On August 8, the American Internet edition We Are The Mighty published an interesting article authored by Alex Hollings. The loud headline "America's nukes are absolutely tiny compared to Russia's" was followed by speculations on the differences between the two countries' strategic weapons. Oddly enough, Russia was recognized as the winner in this comparison.
American concern
The article begins with an interesting observation. The author notes that the attitude towards nuclear weapons in the United States is similar to the views on the space race or the Cold War. This area is considered a relic of a bygone era in which the United States won. However, the space race and the arms race are resuming; Russia and China present new models of nuclear weapons.
The United States remains the second largest nuclear weapon and is second only to Russia. Russia, in turn, as in the past, is investing in containment "by securing Armageddon." After the end of the Cold War, the American side overestimated its victory, which by now has led to the emergence of a serious difference between the arsenals of the United States and other countries.
The author recalls the current project of a promising intercontinental ballistic missile for US strategic nuclear forces. However, until this product is on duty, land-based Minuteman III ICBMs and Trident II submarine missiles will remain in service. Their warheads have a capacity of 475 and 100 kt, respectively.
The 475-kiloton warhead allows the Minuteman to inflict monstrous damage, but this missile is already outdated. A. Hollings believes that such ICBMs have insufficient capabilities to overcome anti-missile defense, and also show insufficient power.
For comparison, WATM recalls the Chinese DF-31 ICBM, carrying a warhead with a capacity of 1 Mt (or 1000 kt - for better comparison convenience). This means that the latest Chinese missile is twice as destructive as the main US Air Force ICBM. However, the Chinese achievements do not look very impressive against the background of Russian capabilities.
The author claims that the newest Russian ICBM RS-28 "Sarmat" (or Satan II) can carry a warhead with a capacity of 50 Mt - 50,000 kt versus 475 kt for the Minuteman III. Thus, comparing the two missiles in terms of warhead power simply does not make sense due to the obvious superiority of the Russian one.
Chinese and Russian missiles can carry a single-warhead warhead or split with individual guidance units. In this case, the power of the warheads is noticeably reduced, but it becomes possible to destroy several targets over a large area.
A. Hollings also recalled another Russian “doomsday weapon” - the Poseidon underwater vehicle. This product is capable of carrying a 100 Mt thermonuclear warhead. Thus, even Satan-2 is not the “biggest child” of Russian nuclear technology.
The author recalls that the nominal power of a warhead is not the only measure of a state's nuclear potential. However, if we are talking about a full-scale conflict, these parameters must also be taken into account. In the end, as A. Hollings rightly points out, if the payload of one Russian missile is as powerful as the charges of 105 American ones, concern should be raised.
Nuclear oddities
The WATM publication looks interesting, and the attached illustrations with mushroom clouds from the detonation of the considered warheads are also curious. However, the article on the insignificance of American nuclear weapons leaves some questions.
First of all, it should be noted that A. Hollings' theses are to some extent similar to praise, and the title of the article speaks directly about the superiority of Russian missiles and their payload. This is, at the very least, pleasant.
The author of WATM calls the power of the warhead of the RS-28 missile, which supposedly reaches 50 Mt, as a cause for concern. However, it should be noted that such a charge power is the maximum theoretically possible in the existing restrictions on dimensions and weight. It is unlikely that such theoretical possibilities should be regarded as a real and fait accompli.
According to the available data, "Sarmat" / Satan II will be able to carry several variants of the payload with different indicators of the power of warheads. The possibility of using at least 10-12 warheads of individual guidance is expected. The throw weight is 10 tons. In addition, the RS-28 will in the future become the carrier of the Avangard hypersonic planning warhead. In some situations, such a product can be a much more dangerous weapon than traditional warheads with a capacity of megatons.
However, such features of a promising Russian project are ignored in favor of theoretical calculations. However, the possibility of carrying a split warhead is mentioned with its advantages and disadvantages. It is unclear why Russian missiles are assessed so one-sidedly.
The situation is similar with the study of current US missiles. They are considered only from the point of view of the power of a separate warhead, not paying attention to the presence of MIRVs and their characteristic features. With all this, real warheads for Minuteman and Trident II missiles are compared with a theoretically possible product, but not with real samples in service. This approach obviously diminishes the combat capabilities of American ICBMs and strategic nuclear forces in general. The reasons for this are also unknown.
Three versions
It is no secret that publications in the American media are often used to promote certain points of view on various issues, incl. in the military-technical or military-political sphere. Considering the WATM article in this light, several versions can be proposed to explain its content.
The first version concerns the material part of the US strategic nuclear forces. Over the past years, statements have been regularly made about the need to modernize nuclear forces and create new types of weapons and equipment of all classes. A program for the modernization of strategic nuclear forces, designed for a long period and requiring appropriate funding, has been proposed. As a result, the US Army will receive new nuclear weapons, delivery vehicles and command and control systems.
However, such a program has been criticized for its high estimated cost. Attempts by the Pentagon and the Department of Energy to "knock out" the necessary funds are facing opposition from various quarters. However, the lack of a budget does not remove the pressing issues.
In such an environment, frightening publications in the media can be useful, depicting the lag behind potential opponents in the sphere of strategic nuclear forces. In fact, there is a struggle for new programs, finances and even national security. Probably, such goals fully justify the incorrect comparisons of ICBMs and warheads.
The second explanation is political. WATM claims that in recent years Russia and China have secured nuclear superiority over the United States. Such progress can be declared a consequence of the aggressive plans of Moscow and Beijing, as well as made a formal reason for appropriate measures in relation to them.
As practice shows, the reason for the imposition of sanctions can be not only the real actions of third countries, but also suspicions of them. Thus, a theoretically possible 50-megaton warhead for the "Sarmat", with the right approach, can also become a pretext for new unfriendly actions against the "aggressors".
However, another explanation is possible, which has no connection with finance, technology or politics. A loud headline and a specific article under it can scare, terrify and dumbfounded a reader who does not have special knowledge in the field of nuclear weapons, as well as attract an audience to the publication's website. In other words, the Russian industry is capable of making a rocket with a 50-megaton warhead, and the American publication is already advertising on it.
Which of the three versions corresponds to reality is a big question. All of them explain the current situation and have a right to life. Perhaps further publications from WATM or actions in the political arena will become evidence for one version or another. In the meantime, we can dwell on the fact that a specialized foreign publication praised Russian strategic weapons.
