The US nuclear arsenal is outdated and modest in relation to that of Russia and China, warns a report. What should trump do

The US nuclear arsenal is outdated and insufficient to cope with the growing global threats, it is shown in a new report, whose authors recommend a triple of the number of nuclear focoa by 2050.

Photo shutterstock

According to this report, obtained by Fox News Digital, the current nuclear force of America, consisting of about 1,750 nuclear weapons, is small and risks making the vulnerable nation, in a period when Moscow, Beijing and Phenian extend their arsenals at a rapid rate.

For example, China builds 100 new nuclear weapons a year, according to the Pentagon, and is about to reach the strategic parity with the US until the mid -2030.

“The latest nuclear fossa we have was built in 1989”told Fox News Digital Robert Peters, the author of the Heritage report.

“The dimension of the force we have now … was conceived when President Obama was in 2010, and the assumptions of that time were that there will be no real competition between the United States and Russia, and China was not even a real player in the nuclear field.”

Edited by Robert Peters from the Allison Center for National Security of Heritage, the report proposes that Washington will expand its nuclear force to approximately 4,625 nuclear weapons to be operated by 2050.

This would be composed of about 3,500 strategic foci – worn by intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBM), submarines equipped with ballistic and bombing missiles – respectively 1,125 non -strategic weapons and ballistic bombs of operating theaters (TBM) with short and average range.

The report comes in the context of warnings that Moscow has thousands of non -strategic nuclear weapons, numerically exceeding American stocks up to ten to one, while China accelerates the pace to perform stealth bombers, submarine rockets and even orbital attack systems. In turn, North Korea already has about 90 nuclear focoa and continues to test rockets that could reach the US.

“We have an arsenal today that is decades older than its planned life cycle and a force that has been designed for a benign world.”

Peters' proposal provides for a modernized force that includes new Sentinel intercontinental missiles, submarines with Ballistic Ballia Rockets, Stealth B-1 bombers with nuclear capacity, long-range cruise missiles, as well as hypersonic weapons. American nuclear forces would be in the accounts below the levels of the Cold War, but significantly above the current level.

It provides regional nuclear allocations in each operating theater, the largest number of means, 3,200 foci, to be placed under the northern command and focused on national defense. About 750 foci would be placed in Europe and 675 in the Indo-Pacific region.

Sentinel intercontinental ballistic missiles would replace the MEMman III missiles, and instead of the B-52 aircraft, new long-range cruise missiles would have been carried out.

During the Cold War, the US introduced tens of thousands of nuclear focoa, which they held in Europe, Asia and internally. The renewed arsenal, provided for 2050, would be much smaller.

“An American president with some regional nuclear options, but with a symbolic limitation capacity, would be quickly confronted, during a limited nuclear conflict, with two unpleasant options: to surrender or threaten with large-scale attacks on the adverse nation, thus inviting a symmetrical response, ie suicide,” warns the report.

Why would the US need more nuclear weapons

Skeptics often ask the question why nations would need thousands of nuclear weapons when a single ogiv has the ability to shatter a city. Peters claims that this is a misconception, rooted in the images of the Cold War about mushroom -shaped clouds above Manhattan.

In fact, most modern nuclear focoas are not designed for “destruction of cities”, but for hitting enemy nuclear forces – silos, rocket fields and control and control centers. China, for example, builds up to 500 ICBM silos reinforced in distant deserts. Military planners assume that at least two American seals would be needed to guarantee the destruction of each such site.

According to Peters's arguments, “the purpose is to never reach this point. That's why we have nuclear weapons, to make sure we never reach this point.”

It is not clear whether the current political leadership would take into account Peters' recommendations, especially considering that Donald Trump advocates discussions of “denuclearization” with US opponents.

“It is understandable that Trump does not like nuclear weapons.”said Peters.

But he added, “I tried [denuclearizarea] Under President Obama in 2009 and 2012 and no one followed the example ”.

“Huge amounts of money are spent on nuclear energy, and destructive capacity is something we don't even want to talk about today, because we don't want to hear about it.”Trump reflects in his speech at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, in February.

“I want to see if we can denuclearize and I think it is very possible.”he added, suggesting discussions on this topic between the US, Russia and China.

Russian President Vladimir Putin has announced that Russia will suspend its participation in the new Start Treaty due to the support given by the US. However, Russia was frequently surprised by violating the terms of the agreement. But China has never engaged in the US negotiations.

In September, Russia proposed an extension with one year of the new Start Treaty, which expires technically in 2026, but the White House has not yet responded to this proposal.

In addition, the extension of nuclear arsenal would not be cheap. But, at a budget of about $ 56 billion, the US spends only about 7% of the defense budget on nuclear weapons, says Peters.

The report also requests the conduct of nuclear capacities in Finland and Poland, a proposal that will surely shake the Kremlin and reduce the attacks of the attacks from a few minutes to a few minutes.

Nuclear weapons are currently hosted in Italy, Germany and the Netherlands – bases chosen during the Cold War, when they were only 240 km from the Soviet front line. But the line of the Russian front has now moved 1280 km to the east.

He made a similar call for the placement of nuclear capabilities in South Korea. Washington periodically performs American nuclear submarines in South Korea and involves Seoul in its nuclear planning operations in exchange for not developing its own nuclear weapons.