A simple question: who will win in a nuclear war - the USA or Russia and what will happen to the USA? The US war with Russia, who will win and when it started.
It is said that when US President Harry Truman was informed of the successful test of the first atomic bomb on July 16, 1945, he exclaimed: “Finally, I have a club against these Russian boys!” Began shortly after the end of World War II new war– cold – more than once threatened to turn into hot. Plans for the final victory over the USSR using atomic weapons began to be developed in the United States at the end of 1945.
The first of these plans was "Totality", adopted by the Joint Chiefs of Staff on December 14, 1945 (other sources call the plan with identical goals "Pincher", it was adopted in June 1946). It provided for the use of 20 to 30 atomic bombs against 20 cities of the USSR - analogues of those dropped on Hiroshima. The list of targets included Largest cities Russian Federation, as well as Tashkent, Baku and Tbilisi. It is noteworthy that the United States did not have such a number of nuclear weapons at that time, that is, the plan was drawn up for the future.
New programs were developed as nuclear arsenal USA and changes international situation. According to the Troyan plan of 1948, it was planned to strike 70 Soviet cities with 133 atomic bombs. The most detailed plan was "Dropshot", approved on December 19, 1949. As goals nuclear bombing 104 cities were listed Soviet Union. It was assumed that to implement this plan, the United States must have at least 292 atomic bombs by January 1, 1957.
In “Dropshot,” in addition to listing the goals of the nuclear strike, the initial prerequisites for the implementation of the plan were described in detail and an approximate scenario was given. It was believed that the invasion of Soviet troops into Western Europe would be stopped at the Rhine-Alps-Northern Italy line, after which the mobilized troops of the United States and its allies would launch a counteroffensive with the aim of defeating Soviet ground forces. Ultimately, the Soviet Union, bereft of allies, would be forced into unconditional surrender with no possibility of ever re-establishing itself as a great power and its territories would be completely occupied.
Plans varied depending on what region of the planet the confrontation between the USSR and Western countries could develop into armed conflict. Already at the end of 1945 - beginning of 1946, tension arose due to Stalin's desire to extend the military occupation of Northern Iran, carried out by the USSR jointly with Great Britain during the war. In the summer of 1946, Stalin made territorial claims against Turkey. In 1948 Soviet troops organized a blockade of West Berlin that lasted a year. In 1950, the Korean War began, during which the American commander in chief, General D. MacArthur, proposed atomic strikes on the cities of China, which was sending its troops to North Korea. President Harry Truman, however, categorically rejected this proposal and dismissed the overly militant general.
The only carriers of nuclear weapons at that time on both sides were only airplanes and missiles medium range. American missiles and aviation could easily reach almost any point in the Soviet Union from bases in Western Europe, Turkey and the Middle East. In turn, the Soviet Armed forces The United States did not have such a transport opportunity to quickly reach. Consequently, America did not have to fear a “retaliation strike,” which would lead to the destruction of American cities and the death of hundreds of thousands of people. Besides, atomic bomb The USSR first appeared only in 1949.
However, when simulating the “Dropshot” plan at headquarters exercises in the United States, the American military came to a disappointing conclusion: only 70% of targets would be hit, and losses US Air Force V air war against the USSR will be 55%. Thus, Dropshot was considered unable to undermine the military-economic power of the USSR enough to break its resistance.
Despite this, the projects continued to be improved. In the 1950s the main component nuclear forces both sides became intercontinental ballistic missiles, and in the 1960s, the arsenals of the USSR and the USA were replenished with a mobile and practically invulnerable means of delivering nuclear charges - missile submarines. It became increasingly clear to American strategists that in the event of war, the territory and civilian population The United States will inevitably be subjected to devastating blows. However, in 1960, President Dwight Eisenhower approved the first unified operational plan for all-out nuclear war against countries Warsaw Pact- SIOP. Since then, this plan has been updated annually in accordance with changes in the global situation and the composition of US adversaries.
In 1961, with the coming to power of President John Kennedy, American strategy For the first time, the concept of a war against the USSR using only non-nuclear weapons and the concept of a limited nuclear war appeared. Priority began to be given to strikes against launchers Soviet intercontinental missiles, nuclear submarine bases and Soviet long-range aviation, to prevent nuclear strike by US cities. The next groups of targets are enemy air defense (missile defense) targets, then command posts and communication centers of the military-political leadership of the USSR, and if they continue the war - a total “paralyzing” blow with the aim of destroying industrial potential.
It should be noted that the United States never considered itself ready for total war with the USSR until complete victory. All plans included large quantity nuclear warheads and delivery vehicles than were available to the United States at the time of their compilation. Military leaders persistently extorted appropriations from Congress under the pretext of insufficient high level military power USA. Thus, Defense Minister R.S. McNamara said in 1964 that America's nuclear capabilities should be so great that the first attack with atomic weapons would destroy two-thirds industrial production THE USSR. The argument for creating the SDI system in the early 1980s was the Pentagon’s calculations, according to which a retaliatory strike by the Soviet strategic forces, on which the first one would have already been applied American blow, could immediately claim the lives of 35 million Americans.
The most favorable time for the USA to wage a nuclear war was the end of the 1940s, when the USSR did not yet have atomic weapons. But all of the above plans did not provide for a preventive attack, but a response to the actions of the Soviet Union in one or another region of the world.
The armed forces of the United States and China are among the most powerful and combat-ready on the planet. The outcome of an open confrontation between two superpowers is extremely difficult to predict; everything will depend on how they use their advantages.
Passions are heating up
Since Donald Trump came to power, relations between the United States and China have deteriorated sharply. Many American politicians talk about reality trade war between two countries. But some experts also speak about the possibility of a “hot” war, one of the main reasons for which could be Beijing’s claims to the South China Sea, a zone of economic and military-political interests of Washington.
The situation is fueled by the beginning of the deployment of American anti-missile systems THAAD, aimed at containing a possible North Korean threat. However, the Chinese authorities categorically object to the strengthening of the Pentagon's position in the immediate vicinity of its borders, believing that the true target of the American military presence is China.
The problem with Taiwan, which China considers its territory, cannot be discounted. If Beijing attempts to resolve this issue by force, the United States as a strategic partner island republic may well get involved in a military conflict.
The numbers speak
In 2016, China allocated a record amount of funds for defense - $215 billion, taking second place in the world ranking by this indicator. However, the United States, with a military budget of $611 billion, remains out of reach.
You can often hear that Beijing does not record all military expenditures in official reports. But even if you take into account the billions hidden by the Chinese in other budget items, America is still ahead of the rest in defense spending.
However, if we take into account official statistics increasing funds allocated by the Chinese government for defense (a fourfold increase over the past 10 years), then in the foreseeable future the US advantage will be leveled out.
Currently, the United States Army has 1 million 400 thousand military personnel, another 1 million 100 thousand are in reserve. The Chinese armed forces consist of 2 million 335 thousand people, the reserve is 2 million 300 thousand. When comparing the numbers ground forces two countries, the difference becomes even more obvious: 460 thousand Americans versus 1.6 million Chinese.
The figures reflecting the amount of equipment and weapons of the armies of these two states are also very eloquent.
Aircraft of all types: USA – 13,444; China – 2,942
Helicopters: 6,084 – 802
Tanks: 8,848 – 9,150
Armored vehicles: 41,062 – 4,788
Towed artillery: 1,299 – 6,246
Self-propelled guns: 1934 – 1710
Jet systems volley fire: 1 331 – 1770
Aircraft carriers: 19 – 1
Frigates: 6 – 48
Destroyers: 62 – 32
Submarines: 75 – 68
Nuclear warheads: 7,315 – 250
Military satellites: 121 – 24
Statistics clearly demonstrate that while China has an undeniable superiority in manpower, in technology and weapons, by most indicators, the United States has a noticeable advantage.
At sea, on land and in the air
In quantitative terms, the Chinese Navy is far ahead of its opponent: 714 Chinese warships versus 415 American ones, however, according to military analysts, the United States has an obvious advantage in firepower. The pride of the US Navy is 10 full-size aircraft carriers and 9 amphibious helicopter carriers, which will leave no chance for the Chinese fleet in an open sea battle. But if the battle takes place in enemy waters, the technical advantages of American ships may not be enough, in particular, to neutralize the missiles of the People's Liberation Army of China (PLA).
The US has an impressive arsenal of 14 ballistic missile submarines, of which 280 are equipped nuclear charges: each of them is capable of wiping off the face of the earth the whole city. China can only counter 5 nuclear attack submarines so far, but the biggest problem is that Chinese submarines are easily tracked by American radar equipment. On this moment, from the point of view of experts, submarine fleet The United States still has superiority both in the fight against ground targets and in underwater combat.
The first M1 Abrams tanks entered service American army back in 1980, but since then they have been modernized several times, essentially turning into new cars. In particular, the modern Abrams is equipped with a 120-mm main gun and remote-controlled combat modules. His armor consists of uranium and Kevlar, and he also has combined armor Chobham type.
The best tank currently in service with the PLA is Type 99. On board it is a 125-mm smoothbore gun with automatic system ammunition supply, which is also capable of launching missiles. Type -99 equipped reactive armor and is considered almost as invulnerable as an American tank.
If we take into account the direct clash between American and Chinese tank units, then there is parity, but the US Army has experience and more qualified crews on its side.
The most modern aircraft in service with the US Air Force is the fifth-generation light fighter F-35, which, however, has many vulnerabilities, including an intermittent high-tech helmet designed to transmit all kinds of information to the pilot’s screen.
The Chinese can boast of the J-31 fighter, which is similar in characteristics to the American model, which debuted at an air show in 2014 and earned good reviews from foreign pilots. However, analysts are still inexorable: they say that the ratio of losses in battles between the J-31 and its American counterpart, the F-35, will be 1-3, not in favor of the Chinese fighter.
However, there is one factor that can negate the superiority of the US Army - its high sensitivity to losses. Considering that the replacement rate of manpower in the Chinese army is an order of magnitude higher than in the American army, land war The United States will almost certainly lose.
The temptation to strike first
The authors of the latest study from the authoritative American analytical and research organization RAND Corporation argue that a military conflict between the United States and China could break out suddenly. Any reason is likely: the Taiwan or North Korean issue, a provocation on the Indian-Tibetan border or the situation in the South China Sea.
Thus, recently the Arbitration Court in The Hague declared China’s territorial claims to 80% of the waters of the disputed region in the South China Sea unlawful. Beijing responded by saying that it would not implement the decision of the Hague court. Showing the seriousness of the authorities' intentions, a Chinese bomber defiantly flew over the Scarborough Reef, which China had actually taken from the Philippines.
By now, the Pentagon and the PLA have brought their most modern weapons. Given the power of their weapons, there is a strong temptation for adversaries to strike first, say analysts at the RAND Corporation.
However, if a collision does occur, it is unlikely to reveal anyone's advantage. There are enough sober minds on both sides not to get involved in a protracted conflict. “Washington and Beijing need to carefully consider the possibility of a prolonged, uncontrollable and very difficult conflict in which there will be no winner,” the study notes.
Attacking and holding back
Well-known specialist in the field international relations And military history Robert Farley writes in one of his articles that after the collapse of the USSR, the United States developed a doctrine that, instead of a strategy of confronting one global adversary, defined a pattern of actions that should have guided the Pentagon in the event of a sharp deterioration in relations with two regional adversaries.
This concept, according to Farley, involves active military action against one enemy and deterring another from war. When the first is finished, the time will come for the operation against the second.
“If war breaks out,” the analyst continues, ground forces and part of the US aviation will be concentrated in Europe against Russia, providing assistance to European allies, while the other part of the aviation and the most powerful naval formations will be involved in Pacific Ocean in hostilities against China."
Nuclear weapons are unlikely to be used in such a conflict, since, given the accumulated arsenals, any use of them will mean the guaranteed destruction of both opponents. At the same time, Farley notes that a military alliance between China and Russia against the United States is unlikely, since each country follows its own goals “according to its own schedule.” China, he said, can count on friendly neutrality and arms supplies from Russia, but nothing more.
There is strength in the union
The Chinese leadership has repeatedly stated that the PLA serves exclusively defense purposes and to use military force It does not intend to travel far from its native shores. This is why Beijing has avoided establishing military bases outside the country, with the exception of Djibouti.
On the contrary, the Pentagon is present in more than 100 countries and has several dozen military alliances. American financier George Soros once stated that
if a military conflict occurs between China and Japan, which is a military ally of the United States, then most likely it will result in the Third World War, since the United States will certainly get involved in it.
According to experts, there is a high probability that the United States will support its loyal satellites in such a war - South Korea and Australia. Soros, in turn, announces possible Russian support for China.
Sinologist Konstantin Sokolov, vice-president of the Academy of Geopolitical Problems, shares Soros’ concerns and speaks of a possible full-scale conflict between China and the United States with the participation of allies.
"We see new stage global confrontation. This was very clearly demonstrated on May 9, when Chinese and Indian troops marched through Red Square. This was a demonstration that the BRICS association is beginning to transform from a purely economic union also in the military-political. The union is moving into a new quality, and this union is anti-Western,” says Sokolov.
However Russian expert states that “a classic armed confrontation between the United States and China is impossible,” therefore the conflict “will develop using a different technology.” He sees examples of such wars in Libya, Egypt, Syria and Ukraine. Formally, there was no foreign invasion of these countries.
All these wars, according to Sokolov, were launched according to a single strategy national security United States, adopted in 2006 - the so-called “Bush Doctrine”. This doctrine states that the most effective method inflicting damage on an enemy state is a civil war.
ODDS - "50/50"
- Who will win in the semi-finals: Russia or the Czech Republic?
Of course I'll be rooting for Czech national team. You know, it seems to me that this will be a very tough match, a match of equal opponents. Both teams are highly motivated. And I like the way our team plays. In my opinion, the chances are "50 to 50". And I don't want to make a prediction. We do not have big stars. But based on the way we play, and considering that we have a stronger goalkeeper, anything can happen. Perhaps a stronger goalkeeper. Who could become a figure influencing the outcome. But what matters is who will be stronger in a particular meeting.
He has a great shot. And he's great with the puck. He is a player who can be the difference between teams in any match. But if you could choose between Kovalchuk And Datsyuk, I would always choose Pavel without question. If I were playing in the field, I would choose Datsyuk. Play in goal too Datsyuk.
- Is it fun to play against Datsyuk in training, Datsyuk, who can undress anyone?
Certainly. He's a very smart player. And how he plays with a stick! He is incredibly difficult to stop. He's one of the best of all time when it comes to moving the puck. One of the best strikers I've ever played with.
IN NAGANO THE CZECH REPUBLIC WAS BETTER THAN RUSSIA
- It’s strange for me to see this, but in your native Czech Republic the semi-final with Russia is treated like a war. Real war. In Russia the attitude is a little different.
You must understand that hockey is national species sports in the Czech Republic. And the Olympics, and this is fair to say for Russia, is a very important tournament. You understand: our fans are more than fans. I’m not ready to say what’s wrong in Russia, but in the Czech Republic hockey is almost like in Canada. And when Czech plays against or Russia- it's always war. Simply because we want to prove: we are no worse, and even better than that one same Canada or Russia. Or anyone else. I would not say that the war is with Russia. Although with Russia We are always at war. But the playoffs are basically a war. Both at the Olympics and at the World Championships. This is important for our country.
- Every hockey fan in Russia believes that the Czech Republic stole gold from us in Nagano.
Well, look, first of all, we won the match. Secondly, our team was better. We won 1-0, but we hit the post twice. We were better, we deserved to win. I was in great shape then. We had the most stars on our team. At the same time, we had a real team. Let's see what happens in the semi-finals. It may not be the finale, but the stars can also align.
- Don’t you think that almost all the credit for that victory belongs to you?
So I'm a goalkeeper. And we reached the final. And I played well. Maybe I didn’t perform very well in the match against the USA. But Canada was fine. You understand: I am a goalkeeper, I have to play well. And at the Olympics I couldn’t do anything wrong. AND French must understand: if he wants to reach the final, he must play perfectly.
- What can you say about the level of hockey at this Olympics?
Of course, we missed the best players in the world. But it's still the Olympics. A special tournament. Which is held every four years. Not everyone gets to it. And this is even more interesting because Olympic gold is given to few people. There are no better players. But I still like this tournament. I'll be happy to watch the semi-final.
- Don’t you think that if the NHL did come, the Czech national team would be very weak compared to other teams?
I don’t want to draw such a conclusion. But it is quite clear that Canada it would be something out of the ordinary. Canada Couldn't be any different. They constantly prove that they are the best. They are almost impossible to beat. Both at the Olympics and at the World Championships. They, however, lost to the Swedes at the 2017 World Cup. Happens. Of course, we have guys in the NHL who could rock the national team. But I don't want to talk about it. What matters now is who beats whom. And I hope that we will play in the finals, fighting for gold.
The United States intends to review the doctrine of the use of nuclear weapons. This was stated by the Chief of Staff of the US Air Force, General David Goldfin.
According to him, “the team of the new White House administration led by US President Donald Trump, which deals with national security issues, is abandoning a fresh look to this area."
“I expect that this spring we will have a review of the nuclear doctrine. It's time for us to reassess the nuclear complex to develop strategic policy guidance for the US Department of Defense," Goldfin said.
As the Air Force chief of staff noted, he expects a “much broader dialogue” within the US government on nuclear doctrine than “a discussion of some particulars.” The new review, Goldfin believes, “will cover all the components nuclear triad", that is, intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs) mine-based, strategic bombers and submarine cruisers. In addition, “there will be discussions on nuclear warheads, their yield and the number required,” and not just on delivery vehicles. At the same time, the chief of staff added that he favors expanding consultations on the issue of “containment in the 21st century.”
Let us recall: in the United States, discussions about the need for large-scale modernization of the nuclear arsenal began in March 2016, with the approval of the Pentagon budget. Moreover, the most controversial thing was the new B61-12 atomic bomb, which is expected to enter service in 2020. The fact is that the military department estimated the costs of its production at an impressive $8.1 billion by 2024.
From the point of view of the US military, the advantage new bomb not only in accuracy, but also in increased range, due to the fact that the aerial bomb can glide. It is small and therefore can be placed on airplanes tactical aviation- F-15E, F-16, F-35A, Tornado, B-2, B-21. But most importantly, an increase in accuracy allows the use of a nuclear charge of lower power (up to 50 kilotons), and minimize Negative consequences for the surrounding space. This circumstance allows the United States to significantly lower the threshold for the use of nuclear weapons and consider them as a potential battlefield weapon.
With the arrival in The White house Donald Trump, these changes may be reflected in nuclear doctrine. Even during the first presidential televised debate, Trump noted that Russia’s nuclear arsenal is newer than the American one, and that this does not suit him, because “ nuclear weapon"It is climate change, not climate change, that is the greatest threat to the United States."
In essence, things are moving toward a radical revision of the nuclear strategy of the United States and NATO. It is likely that the Americans' reliance on allies with nuclear weapons - Britain and France - will expand.
What will the new US nuclear doctrine be like, and how does it threaten Russia?
US interest in nuclear weapons fell after the collapse of the USSR, notes leading expert at the MGIMO Center for Military-Political Studies, Dr. political sciences Mikhail Alexandrov. - At the first stage, the Americans thought that Russia itself would disintegrate over time, and nuclear weapons would not be needed at all. And then - in the early 2000s - when it became clear that the Russian Federation would not disintegrate after all, the United States had a significant superiority over Russia in conventional weapons, and other countries could not pose a serious challenge to the Americans.
As a result, Washington became more convinced that nuclear weapons were no longer relevant. Moreover, Moscow constantly put forward initiatives to further nuclear disarmament, and eventually concluded an agreement with the Americans to reduce offensive weapons START-3.
Against this background, the United States removed nuclear weapons from ships. They used to have sea-launched Tomahawk missiles in nuclear equipment, but now they are gone. The Americans only have cruise missiles with strategic nuclear warheads to deliver strategic strikes. They eliminated nuclear artillery long ago, and they don’t have ground means even limited action with nuclear charges.
“SP”: - What does Russia’s nuclear arsenal look like?
- For comparison, we have operational-tactical missile systems“Iskander-M”, both in ballistic and winged versions. In addition, if marine “Calibers”, which can work effectively in ground targets. Finally, there are tactical aircraft missiles in nuclear equipment - in addition to the atomic bombs themselves.
In other words, we have a much more diverse range of nuclear weapons, which allows them to be used flexibly during a military conflict. Including - and especially - in Europe, where the United States has only nuclear aerial bombs free fall
“SP”: - Do you mean B61?
- Yes. These bombs, of course, are being modernized - the B61−12 modification is capable of gliding at a distance of up to 30 km. According to the official version, this will allow tactical aircraft to drop these bombs without entering the range of Russian air defense.
In my opinion, this argument does not stand up to criticism. Suffice it to say that even the coverage area Russian complex S-300 is 150 km. In fact, it turns out that American tactical nuclear weapons have a very narrow range of applications.
“SP”: - It turns out that the United States cannot win in tactical nuclear war against the Russian Federation?
“The Americans don’t have the tools to wage such a war.” Apparently, this will be the topic of discussion around the use of nuclear weapons, as David Goldfin spoke about. The United States really needs a new nuclear doctrine, since the Americans have new powerful opponents - China, and in the future Iran.
And we must understand: the Americans will not be able to strike Tehran with strategic ICBMs. Otherwise, we could start a nuclear war with Russia: we don’t know who they’re aiming at.
But the main thing is that the Americans will have to create an appropriate range of tactical nuclear weapons, which they stopped producing altogether. This process, to put it mildly, is slow, even if allocated sufficient quantity funds. Therefore, the creation of a full-fledged nuclear arsenal may take the United States at least 10 years.
It must be said that the situation with strategic nuclear weapons for the Americans is not great. The Minutemen ICBMs are obsolete. The three-stage solid-fuel Tridents placed on submarines are still holding out. But, according to some reports, there was a malfunction when launching Trident from a British submarine. This suggests that the reliability of this missile is also in question.
It turns out, whatever one may say, the Americans also need to change their ICBMs.
“SP”: - What should Russia do in this situation?
- We must understand: the Americans will now use the latest developments and scientific achievements in the field of nuclear weapons to close its security gap. And if we do not improve our nuclear weapons, we risk being left behind.
If we look at the question purely technically and leave aside the obvious comments about the inadmissibility of such a terrible development of events, then we can say the following. There are 2 possible scenarios: 1) conventional war and 2) nuclear war. I'm afraid that in both scenarios the numbers, as well as the qualitative characteristics, are not entirely on our side, especially in the first. To win in modern warfare insufficient parity certain species weapons (missiles, tanks, aircraft, etc.). The military potential necessary for victory is determined by a set of many factors, incl. the size of the economy, human resources, weapons production capacity, food supply, sufficient transport logistics, and the presence of effective alliances. Accessible technology is key. Needless to say, a war between the Russian Federation and the United States will be a war between the Russian Federation and NATO (for simplicity, we will not take into account Japan, South Korea, Australia and New Zealand, which will side with the United States). Let's compare the numbers: GDP - $1.3 trillion. (RF) to $36 trillion. (NATO); military spending - $50 billion: $900 billion; population – 144 million people: 800 million people; volume of grain production (forecast for 2016): 109 million tons: 1.047 million tons. In terms of technology, the Russian Federation’s lag behind the West is obvious, and in the coming years the gap will increase due to sanctions.
1) In the conventional scenario (however, this is not an option against the USA, but against Europe, since the lead fighting on the territory of the United States, Russia is physically unable) important have tactical nuclear weapons. According to them, the advantage is on the side of the Russian Federation: approximately 3,800 (about 2,000 are considered in service and 1,800 are stored), incl. "Iskander" and cruise missiles, versus 200 for the United States in Europe. However, modern conventional weapons are lethality comparable to nuclear ones. In addition, the use of tactical nuclear weapons would likely escalate the conflict to the strategic level.
2) In the event of a nuclear war, i.e. exchanging massive blows strategic weapons, differences in structure should be taken into account nuclear potentials both countries, since the advantage is not in the number of warheads (there are approximately equal amount), and in the means of their delivery. The Russian Federation has 55% of warheads ground-based, 25% - airborne and 20% - sea-based. The US is 60% sea-based, 25% land-based and 15% air-based. Ground-based ICBMs are considered more vulnerable: their deployment areas are constant and known (with the exception of mobile launchers). Russian ICBMs, however, have a greater throw weight and the ability to create additional interference. However, half of the ICBMs are the aging R-36M2 (SS-18), which were produced at the Ukrainian Yuzhmash, which refused to participate in operational supervision. The air component is especially vulnerable Russian triad- these are the old TU-95s, which, together with the relatively newer TU-160s, are vulnerable due to the fact that they do not have stealth technology and are clearly visible on the radar. In addition, they have low speed for delivering a surprise attack. Of the 12 submarines, only 10 have missiles on board. Of these, only 3 are submarines of the latest Borei class, which should gradually replace the old ones. The Americans claim that combat duty only 2 are present at all times Russian submarines, and that each of them is accompanied by 2 NATO troops.
In the USA most of warheads are placed on much more secretive carriers - submarines, which we are not able to physically accompany. Bombers have stealth technology, and therefore they can also be classified as secretive carriers. Due to the limitations of our space constellation, we have little ability to constantly monitor American ground-based silo launchers. The Americans also have more deployed missile defense systems, and they are more effective. Simply put, Americans have the ability to meet a nuclear first strike, significantly weaken it, retaliate with a nuclear strike, and survive. At the same time, it is still impossible to say unambiguously who will ultimately win and estimate the losses.