U.S. retargets nuclear missiles to 12 Russian economic facilities
The USA is developing a new nuclear doctrine. American experts believe that today’s system of U.S. nuclear forces is out of date. Now they are going to change nuclear targets on the territory of Russian federation. The U.S. is going to retarget their nuclear missiles from large Russian cities to 12 most important Russian economic facilities. According to the U.S. experts destruction of these facilities will paralyze Russia’s economy and Russia will not be able to maintain military resistance.
This information was provided in the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) report calling for fundamental changes to U.S. nuclear war planning, a vital prerequisite if smaller nuclear arsenals are to be achieved.
"From Counterforce to Minimal Deterrence - A New Nuclear Policy on the Path Toward Eliminating Nuclear Weapons" calls to abandon the almost five-decade-long central mission for U.S. nuclear forces, which has been and continues to be "counterforce," the capability for U.S. forces to destroy an enemy's military forces, its weapons, its command and control facilities and its key leaders.
"The current rationale for maintaining an arsenal of nuclear weapons no longer exists." said Ivan Oelrich, vice president of the Strategic Security Program at FAS and one of the report authors. "And to get future reductions in the number of weapons, we have to eliminate the missions they are assigned."
Talk of efforts to control nuclear arms typically focuses on sheer numbers of warheads and their explosive power.
But with President Obama and his Russian counterpart, Dmitry Medvedev, putting nuclear arms control back on the Washington-Moscow agenda, a new study looks beyond simple comparison of numbers and types of weapons to the more harrowing question of just what those weapons are targeted to strike.
During the Cold War, they were aimed at Russia's hardened silos, bomber bases and military installations. Later, similar sites in China were added. Now, potential nuclear facilities of other regional countries are on the list, as well as chemical and biological weapons facilities.
"From Counterforce to Minimal Deterrence”, takes a close look at "strike options," giving their view of the role nuclear intercontinental ballistic missiles and strategic bombs play in today's post-Cold War world.
Instead of just comparing numbers among the nuclear powers, the authors representing the Federation of American Scientists and Natural Resources Defense Council focus on what the United States is targeting and whether this approach should change, the Washington Post reports.
The study points out the obvious -- that "nuclear weapons are horrific things and nuclear war would be an unimaginable disaster." But it says current Pentagon plans for using strategic nuclear weapons include "individual strike options that probably range from using just a few weapons to using more than 1,000."
The authors also note that political and military leaders argue "that nuclear weapons are not really intended to be used, but are meant only to deter, and therefore detailed war plans and alert forces increase the credibility of the deterrent and make an attack less likely."