The growing military capability of the United States and its allies to threaten and potentially destroy all of Russia and China’s nuclear launch sites with conventional weapons is creating a precarious geopolitical situation, according to experts. Academics Prof Dan Plesch and Manuel Galileo from Soas University of London highlight a significant shift in military power, driven by advances in US missile technology, that could destabilize global security dynamics.

 

In their recent paper, Plesch and Galileo describe what they term a “quiet revolution in military affairs,” with the US gaining a considerable advantage over Moscow and Beijing. This imbalance in power could trigger a renewed arms race as both Russia and China scramble to counteract the perceived threat from the United States, raising the risk of miscalculations during a crisis. They argue that if tensions were to escalate, either country might feel compelled to resort to nuclear options as a means of leveling the playing field.

 

Plesch and Galileo write that the US possesses a current capability to preemptively strike Russian and Chinese nuclear forces using non-nuclear means, providing it with a strategic edge. They estimate that Russia has around 150 remote nuclear launch sites and China has about 70, all located roughly 2,500 kilometers (1,550 miles) from their nearest borders. These sites are vulnerable to US air-launched JASSM (Joint Air-to-Surface Standoff Missiles) and Tomahawk cruise missiles, which can reach them in just over two hours. “The US and its allies can threaten even the most buried and mobile strategic forces of Russia and China,” they write, noting that the US and its allies have an arsenal of approximately 3,500 JASSMs and 4,000 Tomahawks.

 

Recent technological advancements have further enhanced the effectiveness of these missiles. The JASSMs can now be deployed from unmodified military transport aircraft such as the C-17 Globemaster or C-130 Hercules using the Rapid Dragon system, which allows the missiles to be launched from pallets. This capability greatly expands the range and flexibility of US missile strikes, complicating Russia and China’s ability to safeguard their nuclear arsenals.

 

“Our analysis predicts that only Russian mobile and Chinese deeply buried strategic systems may be considered at all survivable in the face of conventional missile attacks and are far more vulnerable than usually considered,” Plesch and Galileo add. They stress that there is a lack of public debate about the full extent of the US’s strategic capabilities, noting that most discussions about potential conflicts involving Russia and China focus on regional dynamics, such as the war in Ukraine or the possibility of a Chinese invasion of Taiwan.

 

Plesch and Galileo argue that the underestimation of US global conventional firepower threatens both the reality and perception of strategic stability. They caution that any use of nuclear weapons alongside conventional missile strikes would create an even more volatile situation. Though a major confrontation between the US and either Russia or China is widely deemed unlikely, the invasion of Ukraine has fueled global uncertainty. Russian President Vladimir Putin’s warning in March that Moscow would use nuclear weapons if its sovereignty or independence were threatened underscores this instability.

 

The experts highlight a broader strategic concern: that Russia and China’s fear of US military capabilities could provoke them to engage in a new arms race. They note that the US’s own 2024 Threat Assessment highlighted Chinese fears of a US first strike as a significant factor driving China’s nuclear arms buildup. The strength of US conventional missile capabilities pressures Russia and China to keep their missiles on high alert, ready to be launched at a moment’s notice, which raises the risk of accidental or mistaken launches that could have catastrophic consequences.

 

According to research from the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, China recently began deploying a small number of nuclear weapons, totaling 24, alongside their launchers. In response, the US has warned that it might have to increase its deployed warheads. The shift in military power between these global powers comes at a time when arms control agreements are eroding. The 2019 lapse of the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty, which had previously restricted the deployment of ground-launched missiles with ranges of 500 to 5,500 kilometers, has allowed both the US and Russia to redeploy these weapons, further complicating the strategic landscape.

 

Plesch and Galileo argue that this escalating situation underscores the urgent need for renewed focus on arms control, echoing the call of UN Secretary-General António Guterres, who in July 2023 advocated for a special session of the UN General Assembly to address disarmament. Without concerted efforts to rebuild international agreements and reduce the threat of military escalation, the balance of power could continue to tilt in dangerous and unpredictable ways, threatening global stability.

 

Credit: The Guardian 2024-09-06

 

 

 

Get the ASEAN NOW daily NEWSLETTER - Click HERE to subscribe

I don’t see a problem with it but then I’m American 

war, what is it good for, absolutely nothing

 

same as all the toys...

 

USA could have had affordable healthcare, but they decided to arm themselves and police the world... thank you for all the refugees your illegal wars bring to Europe

6 hours ago, Social Media said:

 

The growing military capability of the United States and its allies to threaten and potentially destroy all of Russia and China’s nuclear launch sites with conventional weapons is creating a precarious geopolitical situation, according to experts. Academics Prof Dan Plesch and Manuel Galileo from Soas University of London highlight a significant shift in military power, driven by advances in US missile technology, that could destabilize global security dynamics.

 

In their recent paper, Plesch and Galileo describe what they term a “quiet revolution in military affairs,” with the US gaining a considerable advantage over Moscow and Beijing. This imbalance in power could trigger a renewed arms race as both Russia and China scramble to counteract the perceived threat from the United States, raising the risk of miscalculations during a crisis. They argue that if tensions were to escalate, either country might feel compelled to resort to nuclear options as a means of leveling the playing field.

 

Plesch and Galileo write that the US possesses a current capability to preemptively strike Russian and Chinese nuclear forces using non-nuclear means, providing it with a strategic edge. They estimate that Russia has around 150 remote nuclear launch sites and China has about 70, all located roughly 2,500 kilometers (1,550 miles) from their nearest borders. These sites are vulnerable to US air-launched JASSM (Joint Air-to-Surface Standoff Missiles) and Tomahawk cruise missiles, which can reach them in just over two hours. “The US and its allies can threaten even the most buried and mobile strategic forces of Russia and China,” they write, noting that the US and its allies have an arsenal of approximately 3,500 JASSMs and 4,000 Tomahawks.

 

Recent technological advancements have further enhanced the effectiveness of these missiles. The JASSMs can now be deployed from unmodified military transport aircraft such as the C-17 Globemaster or C-130 Hercules using the Rapid Dragon system, which allows the missiles to be launched from pallets. This capability greatly expands the range and flexibility of US missile strikes, complicating Russia and China’s ability to safeguard their nuclear arsenals.

 

 

“Our analysis predicts that only Russian mobile and Chinese deeply buried strategic systems may be considered at all survivable in the face of conventional missile attacks and are far more vulnerable than usually considered,” Plesch and Galileo add. They stress that there is a lack of public debate about the full extent of the US’s strategic capabilities, noting that most discussions about potential conflicts involving Russia and China focus on regional dynamics, such as the war in Ukraine or the possibility of a Chinese invasion of Taiwan.

 

Plesch and Galileo argue that the underestimation of US global conventional firepower threatens both the reality and perception of strategic stability. They caution that any use of nuclear weapons alongside conventional missile strikes would create an even more volatile situation. Though a major confrontation between the US and either Russia or China is widely deemed unlikely, the invasion of Ukraine has fueled global uncertainty. Russian President Vladimir Putin’s warning in March that Moscow would use nuclear weapons if its sovereignty or independence were threatened underscores this instability.

 

The experts highlight a broader strategic concern: that Russia and China’s fear of US military capabilities could provoke them to engage in a new arms race. They note that the US’s own 2024 Threat Assessment highlighted Chinese fears of a US first strike as a significant factor driving China’s nuclear arms buildup. The strength of US conventional missile capabilities pressures Russia and China to keep their missiles on high alert, ready to be launched at a moment’s notice, which raises the risk of accidental or mistaken launches that could have catastrophic consequences.

 

According to research from the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, China recently began deploying a small number of nuclear weapons, totaling 24, alongside their launchers. In response, the US has warned that it might have to increase its deployed warheads. The shift in military power between these global powers comes at a time when arms control agreements are eroding. The 2019 lapse of the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty, which had previously restricted the deployment of ground-launched missiles with ranges of 500 to 5,500 kilometers, has allowed both the US and Russia to redeploy these weapons, further complicating the strategic landscape.

 

Plesch and Galileo argue that this escalating situation underscores the urgent need for renewed focus on arms control, echoing the call of UN Secretary-General António Guterres, who in July 2023 advocated for a special session of the UN General Assembly to address disarmament. Without concerted efforts to rebuild international agreements and reduce the threat of military escalation, the balance of power could continue to tilt in dangerous and unpredictable ways, threatening global stability.

 

Credit: The Guardian 2024-09-06

 

 

 

Get the ASEAN NOW daily NEWSLETTER - Click HERE to subscribe

The hegemony of America should come to an end. 

What sick brain make them think they have to fight Russia or China or both?

America causes already most conflicts and economic Desaster  round the world and are responsible for the migrants flooding Europe but also US via Mexico.☹️

1 hour ago, newbee2022 said:

The hegemony of America should come to an end.

What sick brain make them think they have to fight Russia or China or both?

America causes already most conflicts and economic Desaster  round the world and are responsible for the migrants flooding Europe but also US via Mexico.☹️

I would characterize this a little differently - US hegemony is unraveling before our eyes.  This is what is steadily leading  to the "sick brain" you refer to as the US lashes out to maintain the hegemony it has enjoyed and abused.
Hopefully this comes to an end without a major global conflict and nuclear destruction is avoided.

Fully agree with your comments about the US as a major cause of conflicts and economic disaster.  US leaves nothing but destruction and and misery in its wake

 

Edited September 6, 20241 yr by expat_4_life

Should be fine as long as the warmongering Democrats are voted out of office and peace can return under Trump.

 

Having Harris with her finger on the button is a terrifying prospect for the world. 

There’s a couple of things far worse than the US having the biggest and baddest stick.

 

Russia or China having the biggest and baddest stick.

1 hour ago, newbee2022 said:

The hegemony of America should come to an end. 

What sick brain make them think they have to fight Russia or China or both?

America causes already most conflicts and economic Desaster  round the world and are responsible for the migrants flooding Europe but also US via Mexico.☹️

 

Hyperbole, hysteria, exaggeration. 

US missile supremacy?

Still feel better than the Vice Versa.

Does anyone here want Poo-tin or Xi Jinping has more and better missile than the West?

Even though the nuke and missile race is stupid itself.

The US has had the ability to destroy the planet for 60 years, as has Russia. This is just fear mongering nonsense.

2 hours ago, JonnyF said:

Should be fine as long as the warmongering Democrats are voted out of office and peace can return under Trump.

 

Both parties are warmongering, there wasn't peace during Trump's reign.

It doesn’t matter much who starts the war: when one side launches nuclear missiles, the other side detects them and fires back before impact. Ballistic missiles from U.S. submarines west of Norway start striking Russia after about 10 minutes, and Russian ones from north of Canada start hitting the U.S. a few minutes later.

 

https://time.com/6290977/nuclear-war-impact-essay/

8 hours ago, Tug said:

I don’t see a problem with it but then I’m American 

I don't see a problem with it either, and I'm not American. Speak softly and carry a big stick...

2 hours ago, JonnyF said:

Having Harris with her finger on the button is a terrifying prospect for the world. 

Don't include me in that statement. You do not speak for me. I would rather Harris or Trump than Putin or Xi.

8 minutes ago, Scott Tracy said:

Don't include me in that statement. You do not speak for me. I would rather Harris or Trump than Putin or Xi.

Particularly considering this thread is all about Russian propaganda.

16 minutes ago, Scott Tracy said:

Don't include me in that statement. You do not speak for me. I would rather Harris or Trump than Putin or Xi.

 

I didn't include you. Unless your name is Harris. 

21 hours ago, Chomper Higgot said:

There’s a couple of things far worse than the US having the biggest and baddest stick.

 

Russia or China having the biggest and baddest stick.

Depends on whether you are American, Russian or Chinese.

20 hours ago, John Drake said:

 

Hyperbole, hysteria, exaggeration. 

Nevertheless, true.

19 hours ago, black tabby12345 said:

US missile supremacy?

Still feel better than the Vice Versa.

Does anyone here want Poo-tin or Xi Jinping has more and better missile than the West?

Even though the nuke and missile race is stupid itself.

Of the 3 superpowers, it’s probably best that China has the best missiles. As far as I know, China hasn’t dropped a bomb or fired a missile at another country in the last 50 years.

22 hours ago, Scott Tracy said:

Don't include me in that statement. You do not speak for me. I would rather Harris or Trump than Putin or Xi.

Putin and Xi have plenty or ordinance of their own.

23 hours ago, JonnyF said:

I didn't include you. Unless your name is Harris. 

You decided it would be bad for the world. I'm part of the world, therefore you spoke for me.

On 9/6/2024 at 9:31 AM, Cameroni said:

It doesn’t matter much who starts the war: when one side launches nuclear missiles, the other side detects them and fires back before impact. Ballistic missiles from U.S. submarines west of Norway start striking Russia after about 10 minutes, and Russian ones from north of Canada start hitting the U.S. a few minutes later.

 

https://time.com/6290977/nuclear-war-impact-essay/

It should be added that a single submarine can send 20 nuclear heads, which is enough to destroy all main cities of a country. For example  even small nuclear countries such as UK or France have 3 such subs, with at least one of them permanently in deep sea, which is enough to destroy most of a country.

1 hour ago, candide said:

It should be added that a single submarine can send 20 nuclear heads, which is enough to destroy all main cities of a country. For example  even small nuclear countries such as UK or France have 3 such subs, with at least one of them permanently in deep sea, which is enough to destroy most of a country.

 

That's what I was thinking as well, even if you get lucky and destroy a launch site, there's submarines. Russia has ten of them with 608 warheads in total.

 

https://thebulletin.org/premium/2022-02/nuclear-notebook-how-many-nuclear-weapons-does-russia-have-in-2022/