As reported on Wednesday, June 5, “Russian conversation”,
the report, seen by the RT, the organization offers three options
reducing the costs of a nuclear Arsenal. In addition, the authors of the document note,
that the policy of the White house in this sphere are aimed at preparation for
potential conflict with the use of weapons of mass destruction, although
the probability of a strike on the part of Russia is extremely small. Experts believe
that overly bloated military budget of the United States concern us
analysts, however, nuclear weapons are not the main item of expenditure of the Pentagon.

The Association for arms control the United States called
the policy of the American President Donald trump on the issue of costs
nuclear Arsenal “impractical, unstable and insecure”. Analysts
introduced the report, which evaluated “nuclear posture Review of the United States” — doctrine
prepared by trump administration in 2018. So, according to experts,
Washington should reconsider the budgetary allocations, which
it is planned to allocate to nuclear weapons.

“The present course is impractical, unreliable, unsafe and
requires revision. It’s not too late to go the other way. It is time to produce
reassessment of planned expenditure on nuclear weapons, and have time to do it before
how will invested the largest amount,” — said in the report
reviewed RT.

Recall that in a paper published in 2018,
define the basic principles of functioning of the nuclear forces of the state,
the priorities of their development and application. In particular, it mentioned that Russia, China, North Korea and Iran are a threat to the United States. As stated
the Russian Ambassador in Washington, Anatoly Antonov, as the White house justifies large
military budget.

“To justify military expenditures to justify
the nuclear build-up the Americans again found a “horror story” in the face
Russia. We understand that this is the desire to pour a huge amount
funds in the military industrial complex, we understand what trillions of dollars
behind this”, he said.

Association for arms control offers three
variant of spending cuts that will help to reduce the burden on the budget of the United States in
the next 30 years, but at the same time, according to the authors, will allow to save
the destructive power of the U.S. nuclear Arsenal and its capabilities
deterrence.

The first of these involves the abolition of the additional costs
proposed by trump administration in the framework of modernization of nuclear forces,
prescribed even during the time of former President Barack Obama. It
will save almost $29 billion.

The second way is more economical to deploy about 1.5 thousand
nuclear warheads. This number of warheads allowed to have Russia and the United States under
The Treaty on strategic offensive arms (start-III). In particular,
we are talking about reducing the number of nuclear submarines armed
ballistic missiles, and ICBMs, as well as on the extension of the service life of missiles
Minuteman III. So, according to the Association, you can save $120.5 bn If
add to this the rejection of the additional costs from the first paragraph, the amount increases
nearly $150 billion.

The most profitable is the third option, involving
reducing the number of strategic warheads and elimination of ground part
the nuclear triad — Intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs).

“The third option provides for the waiver of such element
nuclear triad, the ICBMs and reduce the number of strategic
weapons that fall under start-III, up to 1000 units. Thus for
the next 30 years, assuming initial estimates of the office of the U.S. Congress on the budget
will be able to save about $253 billion, and in conjunction with the cancellation initiated
Trump additional costs this figure will increase to $281,8 billion,” —
calculated the researchers.

The report notes that silo-based ICBMs do not have
any significant advantages in comparison with other components of nuclear
triad. Moreover, the authors note that the main role of such ICBMs is to be a target
for Russian missiles in the event of a full-scale war. In the document
they say that Moscow will have to spend a considerable portion of their Arsenal in
the attempt to destroy U.S. silo-based missiles. However, to serve
target can and are already facing armed Minuteman III, and to develop new
missiles for no reason.

In addition, the likelihood that Russia will be the first to strike
U.S. remains extremely low, says the Association.

“Although the past few years, relations between the United States and
Russia, the tensions, the probability of sudden massive
a Russian attack on the United States is still very small,” the report says.

Russian President Vladimir Putin has stressed in the past that
Russia has no concept of a preventive nuclear strike. Russia could use the
nuclear weapons only as a response.

“In our concept of the use of nuclear weapons, no preemptive
strike. Our concept is a response to counter-punch, it means we are ready
to use nuclear weapons only when sure that
a potential aggressor strikes on our territory”, — said the head
state.

Wasted budget

The US is facing problems due to overly bloated
the military budget, the head of the Center Voyenno-political researches
The CLAIM of the RAS Vladimir Batyuk. However, nuclear weapons are not the biggest item of spending
Washington, he added. Note that in the 2019 fiscal year defense budget
The United States accounted for $716 billion And next year, trump is going
to request from Congress for military purposes us $750 billion.

“On nuclear weapons consumed less than
the usual weapons. With the defense budget problems due to the fact that in the last
years, Washington was actively involved in regime change, “spreading democracy”
for example in the middle East that ended in disaster and a waste
colossal funds,” he said in an interview with RT.

Meanwhile, the Director of the Center for military-political studies
MGIMO Alexey Podberezkin considers that the proposal of the Association control
arms can guide the process of changing the structure of US nuclear forces in
inconvenient for Russia direction.

“In Russia, the main part of the nuclear weapons concentrated
on the ground media and the Americans — on the sea. If I propose to reduce
a large part of the ICBMs, so Russia will also have to do this and change the structure
its nuclear forces to increase the number of submarines or strategic aircraft —
in any case, to move in an unfavorable direction for us”, — the expert believes.

Not in a hurry to reduce the Arsenal

The document also notes that the number of nuclear warheads,
now owned by the USA (according to the authors, approximately 3,800), too
great. The report notes that the problem of containment of Russia and China
to execute, having much less Arsenal. Besides, nuclear weapons are not
helps to solve other problems faced by Washington in the twenty-first century
cyberthreats, failed States, climate change and “aggressive
regional policy” of Moscow and Beijing.

According to Vladimir Batjuk, the nuclear powers have
excessive nuclear arsenals, and their reduction would reduce
international tension.

“If the U.S. nuclear Arsenal will be reduced, their ability
to deter a potential adversary will not decrease. China, for example,
strategic nuclear warheads significantly less, nevertheless to deter
Beijing enough,” — said the expert.

Specialists Association on arms control
noted that trump not only increases the cost of
the modernization of the nuclear Arsenal, but headed for the exit international
contracts that limit various kinds of weapons. In particular, Washington has already
announced its withdrawal from the INF Treaty. In addition, the start-III
will end in 2021, however, the United States is not in a hurry to start a dialogue about the extension of this
agreement or concluding a new.

“Simply put, the administration trump is preparing to participate in
a new nuclear arms race, while increasing the likelihood of such
of competition”, — said in the report.

Earlier in the administration, trump said that the US President will take
the decision to extend the contract in 2020. The Russian side, in turn
repeatedly stated willingness to dialogue on this issue.

“About the fate of the start-III: we have such
as President Putin has preferred to extend it for five years
once expired, the expiration date in February 2021. Still
finished with the Americans to discuss this issue”, — said the Minister of foreign Affairs
Of the Russian Federation Sergey Lavrov.

Start-III was signed in 2010 by Barack Obama and Dmitry
Medvedev and entered into force in February 2011. The document is valid for 10
years with possibility of prolongation for another five years. In the framework of the Treaty country
agreed to reduce their nuclear potential. Thus, the number of nuclear
warheads should not exceed 1550, the parties to the Treaty are allowed
to have no more than 700 delivery vehicles.