Latest news with #TridentII
Jordan News
02-08-2025
- Politics
- Jordan News
Pressure on Putin and Deployment of 'Nuclear Submarines'… What's Behind Trump's Dual Warning? - Jordan News
U.S. President Donald Trump has escalated tensions in the ongoing power struggle with Russia by announcing he would order the deployment of two nuclear submarines to 'appropriate areas' in response to what he described as provocations from Moscow. اضافة اعلان According to The Times, this move is not unusual in military terms — the U.S. routinely has about 20 of its 71 nuclear-powered submarines deployed at sea, often near Russian waters during heightened tensions. However, what's striking is that Trump chose to publicize this action, signaling two core messages: first, that he is a man of action; and second, a strategic warning. A Direct Response to Medvedev… and a Message to Putin Trump's move fits his well-known pattern of reacting forcefully to provocation. This time, he was responding specifically to Dmitry Medvedev, the former Russian president turned controversial online figure. After Trump shortened the deadline he gave Moscow to reach a ceasefire in Ukraine, Medvedev warned that "each new ultimatum is a step closer to war. Not with Ukraine, but with his own country. Don't follow Sleepy Joe's path!' The statements were seen as an attempt to intimidate Trump, who frequently warns of a looming 'World War III' — a fear he's previously accused Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky of "gambling with" during their Oval Office confrontation. Medvedev's comments also appeared aimed at irking Trump by comparing him to his predecessor Joe Biden. Still, Medvedev was not the primary target of Trump's message. Observers note Trump's rhetoric toward President Vladimir Putin has grown increasingly critical in recent months. Cautious Criticism While Trump has ramped up his criticism of Putin — recently calling Russia's actions 'disgusting' and accusing Putin of 'lying' — he continues to tread carefully, avoiding direct provocation. Trump still believes he has a working relationship with the Russian president. Interestingly, Medvedev's Monday post came shortly after Putin rejected Trump's proposed deadline for a peace deal — adding to the pressure on the former U.S. president to assert a stronger stance. Trump's reference to 'nuclear submarines' was deliberately vague — likely to leave open a range of options from his command of the U.S. Navy fleet. Of the U.S.'s 71 nuclear-powered submarines, 14 are Ohio-class ballistic missile submarines capable of carrying up to 20 Trident II missiles, which can be fitted with nuclear warheads. At any given time, 8 to 10 of these vessels are on patrol worldwide. According to The Times, the White House believes Putin will interpret Trump's submarine diplomacy not as a provocation but as a deterrent — a defensive rather than offensive move aimed at preventing the resurgence of inflammatory nuclear rhetoric, especially in response to Medvedev's isolated remarks. Sanctions and Tariff Pressure on Allies In parallel, Trump has intensified his economic pressure campaign, including threats of secondary sanctions on buyers of Russian energy. India has already been partially targeted, with Trump announcing a general 25% tariff, suggesting, 'They can crash their faltering economies together.' While Trump did not specify how much of that tariff is directly tied to Russian oil imports, the same strategy could soon be applied to China as trade talks reach a critical phase. The European Union — still the largest buyer of Russian gas — may also come under pressure. Hungary, Belgium, France, and Slovakia are among the top importers. Ironically, after recently agreeing to a 15% tariff reduction in trade deals, some European countries that had previously pushed Trump to punish Russia may now find themselves on the receiving end of U.S. sanctions. But this is the unpredictable and aggressive path Trump has chosen to follow. – (Agencies)
Business Insider
01-08-2025
- Politics
- Business Insider
Trump says he gave new orders to US nuclear submarines in response to an ex-Russian president's 'foolish' talk
"Based on the highly provocative statements" from Medvedev, who serves as deputy chairman of Russia's security council, "I have ordered two Nuclear Submarines to be positioned in the appropriate regions, just in case these foolish and inflammatory statements are more than just that," Trump wrote in a post on his Truth Social platform. It was not immediately clear what type of submarine Trump was talking about. All Navy submarines are nuclear-powered vessels, but only the ballistic missile subs, or SSBNs, can launch Trident II missiles, which have nuclear warheads. US Ohio-class ballistic missile submarines are regularly on patrol, with a focus on adversarial nuclear powers like Russia or China. The US typically does not disclose the location of its secretive missile submarines, except in cases when it's trying to send a message to adversaries. Trump didn't give away the location, but the order serves the same purpose. "Words are very important, and can often lead to unintended consequences, I hope this will not be one of those instances," Trump said in his social media post. The Navy deferred questions on Trump's comments to the Office of the Secretary of Defense, which deferred questions to the White House and the president's statement. The White House did not offer comment. Trump and Medvedev have been exchanging threats and warnings in the wake of the US president saying earlier in the week that Russia had just a matter of days to agree to a ceasefire in Ukraine or face new tariffs. The White House continues to be frustrated with Moscow's unwavering position on the grinding war. Medvedev, nowadays a warmonger who regularly rattles the Russian nuclear saber, responded by referring to what is perceived as an ultimatum as a "threat" that brings the two countries "a step towards war." Trump later singled out Medvedev in a Truth Social post, calling him "the failed former President of Russia" and cautioning that he should "watch his words." "He's entering very dangerous territory!" Trump wrote. But Medvedev hit back on the Telegram messaging platform and said that Trump should remember "his favorite movies about 'The Walking Dead,' as well as how dangerous the nonexistent 'dead hand' can be." The "dead hand" is a reference to a Soviet-era nuclear weapons control system designed to ensure that Russia can launch a retaliatory strike, even if leadership is physically unable to do so. Medvedev, who served as Russia's president between 2008 and 2012, has been one of the most prominent anti-Western voices in the Kremlin since its full-scale invasion of Ukraine began in 2022. His comments this week mark the latest nuclear saber-rattling by Russia. President Vladimir Putin has also leaned on the country's nuclear arsenal, the largest in the world, in his warnings to the West amid the ongoing support for Ukraine.
Business Insider
01-08-2025
- Politics
- Business Insider
Trump says he gave new orders to US nuclear submarines in response to an ex-Russian president's 'foolish' talk
President Donald Trump said Friday that he ordered two US Navy nuclear submarines to take up strategic positions following what he described as "foolish" comments from Russia's former president, Dmitry Medvedev. "Based on the highly provocative statements" from Medvedev, who serves as deputy chairman of Russia's security council, "I have ordered two Nuclear Submarines to be positioned in the appropriate regions, just in case these foolish and inflammatory statements are more than just that," Trump wrote in a post on his Truth Social platform. It was not immediately clear what type of submarine Trump was talking about. All Navy submarines are nuclear-powered vessels, but only the ballistic missile subs, or SSBNs, can launch Trident II missiles, which have nuclear warheads. US Ohio-class ballistic missile submarines are regularly on patrol, with a focus on adversarial nuclear powers like Russia or China. The US typically does not disclose the location of its secretive missile submarines, except in cases when it's trying to send a message to adversaries. Trump didn't give away the location, but the order serves the same purpose. "Words are very important, and can often lead to unintended consequences, I hope this will not be one of those instances," Trump said in his social media post. Neither the White House nor the Office of the Secretary of Defense immediately responded to Business Insider's requests for additional information, and the Navy deferred to OSD. Trump and Medvedev have been exchanging threats and warnings in the wake of the US president saying earlier in the week that Russia had just a matter of days to agree to a ceasefire in Ukraine or face new tariffs. The White House continues to be frustrated with Moscow's unwavering position on the grinding war. Medvedev, nowadays a warmonger who regularly rattles the Russian nuclear saber, responded by referring to what is perceived as an ultimatum as a "threat" that brings the two countries "a step towards war." Trump later singled out Medvedev in a Truth Social post, calling him "the failed former President of Russia" and cautioning that he should "watch his words." "He's entering very dangerous territory!" Trump wrote. But Medvedev hit back on the Telegram messaging platform and said that Trump should remember "his favorite movies about 'The Walking Dead,' as well as how dangerous the nonexistent 'dead hand' can be." The "dead hand" is a reference to a Soviet-era nuclear weapons control system designed to ensure that Russia can launch a retaliatory strike, even if leadership is physically unable to do so. Medvedev, who served as Russia's president between 2008 and 2012, has been one of the most prominent anti-Western voices in the Kremlin since its full-scale invasion of Ukraine began in 2022. His comments this week mark the latest nuclear saber-rattling by Russia. President Vladimir Putin has also leaned on the country's nuclear arsenal, the largest in the world, in his warnings to the West amid the ongoing support for Ukraine.
Yahoo
13-05-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Airlines prepare for nuclear war
Airlines are taking steps to ensure that they can keep flying even after the outbreak of a nuclear war. Jets could continue to fly following an atomic blast under special insurance policies being drawn up to address the possibility of conflicts escalating in Ukraine and Kashmir. Current policies that date back to the 1950s would force the grounding of all civil aircraft worldwide in the event of a single nuclear detonation, based on the assumption that this would lead to the outbreak of a third world war. However, with the deployment of nuclear weapons now regarded as more likely to involve so-called tactical warheads used in a limited role on the battlefield, the insurance industry has developed plans to allow flights to continue in regions removed from conflict zones. Gallagher, the world's largest aviation insurance broker, began working on the scheme when Vladimir Putin threatened to deploy Russia's atomic weapons against Ukraine in 2022. Its plans have been given fresh impetus by the clash between India and Pakistan over Kashmir, where hostilities reached a level not seen for decades over the past week. Nigel Weyman, senior partner at Gallagher, said the Ukraine conflict had revived interest in nuclear-related insurance policies. He said: 'Back when the wording was drawn up, it was assumed that any hostile detonation meant that it would all be over, Armageddon. But what they didn't have in those days was tactical nuclear weapons that vary in size and impact and which are, ultimately, very usable.' The latest generation of the American B61 air-launched gravity bomb carries a nuclear warhead with a yield as low as 0.3 kilotons, for example. That compares with 15kt for the bomb dropped on Hiroshima in 1945, and 100kt for a single Trident II missile warhead. While Britain retired its last tactical nuclear weapons in 1998, Russia is believed to have almost 2,000. North Korea unveiled what it claimed was a tactical weapon in 2023, while Pakistan's Nasr missile can also carry a battlefield nuclear warhead. Mr Weyman said: 'Why should Air New Zealand, for example, be grounded in the event of a nuclear detonation in Europe that was quite minor, albeit not for the people near it? 'Airlines find workarounds for whatever challenges they face, safe corridors, minimum heights so that ground-to-air missiles can't reach them. 'Volcanic ash clouds affect big areas, but the world keeps flying. Yet a few words on an insurance policy can ground every jet there is.' The broker has come up with a plan that would see a select number of insurers evaluate where airlines should be permitted to fly after a nuclear detonation, aided by analysis from security experts at risk-management specialists Osprey Flight Solutions. The 15-strong group, which includes Allianz, the world's largest insurer, would meet within four hours of a detonation and evaluate the threat to airlines on a country-by-country basis. The plan would provide each carrier with $1bn (£750m) per plane of war cover for passengers and third parties, compared with $2bn or more under existing policies. Mr Weyman said the cost of the scheme will amount to less than the price of a cup of coffee per passenger, if ever triggered, something 'easily passed on in ticket prices'. Airlines spent about $1.3bn on insurance premiums last year to cover slightly over 4bn passenger journeys, indicating a current cost of around 33 cents per customer. Around 100 airlines have so far signed up to the plan, out of the 500 or so worldwide. About 60 in Europe have joined, though low-cost operators are proving reluctant, Mr Weyman said. Airlines could yet be grounded by other insurance stipulations, including a 'five powers war clause' that terminates cover in the event of a military clash between any of the UK, US, France, Russia and China. That could be invoked in the event of any British or French troops sent to Ukraine being fired on, according to some industry experts. Sign in to access your portfolio
Yahoo
28-04-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
For nuclear deterrence, US policymakers must rely on facts, not hype
Washington finds itself in another season of hearings related to nuclear weapons, as Congressional leaders consider approving new defense appointees, negotiate the federal budget and hold annual hearings with military leaders. Such hearings are important, especially from a strategic perspective. Maintaining deterrence requires clear-eyed assessments of our own nuclear and conventional weapons, their doctrines for use, the health of the enterprise that operates them and the trade-offs inherent in all defense investments. This challenging work requires that policymakers plan against facts and best judgments, and avoid being distracted by misleading claims regarding the U.S. nuclear arsenal and those of other nations. Three chief narrative claims threaten to send Washington down costly, inefficient and indeed risky policy paths today. The first theme, which seemingly reemerges each year, is that U.S. nuclear weapons are ancient, and that this necessitates urgent action. This is true — Many U.S. nuclear weapons and their delivery systems are quite old. In these critical debates, this is sometimes portrayed as a new realization, and a problem for which the U.S. isn't yet pursuing solutions. In fact, this is a long-recognized challenge that the nation has been tackling with concerted action for years. At sites in Texas, Missouri, New Mexico, California and elsewhere, scientists, technicians and manufacturers are executing an expansive modernization of all three legs of the nuclear triad, to the tune of at least $1.7 trillion. The nation has been pursuing these plans for many years — long enough, in fact, that the real needs and costs of nuclear modernization become clearer each year. Second, policymakers will hear a rising chorus claiming that the U.S. does not have tactical nuclear weapons — or that we need even more. Both assertions are misleading, and several facts must remain central to any renewed policy debate on this subject. Just this January, the National Nuclear Security Administration announced that production is complete for upgraded B61-12 nuclear gravity bombs, which have the ability to be used with heightened precision and lower explosive yields, enabling tactical utility. The head of the agency publicly declared that they are 'fully forward deployed.' That's not all. During the first Trump administration, the U.S. quickly developed and fielded a low-yield variant of submarine-launched Trident II missiles. Additionally, development and testing continue for a new long-range standoff nuclear air-launched cruise missile, with the aim of it becoming operable by 2030. Washington pursued each of these nuclear capabilities with scenarios in mind that included adversaries using tactical nuclear weapons in conflict, and the need for the nation to have multiple types of response options available. The U.S. had — and chose to reduce — tactical nuclear weapons in the past, decisions that stemmed from deep military analysis, as well as knowledge of the operational, budgetary and weapons-capability trade-offs the military faced. These decisions also tied to the emergence and improvement of other technologies, including stealth, precision conventional weapons and the growth centrality of space in defense strategy and operations. These factors are only growing in importance in considering what nuclear capabilities are necessary for effective deterrence. Third, making hard decisions regarding U.S. investments toward deterrence requires the most precise accounting of the nuclear capabilities of countries like China and Russia that we can achieve — and measured consideration of how to handle any knowledge gaps we have. For example, some experts portray as a proven fact that China has nuclear weapons that are at serious risk of being fielded as tactical, battlefield weapons in conflict. This is not a settled fact, and it is a matter of hot debate. China has long avoided developing some types of nuclear weapons, such as those delivered by tactical cruise missiles. Its doctrine historically considered nuclear weapons to be solely strategic, and held firm to the concept that use of nuclear weapons was beyond the normal threshold for acceptable combat. And indeed, some of its recent actions raise concerns about whether the nation's leaders have altered course. Still, no one in the U.S. concretely knows the answer to this or other questions about China's nuclear capabilities and concepts of use. It will likely take the type of dialogues that President Trump has proposed, as well as sustained technical and political engagement at all levels, to gain clarity. Until that happens, in the name of maintaining deterrence, policymakers should be careful to discern what we know and what remains unclear in our knowledge of these nations' nuclear capabilities. Our nation's leaders face tough questions about how to keep deterrence stable and effective in an extraordinarily complex security environment. It will indeed require modernizing parts of the nuclear arsenal. However, the more-is-better style of arms racing that the U.S. and Soviet Union pursued in the Cold War is not a fit for modern strategy. Initiating plans for nuclear weapons that exceed our capacity to build or maintain them does nothing to enhance deterrence and may risk strategic miscommunication. With this in mind, the nation can also benefit from the fact that we stand at a moment of strong, bipartisan agreement on numerous policy paths that aim to keep deterrence as effective as possible. For example, there is broad agreement that the U.S. should pursue defense acquisition reform and seek to out-innovate adversarial nations, both subjects for which Trump recently signed executive orders. The nation's nuclear weapons plans and policies should not be exempt from these important pursuits or the trade-offs they will entail. Second, there is significant agreement that the U.S. needs to invest more in its science, technology and industrial base that keeps the nuclear deterrent strong and secure. This must be adequately reflected in forthcoming budgets that support the national laboratories, the Department of Energy, the National Nuclear Security Administration and other relevant infrastructure. Third, most experts agree on the need to be creative in how we pursue deterrence, across nuclear and non-nuclear domains. Though some experts focus heavily on building more nuclear weapons as the primary answer, many of us agree that we should first maximize other approaches to complicating the decision-making of adversaries in ways that keep them back from the nuclear brink. This should include creative approaches to signaling U.S. capabilities and determination (including technical and strategic capabilities other than weapons systems), sharp messaging from senior leaders, and showcasing dedication to long-standing military alliances. While there is much work to do, we are already fifteen years into the implementation of a bipartisan program of record for a U.S. nuclear arsenal that is safe, secure and effective. By pursuing that program and the priorities noted above, our deterrent will remain second to none. Hon. Andy Weber is a senior fellow at the Council on Strategic Risks and previously served as assistant secretary of defense for nuclear, chemical and biological defense programs. Christine Parthemore is the CEO of the Council on Strategic Risks and previously served at the Pentagon.
