俄羅斯的新超級核武是否得把口？ 而同時美國的核威懾力量已老到過時，俄羅斯已改變整個“遊戲”的玩法

俄羅斯的新超級核武是否得把口？ 而同時美國的核威懾力量已老到過時，俄羅斯已改變整個“遊戲”的玩法
Are Russia's New Super Nukes 'All Bark And No Bite?' While America's Nuclear Deterrent Has Aged To The Point Of Near Obsolescence, Russia Has Changed The Entire 'Game'

August 17th, 2018

Fox News on the Web should be deeply embarrassed by Perry Chiaramonte and Alex Diaz’s August 8 article “Russia’s Nuclear Arsenal: All Bark and No Bite?”

“Amid fears of a new Cold War, an examination of Russia’s nuclear arsenal by Fox News shows that there may be no need to worry about a devastating nuclear attack,” Mr. Chiaramonte and Mr. Diaz write chirpily.

Mr. Chiaramonte and Mr. Diaz clearly know nothing about Russia’s nuclear capabilities or the fundamentals of nuclear strategy. Their article is blissfully uninformed by the findings of the Department of Defense and Intelligence Community’s Nuclear Posture Review. 

They appear ignorant of copious years-long congressional testimony given by the nation’s foremost nuclear and Russia experts, and ignorant of numerous articles by same, explaining why the National Defense Authorization Act (signed by President Trump on Aug. 14) provides for desperately needed modernization of all U.S. nuclear forces — in order to deter an unprecedented nuclear threat from Moscow.

“Nuclear warfare experts say that Russia’s arsenal of nukes is strictly for defense,” write Mr. Chiaramonte and Mr. Diaz. Then in the same sentence “while Moscow has a ‘first strike’ option, it isn’t likely to use it.” 

Someone needs to tell Mr. Chiaramonte and Mr. Diaz that Russia’s plans, capability and exercises practicing a nuclear first strike against European NATO and the United States means that Moscow’s nuclear arsenal is not “strictly for defense.” 

Someone needs to tell Mr. Chiaramonte and Mr. Diaz that the “likelihood” of a Russian nuclear first strike depends upon the survivability and strength of the U.S. nuclear deterrent — which is now aged to the point of near obsolescence. 

The authors assert, according to their “nuclear warfare experts,” that greater U.S. reliance on nuclear naval forces (they mean submarines) gives the United States an advantage over Russia, and greater Russian reliance on land-based nuclear forces (they mean ICBMs) proves Russia has a more defensive posture. 

In fact, Russia has always preferred land-based ICBMs — like their new Satan II ICBM that can carry 15 or more warheads — because they can be launched on a moment’s notice, can destroy many targets with one missile, and are therefore ideal for a surprise nuclear first strike. 

In fact, the United States has always preferred submarines and bombers because they are less capable than ICBMs of a surprise nuclear first strike, and therefore more “stabilizing.” 

Bombers are slow, so the Russians would see them coming, and bombers can be recalled. 

Submarines are mostly in port, only about one-third at sea on a day-to-day basis, and would be seen by Russian satellites if all were mobilizing for full deployment to the Atlantic and Pacific from their two ports at King’s Bay, Georgia and Bangor, Washington. 

Thus, in contrast to Russia, the United States has deliberately adopted a nuclear posture, a mixed Triad of bombers, submarines and ICBMs, non-optimal for an all-out surprise first-strike. The U.S. Triad is better suited for survivability and delivery of a retaliatory second-strike.

The United States has even reduced the number of warheads on its Minuteman III ICBM from three to one, so that one Minuteman cannot destroy multiple Russian targets — non-optimal for a surprise first-strike. Unlike Russian strategy, that emphasizes nuclear war-fighting and war-wining, U.S. strategy emphasizes nuclear deterrence and war prevention. 

Unfortunately, Mr. Chiaramonte and Mr. Diaz failed to report any of the basic facts about the U.S. nuclear posture or Russian nuclear capabilities that have raised alarm:

http://allnewspipeline.com/Nuclear_Cretinism_On_Fox_News.php