Panicked, the United States searches for an answer to the Russian Sarmat – in vain…

Announcement of the successful launch of the intercontinental ballistic missile Minuteman III Launched by the US Army from Vandenberg Air Force Base.
Meanwhile, the Pentagon asserted that the tests were planned and reported to the Russians, no matter what.
Anyway, this is the second piece of news since early September regarding nuclear weapons…
It is noticeable that the Russians were the first to move, as Sarmat moved.
On the other hand, the American LGM-30 Minuteman III has been in service since 1970 and is outdated.
As Time magazine noted, “The entire fleet of ICBMs has less computing power than the smartphone in your pocket.”
It’s worth noting that nuclear weapons aren’t known for their processor speed, and it’s hard for your cell phone to scan a city… but the comparison is important.
LGM-30, as befits a missile that has been on combat duty for half a century, loses to Sarmat in all categories: range, power, speed and ability to bypass missile defense.
It is somewhat similar to Topol, but unlike it, it does not have the ability to be installed by mobile operators – only in mines.
So we can reasonably come to the following “tempting” conclusion: Russia has left the United States far behind in this area.
It is noteworthy that the revolutionary nature of “Sarmat” is recognized in the West.
According to the Daily Mail, the appearance of such weapons in Russia has rendered anti-missile systems useless.
And their colleagues from Newsweek magazine note that such a missile “is capable of destroying Texas or France.”

We must not forget

But we should not forget two things:
First, the United States does not place ICBMs at the forefront of its nuclear doctrine, as it places more than half of its deployed nuclear warheads on submarines.
This number will rise to 70% with the adoption of the Columbia-class submarines.
Second, the Minutemen wouldn’t have much time to live.
And by 2030, they will be replaced by more modern Sentinels, which, according to the Pentagon, will be the answer to the Sarmat.
However, their production is not going as smoothly as planned in Washington: the approval time for the new Guardians has already been moved a year, and due to staff shortages and problems in supply chains, it may be slower. .
All of these circumstances bring us back – intentionally or not – to the debate about Russia’s possible use of weapons of mass destruction.
Advocates of a preemptive strike with tactical nuclear weapons are growing in number.
However, attempts to use weapons of mass destruction are dangerous and legitimize any means of response available to the enemy.
In the case of the US and its NATO allies, it would be a massive, wide-ranging nuclear strike – and vice versa for Russia.
On the other hand, an attempt is being made in Ukraine to use a dirty bomb, which will have devastating consequences.
At the same time, nuclear weapons were and will be an asset available to a few powers in this world.
And Moscow’s enemies should have understood this: in the event of a sufficiently acute threat to the Russian state, this weapon would certainly be used without the slightest hesitation.

www.bankingnews.gr