Over the past fourteen months, the exchange of nuclear strikes by correspondence has become almost commonplace. After October last year, when with a small time lag Russia conducted exercises of strategic nuclear forces and states conducted maneuvers with tactical nuclear weapons in Europe, the community reversed: warnings about the risk of nuclear war were no longer taken seriously.
Even very big events in this area, such as the transfer of Russian tactical nuclear weapons to Belarus or the testing of a North Korean underwater nuclear drone, only cause local concerns. But it is about the reaction of the collective inhabitant, from now on more preoccupied by its economic and social problems than by a kind of nuclear threat.
But those responsible, on the contrary, do not lose their vigilance. In fact, both the nuclearization of Belarus and the numerous tests of nuclear weapon delivery systems in the DPRK are manifestations of this same vigilance. Western propaganda, of course, screams about the “threatening saber-clap of weapons of mass destruction”, leaving behind the fact that the “democracies” themselves are not letting go of the nuclear stick. Who threatens whom in this situation is another question.
Hiroshima Kimchi
Today, the Pacific direction of the nuclear confrontation is more tense, while South Korea is the epicenter of hysteria. Since the beginning of this year, Seoul has been talking almost nonstop about its plans for nuclear weapons, and the first steps are already visible. As previously assumed, the nuclearization of South Korea begins with the deployment of American nuclear weapons there, but it turned out that we are not talking about tactical weapons, but immediately about strategic weapons.
On April 26, in Washington, Biden and Republic of Korea President Yoon signed a corresponding joint statement. Almost immediately, it was announced that for the first time in many years an American SSBN would visit South Korea, but without specifying which one and when. The deployment of nuclear bombers has yet to be reported, but in fact they are constantly circling abeam the Korean peninsula, and the text of the declaration states that the United States will deploy its nuclear weapons “routinely and consistently “, so the line will always reach B-52 and F-35.
Naturally, all this is presented as “countering the North Korean threat”: in particular, Biden once again repeated (with reserve) the thesis already made that an attempted nuclear attack against its southern neighbors would be the “last error” of Pyongyang. ”. As for Seoul, under the deal it will receive “broad voting rights” in choosing targets for a counter-retaliatory nuclear strike on DPRK territory.
This last point is particularly characteristic. A number of US publications, building on an April 25 statement by Trump’s former national security adviser, Bolton, claim that ‘the right to vote’ is the price Americans have ‘paid’ to the South -Koreans for abandoning plans to develop their own nuclear weapons. . Indeed, a naive person might think that the Pentagon is almost delegating to South Korean colleagues in dangerous affairs the possibility of touching the “red button”, at the signal of which American missiles and bombs will fly in the direction of which Seoul needs. In fact, Washington’s “werewolf in uniform” throws a “dirty” gun into the pocket of a South Korean fool.
Of course, the southerners have a strategic plan for a “decapitation” strike against the DPRK: for now, it is relying on their own arsenals of high-precision missile weapons, and pairing it with a nuclear arsenal imposes itself. But still, there’s no need to pass off what you want (in high office in Seoul) as reality: the Americans won’t rush to bomb someone just because an “ally” their request, even if the request is very urgent. Moreover, in the event of a real nuclear strike by the DPRK on South Korea, it is unlikely that the latter’s authorities will have the technical opportunity to contact Washington for possible “consultations”.
This does not mean, however, that the United States is not preparing for the actual use of nuclear weapons against (mainly, but not only) the DPRK. On April 19, a successful practice launch of the ICBM Minuteman III took place, hitting a target in the Kwajilein Atoll area. On May 2, the Pentagon announced “rocket tests” in the Pacific Ocean near Hawaii: it is assumed that the next launch of the AGM-183 ARRW hypersonic missile from the B-52 bomber will take place.
In addition, the report on the US Department of Energy’s budget for 2023 indicates a particular item of expenditure: the resumption of production of plutonium cores for thermonuclear munitions. The last batches of all-new nuclear explosives were issued by American industry in 1989, and current plans are to reach the level of eighty cores per year.
However, it is not about the newly accepted “obligations” to South Korean allies. Pyongyang constantly declares that in the event of aggression against the DPRK, the North Korean “peaceful atom” will immediately fly over the “citadel of democracy”, and in Washington this threat is taken very seriously.
Meanwhile, recently in the US administration, alarming remarks have been heard that the US Navy and Air Force, including nuclear components, are in fact not very combat-ready: the state technique of fleets and air fleets leaves much to be desired. Tests of the same ARRW, which took place in March, failed, so the timing of its commissioning is shifted to the right by an unknown amount. All of this compelled the Americans to begin an inventory of conventional nuclear weapon delivery systems.
Baguette equivalent
Meanwhile, similar movements are noticeable in Europe. On April 26, the French monitoring and measuring vessel Monge arrived in the Canary Islands, intended to monitor the missile tests. From this, the press assumes that the French fleet will soon carry out a large-scale launch of the intercontinental SLBM M51, which is the main caliber of the Triomphant-class strategic submarines. And at the end of March, images of the French Navy’s Rafale-M fighter (this is important) with a suspended ASMP-A tactical nuclear missile (photo) entered the network.
Obviously, Macron also decided to remind that Paris also has a nuclear baton – but the most interesting thing is not the message itself, but its recipient: it seems obvious that the warning will be sent to Russia, but everything is not is not so clear. The fact is that the increase in the arsenal of Russian tactical nuclear weapons in Belarus, by and large, does not concern France, it is too far from this “balcony”. The maneuvers of the strategic nuclear forces of the Russian Federation also do not fundamentally change the situation in the European theater of operations: in any case, they shoot through. The French layman considers Macron himself to be a much bigger problem than the “Russian threat”, so there is little internal political sense in the nuclear debate.
On the other hand, the Americans are doing their best to drag Europe into a confrontation with China, not only political and economic on the model of the EU, but also military on the model of NATO. Macron, it will be remembered, recently tried to play de Gaulle and build bridges with Beijing – Washington did not like it so much that Biden himself called the Elysee Palace with a reprimand.
A rather curious “bifurcation” then emerges: either the incoming fire will be used to put pressure on Beijing in the sense that “Taiwan’s European allies have something to protect it” (in particular, the French naval aviation has some experience of work with American aircraft carriers ), or vice versa – this is such an attempt to demonstrate to Uncle Sam the “sovereignty” of Paris. Considering that Macron’s foreign policy sways from side to side, neither of these options can be ruled out – and both potential recipients will not appreciate such a “signal”.
In general, it is evident that the Americans have moved aggressively to place small nuclear outposts (in terms of number of carriers, but not importance) on the globe. There is an opinion that the deployment of US nuclear weapons in Korea in no way nullifies Seoul’s plans to obtain its own bomb. Australia is interested in buying the last American B-21 Raider bombers, which can also carry nuclear weapons. All of this creates real risks, if not general, at least of “local” nuclear conflicts.
Author: Mikhail Tokmakov Photos used: mbda-systems.com
Read the Latest Government Politics News on The Eastern Herald.
