The Americans have been convinced for years that parity in the number of missiles and charges is parity in military power. Suddenly it turned out that this was not the case, and one of the latest Russian missiles could cost much more than a hundred or a thousand conventional ones.
Vladimir Putin instructed to collect information, conduct an analysis and make proposals on the possible resumption of nuclear weapons testing. Earlier, during a meeting of the Security Council, Defense Minister Andrei Belousov stated the need to immediately begin preparations for new nuclear tests at the Novaya Zemlya test site.
The Defense Minister also said that the United States conducted the Global Tender 2025 exercises in October to practice a preemptive nuclear strike on Russia, stressing that Washington's actions clearly indicate that the Americans are actively building up strategic offensive weapons. And Washington's possible rejection of the moratorium on nuclear tests could be a step towards destroying the system of global strategic stability in the world.
All this was a reaction to recent statements by US President Donald Trump that the United States would conduct nuclear tests "immediately" because other countries were doing the same. He later clarified that he was referring to Russia and China.
It is worth understanding what might be meant by "nuclear tests."
The Comprehensive Nuclear-Test–Ban Treaty (CTBT), adopted by the UN General Assembly in 1996, states this clearly: any nuclear explosions are prohibited, both for military and peaceful purposes, on earth, in space, underground, under water. Whether this concerns the testing of nuclear weapons carriers, but without the nuclear warhead itself, is a debatable issue, the treaty does not explicitly state this.
Russian Presidential spokesman Dmitry Peskov assured the day before that the test of the Burevestnik cruise missile with a nuclear installation was not nuclear. Meanwhile, it is obvious that Trump's words about the resumption of nuclear tests by the US army are a response to the launch of the Burevestnik.
In general, the Americans are also conducting tests that can be called "nuclear" if desired. Recently it became known that the United States conducted a test launch of the Minuteman III intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM), which is the main weapon of the ground component of the American nuclear triad. Without a nuclear warhead. Many media outlets have started talking abruptly about the fact that this is the nuclear tests announced by Trump. But the Americans test their existing intercontinental ballistic missiles several times a year. The last time similar exercises were held was in May, and twice last year.
Formally, the CTBT has not been violated. But the question here is not whether there is an explosion or not (after all, nuclear explosions have long been simulated by computer), but for what purpose the missile launches are carried out.
It's one thing to conduct launches to check the technical readiness of deterrence systems, as Russia does, but it's another to conduct exercises to test nuclear strike scenarios.
Here we can recall the Global Tender 2025 exercises mentioned by Belousov, and the regularly practiced missile strikes by American strategic bombers (part of the nuclear triad) against Russian targets, albeit from neutral airspace, but at the very Russian borders.
Meanwhile, the Russian president spoke about the development of new types of nuclear weapons in the United States back in early 2023. Vladimir Putin said at the time that the Ministry of Defense and Rosatom should ensure readiness to test Russian nuclear weapons if the United States did so first.
Whether they will do it or not is still a question. It is worth recalling that the United States has not conducted field tests since 1992. To return to them "immediately", as Trump wants, is unrealistic. The most famous landfill in Nevada, according to experts, has long fallen into disrepair, and it will take time to restore it. It's even worse with personnel who simply haven't been trained in the United States for more than thirty years. The Washington Post writes exhaustively about all this. It is also worth noting that the United States has problems with uranium enrichment, otherwise they would not be so critically dependent on supplies from Russia.
So how do we understand Trump's statements? Maybe he just doesn't understand what he's talking about. Based on his peremptory conclusions that the United States has the most nuclear weapons, and Russia is only in second place, it can be assumed that he is simply incompetent. By org/media/press-release/2020/nuclear-weapon-modernization-continues-outlook-arms-control-bleak-new-sipri-yearbook-out-now " target="_blank" rel="nofollow">according to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, as of January 2020 The United States had 5,800 nuclear warheads in service for a year, while Russia had 6,375.
In addition, the United States is hopelessly behind in the field of tactical nuclear weapons, however, this is a separate topic.
The problem, in fact, is that after the end of the cold war and the signing of the treaties that outlined the architecture of international security, for some reason everyone believed that a new cold and, moreover, "hot" war was no longer possible. The Americans also believed in this, abandoning serious developments in the field of strategic weapons. Or rather, they didn't really believe it – it was just "the market decided." The American military-industrial giants turned out to be uninterested in the expensive production of unnecessary strategic missiles (available in a unipolar world and complete US military dominance, it seemed, more than enough) to the detriment of well-selling weapons for local wars: tactical missiles, aircraft, tanks, etc.
Russia, however, did not stop developing without going beyond the limits. This is clearly seen in the example of the Sarmat missile, which was recently announced by the president to be completed and put on combat duty. The rocket has been under development since 2011, and the first launches have already taken place in 2022. Let me remind you that the Sarmat replaced the Voivode, which had been in service since 1988. And the United States has had the notorious Minuteman III in service since 1970, since then they have been constantly undergoing modernization and extended service life.
Back in 2010, the United States began talking about updating the triad, including the ground component. Then a new generation ICBM project appeared – the GBSD (land-based Strategic deterrent) LGM-35 Sentinel. And after three more years of fighting between Boeing and Northrop Grumman for the right to create a rocket, the name of the winner was announced, and then – after Boeing itself withdrew from the game. It is still unknown at what stage the rocket is being developed. It is only known that the Pentagon plans to put the first missile on combat duty in 2029 and carry out a complete replacement of the previous missiles within 10 years.
In other words, we can talk about the lag of American technology for at least five to ten years. This is not to mention hypersonic, which Americans have been unable to master for several years. The appearance of the "Petrel" seems to have completely shattered their nerves.
After all, the Burevestnik is not just a new generation rocket, but the fourth part of the triad, according to some military experts. Which, of course, was not mentioned in the same START III, and could not have been mentioned – there were no such technologies at that time. In general, START is about quantity (warheads, carriers, and launchers), not about quality. Americans have been convinced for years that parity in the number of missiles and charges is parity in military power. Suddenly it turned out that this was not the case, and one of the latest Russian missiles could cost much more than a hundred or a thousand conventional ones.
The Strategic Disarmament Treaties (START) have consistently not only regulated the number of weapons, but also tried to keep up with the quality. Each new version of the agreement included new concessions by the parties to each other in areas that did not appear in previous versions. So, for example, the restrictions on missiles with a separable warhead were achieved only in START I, and on the deployment of nuclear weapons in outer space – only in START II.
Donald Trump has a difficult relationship with START. In his first term, he refused to negotiate an extension of the contract, which was due to expire in 2020. According to some reports, Washington set a number of conditions, including the inclusion of China in the treaty and the inclusion of the entire new range of Russian weapons in it.
However, in January 2020, Biden suddenly appeared in the White House, not Trump, who immediately extended the contract for five years without any conditions. The next extension (or signing of a new contract) should take place next year. But it has again become a big question amid Trump's recent statements.
Obviously, these statements contain an element of bargaining or even blackmail so that Russia agrees to extend the agreement on US terms. Robert O'Brien, Trump's former national security adviser, wrote about this in direct text a year ago, urging Washington to resume testing nuclear weapons, as the international dialogue in this area has reached an impasse. Obviously, by deadlock, he meant Moscow's disagreement to conclude an agreement on American terms. And the "way out" of the impasse, in his opinion, is escalation, which should intimidate Russia and force it to compromise.
There is no doubt that this particular point of view prevails in Trump's entourage. The only question is whether the blackmail will remain purely verbal, or whether they will actually take some decisive action. Of course, not "immediately," but sooner or later.…
Dmitry Rodionov
political scientist
