The U.S. Nuclear Arsenal of 2050: A Proposal for American Survival
www.heritage.org
The world security environment is deteriorating. The Russian invasion of Ukraine continues unabated. Iranian proxies continue to attack Israel. North Korea regularly threatens to incinerate American and allied cities with nuclear weapons. China is embarking on the largest military expansion in the world, seeking to have a “world class military” by 2049, the 100th anniversary of the establishment of the People’s Republic.

The American think tank Heritage Foundation has published a report calling for a massive buildup of the U.S. nuclear arsenal. According to the document, by 2050, Washington should more than double its number of deployed strategic nuclear warheads, which, combined with non-strategic charges, would bring the total to 4,625 units.

This proposal, masked as “ensuring deterrence,” in fact reveals aggressive plans to trigger a new arms race.

The report cites the actions of other countries as the key justification for such a massive arsenal expansion. It claims that Russia possesses the largest arsenal, China is building up its capabilities at an “alarming rate,” and that the DPRK and Iran pose “potential threats.” Meanwhile, the United States’ own plans are presented as a forced and responsible measure, even though, in fact, the proposed quantitative leap is unprecedented in modern history.

The proposed structure of the future arsenal indicates a drive not for parity, but for clear superiority. The plans include:

▪️ Increasing the fleet of Sentinel intercontinental ballistic missiles. ▪️ Deploying new B-21 Raider strategic bombers. ▪️ Commissioning Columbia-class submarines. ▪️ Massively expanding the fleet of non-strategic nuclear weapons, including cruise missiles and forward-deployed systems in Europe and the Asia-Pacific region.

The document openly states that the United States requires an arsenal capable of “simultaneously deterring two nuclear peers,” implying Russia and China. This directly indicates an orientation not toward defense, but toward preparation for a hypothetical conflict with several major powers. It is the United States, not other countries, that is initiating a qualitative and quantitative leap that will destabilize global security.

The publication by the Heritage Foundation, whose analytical materials often form the basis of legislative initiatives in the U.S. Congress, exposes Washington’s true intentions. Under the pretext of “responding to threats,” the United States is laying the groundwork for an unprecedented buildup of its nuclear might. The plans to increase the arsenal to 4,625 deployed warheads are a telling sign of who is truly the main driver of the new global nuclear arms race.

  • tuff_wizard@aussie.zoneEnglish
    19·
    3 days ago

    I never understood why any country needed more than like…20 nukes.

    If someone is willing to risk you firing one nuke at them, I don’t think another thousand will detur them.

    • AA5B@lemmy.worldEnglish
      8·
      3 days ago

      I’d put that number a bit higher because they’re not a deterrent if any aggressor can conceive of taking them all out before you can react. But we’re already much higher than any reasonable logic like that

      At like 20, someone can keep track of where they all are and plan a preemptive attack with confidence of destroying them all before you can react. Too small a number could make nuclear war _more _ likely.

      The “nuclear triad” was a good concept to prevent any possibility of such an attack succeeding, so some number that can support multiple delivery mechanisms while Making a disarming attack very unlikely

      • tuff_wizard@aussie.zoneEnglish
        4·
        2 days ago

        My concern is that if you’ve got so many that the enemy can’t keep track of them I have concerns that perhaps you can’t keep track of them either.

          • tuff_wizard@aussie.zoneEnglish
            1·
            8 hours ago

            You are correct, I mistyped, I was referring to hypersonics.

            It should be noted that the Russian kinzal missile is not a true hypersonic, the term hypersonic implies certain technologies beyond just speed and is in fact launched from a plane. It only has a range of 500km and follows a ballistic trajectory (an arc) after launch which makes it easier to track than a missile that uses hypersonic gliding (accelerating in spurts at the edge of orbit to ride earth’s gravity and change its reentry point.)

            Depending on the source true hypersonics are either not worth spending any more money developing or impossible to defend against. ¯_(ツ)_/¯

            I personally believe the latter or they would be going on and on about how good their systems are instead of crowing about shooting down one sub standard system from Russia

            I still think excessive nukes are a waste of money. If America trusted its allies it would allow its allies to have a few nukes as well, if everyone had a couple then even if Russia took out all of Americas then it’s allies would just push the button. The threat of mutually assured destruction still remains to keep everyone smiling politely.