firmly opposed by his US godfather. It can therefore be predicted that the outcome of the New Cold War in Europe will be strongly determined by Germany’s ability to promote its sovereign interests vis-à-vis Russia, despite strong pressure from the United States and the United Kingdom to keep the two separate.
[Epoch Times March 18, 2021](Reported by The Epoch Times UK Reporter) On March 16, the British government released a review report on defense, security and foreign policy, indicating that it will shift the focus of British foreign policy after Brexit In the Indo-Pacific region, at the same time, Britain will substantially increase its nuclear weapons stockpiles.
The report, entitled “Global Britain in a competitive age”, lists the vision that the UK should play in 2030, and the actions that the UK needs to take to realize this vision.
What the outside world is most concerned about is how the UK plans to respond to the threats posed by the CCP and Russia.
The report stated that the CCP is “the biggest national threat to the British economic security” and calls the CCP a “systematic competitor.” Russia is known as “the most serious direct threat to the United Kingdom”, and the United Kingdom should “actively deter and defend against” the all-round threat brought by Russia.
The Anglo-American relationship “will continue to be our most important bilateral relationship.”
When talking about China, the report said, “We will invest in increasing our ability to face China (the CCP), so as to cultivate a better understanding of China (the CCP) and the Chinese people, and at the same time improve our response to it (the CCP) to our country. As well as the systemic challenges brought about by the security, prosperity and value of our allies and partners. We will continue to seek positive trade and investment relations with my country while ensuring that our country’s national security and values are protected.”
Increased nuclear warheads
The report said that the UK will increase the number of nuclear warheads from “no more than” 180 to “at most” 260, which is equivalent to an increase of 40%.
The British Navy will retain four nuclear submarines, at least one of which can be launched at any time to achieve sustained maritime deterrence.
The UK currently has four Vanguard-class nuclear submarines. In the 1930s, they will be replaced by four other Dreadnought-Class nuclear submarines. It is estimated that this project will cost at least 31 billion pounds.
Each “Intrepid class” nuclear submarine has 12 launch tubes and can carry eight ballistic missiles. Each missile can carry multiple nuclear warheads. When patrolling, each submarine can carry up to 40 nuclear warheads.
Only the Prime Minister of Britain has the right to decide to use nuclear weapons. Britain only uses nuclear weapons as a deterrent. Since 1994, Britain’s nuclear bombs have not targeted any specific targets. ◇
Spain wanted to belong to the ‘select’ club of countries with nuclear weapons. Franco tried, but finally failed. Who Yes, it managed to create an arms policy in this area, it was the United Kingdom., with several developments linked to World War II and the Cold War. Always maintaining its position as an ally of the United States on this side of the Atlantic and serving as a preferential location for some of the most important nuclear silos in the world.
Now, after a few months of applying Brexit, the country’s Prime Minister Boris Johnson has announced that will expand its nuclear warhead limit from 180 to 260. In total, 80 extra warheads that will be ready to be installed on the Trident missiles.
From a technological and military point of view, having 40% more nuclear warheads does not mean much. They can be manufactured very easily with the necessary technology. Something that is taken for granted in a country like the United Kingdom with a more than proven capacity to enrich uranium. It is more a fact that marks the political path and in the face of the gallery to give one more turn to the screw of the deterrent power. And now that they no longer depend on Europe, perhaps even more so.
Warheads are often used to measure a country’s nuclear strike capability. Something like a count or inventory of the number of these artifacts that a nation can count on in the event of a nuclear war.
Trident missile launch
Basically, a warhead or nuclear warhead is the load that a missile can carry inside and that are specially designed to release a huge amount of energy in the form of a radioactive explosion. Currently, there are different types of warheads that are classified according to the purpose for which they are manufactured. We can find chemical, biological warheads, other explosive but not nuclear, kinetic …
The history of the United Kingdom with nuclear weapons dates back to the early 1940s when it had a first program to study the application of this type of bomb on the battlefield. The first tests did not take long and in the 50s they already executed the first test. Becoming the third country in the world to hold one just after the United States and the Soviet Union.
A few decades later and with the Cold War well advanced, the United Kingdom began to develop the programa nuclear Trident -which gives its name to a model of missile manufactured by Lockheed Martin- and which had its impetus in the 80s and 90s. The success of those years was such that the same program is still in force today and it is the one that will receive an important endowment of resources by Boris Johnson.
Trident missile launch
The goal of increasing the number of warheads is to have more stock for provide the Trident missiles embarked on the submarines. A truly deterrent power that blends seamlessly with the UK’s military strategy of always having a nuclear submarine navigating and ready to carry out any order.
From an international point of view, the first country by number of nuclear warheads is Russia with 6,300 units followed closely by the United States with 5,800. In the following positions we find China with 320, France with 290, the United Kingdom with 260, Pakistan with 160, India with 150 and North Korea with 35. It is believed that Israel may have around 90 nuclear warheads, something that has not been confirmed. nor denied.
According to Arms Control Association in 2020 UK has a total of 120 nuclear warheads in use and another 95 stored. At the moment, it is not known if Boris Johnson’s plan is to rescue those that are not in use or build totally new ones.
The Vanguard class is the backbone of the UK submarine fleet. It is a nuclear powered submersible developed in the 1980s and whose first specimen – the one for which the class is named – was commissioned in 1993. It was chosen by the Royal Navy to equip Trident missiles with nuclear warheads. A total of 4 units were built, all of them are currently active.
HMS Vigilant, belonging to the Vanguard class
Thomas McDonald / MoD
The length of the Vanguard class submarines is 150 meters powered by a nuclear reactor signed by Rolls-Royce, a maximum submerged speed of 25 knots, a crew of 135 people and all kinds of sensors and weapons dedicated to electronic warfare.
For its part, the adoption of Trident program happened practically at the same time that submarines were designed in the 80s. The then Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher reached an agreement with the president of the United States Jimmy Carter to carry out the development of these missiles jointly.
The treaty contemplated the participation of the United Kingdom contributing 5% of the financing, allowing you to acquire the Trident II (the second version). This particular model notably improves the first missile run by allowing them to carry more payload while also lightening the pack.
These missiles have proven their worth in various tests in both the Royal Navy of the United Kingdom and the Navy of the United States, carrying out a total of 172 successful pitches for 10 unsuccessful pitches. A success that both nations will not miss in the short term and they already have update and revision programs in place in order to extend the useful life.
Tam McDonald / MoD
In the British case, estimates suggest that nuclear missiles will be operational until 2050 exceeding the service life of Vanguard-class submarines. But in London they have already thought about it and are currently in the process of manufacturing the first copy of the Dreadnought-class nuclear submarine, which is scheduled to enter service in 2028.
The Trident II missiles have a weight of 59 tons, a length of 13.5 meters, a diameter of 2.11 and are capable of carrying different configurations of nuclear warheads. The UK announced in 2016 that the submarine in ‘patrol mode’ could equip a total of 40 warheads and 8 missiles Trident II.
Trident missile launch by a US submarine
Regarding the scope, it is estimated that this missile model has 12,000 kilometers of autonomy at a maximum speed of 29,000 kilometers per hour (about 24 times the speed of sound). In other words, it can reach practically any part of the world in a very short time.
The United Kingdom announces its plan to increase its arsenal of nuclear warheads by more than 40%, arguing the need to guarantee their safety.
“In recognition of the evolving security environment, including the evolving range of technological and doctrinal threats, this is no longer possible, and the UK will move to a total nuclear weapons arsenal of no more than 260 warheads.”, it reads in a release of the Integrated Review of Security, Defense, Development and Foreign Policy of the country, presented this Tuesday to Parliament by British Prime Minister Boris Johnson.
In addition, London has reported its plans to replace your old warheads with new ones that can be operated during the useful life of four new submarines that are being built and that will enter service in 2030.
With its current submarines, the UK has stated that it will adhere to its current policy of always having one submarine – of its four nuclear deterrent submersibles – on permanent patrol.
London has four Vanguard-class submarines, armed with eight missiles carrying 40 nuclear warheads each; While one of the submersibles is permanently offshore, the remaining three are in maintenance, at their base in Scotland or on training exercises.
The United Kingdom had been reducing its arsenal of nuclear weapons and in 2010 the Government established a limit of 180 warheads by mid-2020, however, according to this latest decision, it will increase by more than 40%.
This resolution, London says, is based on a security and defense review that concluded that the country allegedly faces risks from other nuclear-capable nations. Furthermore, the text notes that some states are now “significantly” increasing and diversifying their reserves of nuclear weapons.
In this regard, the report considers deterrence necessary to guarantee their safety and that of their allies. “A minimal, credible and independent nuclear deterrent assigned to NATO defense [Organización del Tratado del Atlántico Norte]It is essential to guarantee our safety ”, justifies the note.
In keeping with the concept of ‘Global Britain’, this change coincides with London’s decision to position itself after the Brexi as an unavoidable power on the international stage.
Israel warned that the will of the administration Biden to restart the negotiations with Iran on reinstatement of the nuclear agreement 2015 “will pave Iran’s path to a nuclear arsenal,” according to a report.
“Israel remains committed to prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons and their position on the nuclear deal has not changed, “the prime minister’s office said, the Jerusalem Post reported.
“Israel believes that going back to the old agreement will pave Iran’s path towards a nuclear arsenal. Israel is in close contact with the United States on this matter, ”he added.
Informed The Truth News that, the State Department said that Washington would accept an invitation to meet with the countries that negotiated the original agreement – Britain, China, France, Germany, Russia and Iran – “to discuss a diplomatic way of advance Iran’s nuclear program. “
“We are ready to present ourselves if such a meeting takes place,” a US official told Reuters.
The United States withdrew from the nuclear deal
In 2018, Trump administration withdrew from the deal three years after the Obama administration negotiated it. The deal lowered sanctions against Tehran in exchange for the country reduce its arsenal of uranium enriched needed to fuel nuclear weapons.
Since the US withdrawal, Iran has admitted that it has breached the 2015 agreement when using advanced uranium enrichment centrifuges in an underground plant.
The Israeli Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, has been opposed to the Iran deal from the beginning.
A senior European Union official said on Friday that the EU is working to organize an informal meeting with all participants in the nuclear deal and the United States.
No invitations have been sent and there is no deadline for the meeting, but the world powers want to revive the nuclear deal as soon as possible, the official added, according to the Jerusalem Post.
Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif said that theUS sanctions must be withdrawnbefore your country considers re-complying with the agreement.
When the sanctions are lifted, “then we will immediately reverse all corrective measures. Simple, ”Zarif said on Twitter.
A senior Iranian official told Reuters that Tehran was considering Washington’s offer to speak about the reactivation of the nuclear agreement.
“But first they should get back to the deal. Then, in the framework of the 2015 agreement, a mechanism can be discussed to basically synchronize the steps, ”said the official.
Tehran has set February 23 as the deadline for the United States to begin reversing sanctions; otherwise, he said he would take his biggest step yet to break the deal: banning short-notice inspections by the UN nuclear watchdog.