Is the United States waiting to be beaten in the face of Russia's new gadgets?Traditional ICBMs should be cool?
Hey, guys, today I'm going to share with you a big piece of news that will definitely blow your jaw-dropping!Did you know?Recently, there have been rumors that the United States may want to abandon land-based missilesDon't worry, let me tell you this shocking story slowly.
Anyway, there's been a big news coming out of the U.S. lately that they're probably going to have to abandon those traditional land-based missiles because, well, because they can't seem to get their hands on Russia's latest gliding warheads. I can't help but sigh, is this the United States going to start lying flat?Don't worry, let me take my time.
First of all, we have to understand the fact that the United States is facing a huge crisis for land-based missiles. I heard that in order to save military spending, the United States may have to lose all its land-based missiles, and the so-called "three-in-one" nuclear strategic system will also have to collapse. As soon as this news came out, the Russian side was highly concerned. The Russian media unceremoniously pointed out that the United States and Russia are simply very different from each other when it comes to facing land-based nuclear forces.
Look at Russia, which confidently believes that its land-based ICBMs are the strongest in the world, and they are not ashamed to develop a modern "triad" nuclear system. However, how embarrassing it is that the United States is still relying on the "Minuteman 3" missiles that were put into service half a century ago!Although the United States has been trying to develop alternatives, it has suffered a serious setback, and the result may be that the "Minuteman 3" has to be retired, and the world's top nuclear power has no replacement, what is wrong?
That's where Russia mocks the United States, saying that it relies too much on SLBMs and nuclear bombers. And what about themselves?Well, they are betting on land-based ICBMs, and have recently been expanding the number of "Yars" missile regiments. Did you know?This Yars missile plays a crucial role in Russia's nuclear deterrence strategy and is the backbone of Russia's land-based nuclear forces.
Don't think that's the end of it, Russia still has a big killer - the "Samalt" missile, which will be on combat duty from 2023. Although this thing is powered by liquid fuel, it has a range that is far enough to hit anywhere on Earth. Moreover, "Samalt" can not only carry 10 nuclear warheads, but also is extremely fast enough to break through the American anti-missile system. Aren't you saying it's crushing?
What is even more remarkable is that Russia has also modified the old-fashioned RS-18A missile and installed the "Pioneer" hypersonic gliding warhead, which can reach a speed of 30,000 kilometers per hour, which is equivalent to 27 times the speed of sound!This thing can really effectively break through the US anti-missile system. And what about the new generation of American land-based missile "Sentinels"?It is still in the development stage, it will not enter service until 2030 at the earliest, and its performance is not much stronger than that of the Russian one. How embarrassing it is!
What is even more astonishing is that the "Sentinel" also plans to use underground silos, which have no ability to maneuver at all. In contrast, the "Yars" and "Samat" use mobile and underground launch methods, coupled with the "Pioneer" hypersonic gliding warhead, the US land-based missiles may really face a situation of "one enemy three" in the future. The US military's future land-based nuclear strike capability simply cannot be less optimistic.
Therefore, the US side seems to have revealed a posture of "being ready to lie flat". They may feel that they can't get Russian new technologies anyway, so they simply don't develop them. In the future, nuclear submarines and bombers may be relied upon to carry out nuclear strikes. Isn't this a compromise to the reality of deindustrialization in the country?It seems that the United States has been unable to reproduce the R&D and production capacity of the Cold War in many fields, resulting in rising R&D costs.
Don't think that's the end of it, land-based missiles are not just used for nuclear strikes, they can also be used as integrated launch platforms for various missions. For example, a hypersonic gliding warhead with a conventional warhead can be used to carry out ultra-long-range tactical strike missions, and it can also flexibly change payloads to perform tasks such as rapid replenishment of satellites, anti-satellites, and anti-asteroids. If the United States really gives up on this hand, it may encounter negative consequences in many areas in the future, and this is not a problem that can be solved in a short period of time.
Look at Russia, although they say that they want to actively modernize the nuclear triad, unlike the United States, their nuclear doctrine prohibits the pre-emptive use of nuclear weapons. Nuclear weapons are a passive umbrella for them, not a tool of blackmail, which is somewhat similar to what China thinks. Therefore, whether it is strategic or tactical research and development, Russia will not pose an active threat and challenge to the world.
Looking at the United States, although they may have lost one of the links in the "trinity" and weakened some of their nuclear strike capabilities, their nuclear blackmail essence has not disappeared at all. In recent years, there have been rumors of high-level US politicians calling for lowering the threshold for the use of tactical nuclear weapons, and even wanting to use hydrogen bombs as ordinary bombs. Isn't that a bit appalling?Nuclear ** is essentially just a **, but the crazy ideas of some American bureaucrats may be more terrifying than nuclear weapons themselves.
These moves by the United States will undoubtedly prompt China and Russia to further upgrade their combat systems to protect themselves. It seems that the so-called "threat theory of other countries" hyped up by the United States actually originates from the United States itself. It's really a play, and the whole world is watching it. I can't help but ask, United States, are you going to play with fire?This is a bad decision for the defense system for decades to come. Hey, it's ridiculous.