USA defends controversial new nuclear policy at UN

Posted February 07, 2018

"There was an error printed in the 2018 Nuclear Posture Review", a Pentagon spokesperson told the Times on Saturday.

By expanding its own low-yield nuclear capability, the United States would deter Russian Federation from using nuclear weapons, according to American officials.

The Trump nuclear doctrine breaks with Obama's in ending his push to reduce the role of nuclear weapons in USA defense policy.

"Our deterrence strategy for North Korea makes clear that any North Korean nuclear attack against the United States or its allies and partners is unacceptable and will result in the end of that regime", the document said.

In a statement, China's Defense Ministry said its own nuclear arsenal was at the "minimum level" required for its security and called on the U.S.to "abandon a Cold War mentality" and "shoulder its special and prior responsibility for its own nuclear disarmament". "I'm afraid this Nuclear Posture Review will be used by other countries to ignore calls for nuclear arms reduction, and in doing so leave the world less safe". It calls for two types of nuclear weapons not now in the arsenal.

More news: Two well-known Karnataka personalities join BJP

"The Americans are shamelessly threatening Russian Federation with a new atomic weapon", Iranian President Hassan Rouhani said in his televised address, as cited by Reuters. "The Russians have been fielding systems while we haven't, and our first new system won't be ready until 2026 or 2027".

Iran accused the United States on Sunday of threatening Russian Federation with new atomic weapons after Washington published a document outlining plans to expand its nuclear capabilities to deter others.

"Our long-term aim must continue to be a world without nuclear weapons", Gabriel said - the stated aim of U.S. nuclear policy under Barack Obama.

The policy reaffirms a full modernization of the USA nuclear force approved by President Barack Obama, which replaces the military's nuclear bombers, submarines and ICBMs at an estimated cost of $1.2 trillion over 30 years.

Perry has also said adversaries could confuse the cruise missile the Pentagon is developing for a conventional missile.

More news: Lauda calls for F1 to reverse grid girl decision

Among the fiscal needs, according to the Congressional Budget Office, would be: (1) $313 billion for a new ballistic missile submarine capable of firing nuclear missiles from beneath the ocean surface; (2) $149 billion for a new silo-based intercontinental ballistic missile; and (3) $266 billion for a new B-21 Stealth bomber. Most of that money would go to new generations of bombers and new submarines, and a rebuilding of the land-based nuclear missile force that still dots giant fields across the West. They'll just increase the potential for their use and for miscalculation.

Historically a close USA ally and key North Atlantic Treaty Organisation member, nuclear weapons were a divisive issue in Germany's cold war politics.

"We're simply mirroring the reckless Russian doctrine", said Andrew C. Weber, former assistant defense secretary in the Obama administration who was in charge of overseeing the country's nuclear arsenal.

Pulling out of the 1987 treaty "would allow the United States to develop and deploy short and medium-range cruise missiles against China as well as against Russia", Freeman explained.

Thomas Karako, a specialist on nuclear issues at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington, said many people - including Obama - enter government sympathetic to disarmament but moderate their ambitions when confronted with threat intelligence.

More news: Riyad Mahrez's Whereabouts Still Unknown Following Absence From Leicester's Matchday Squad