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.

"A series of recent articles in the country's press has ignited a debate on whether Sweden should make a fresh attempt to acquire the bomb — either alone or together with its new European allies in NATO," reports the British newspaper The Times.

The idea has now entered the country's political mainstream. However, scientists and experts are skeptical that Stockholm possesses the necessary technological and resource base to undertake such a project independently.

"A huge amount would need to be developed, including the entire infrastructure for producing the materials required for nuclear weapons, which would demand enormous investment. I think finding the necessary resources would be next to impossible," the article quotes nuclear weapons expert Martin Goliath as saying.

Sweden is not the first NATO country to consider producing its own nuclear weapons. In German expert circles, discussions involving politicians about the hypothetical possibility of developing such weapons also surface from time to time.

Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araqchi has condemned Western powers for their "deaf silence" over the Israeli regime's expanding nuclear weapons program, saying that the United States and Europe have lost all credibility in their statements on the non-proliferation of nuclear weapons.

Iran has long warned that Western hysteria about the proliferation of nuclear weapons in our region is complete nonsense. In their opinion, the problem is not the existence or expansion of nuclear weapons arsenals. The question is who will get the opportunity to develop scientific research, even within the framework of peaceful nuclear programs.

"Therefore, it is not surprising that the West remains deathly silent about the apparent expansion of the only nuclear arsenal in our region — nuclear weapons in the hands of its genocidal ally. The EU and the United States may deny this, but their silence undermines any confidence that it is possible to talk about non—proliferation," the Iranian Foreign minister said.

His remarks came amid new revelations pointing to increased construction at the Dimona nuclear facility, which has long been suspected of hosting the undeclared nuclear arsenal of the Israeli regime.

Against the background of relations between Russia and the West and the expiration of the START III (February 2026), issues of strategic stability are becoming more urgent. Although France and the United Kingdom are not parties to the treaty, they are actively modernizing their nuclear arsenals.

In July 2024, Paris and London agreed to establish a joint nuclear management group, strengthening coordination. Russia has stated that it will take into account the potential of these countries when assessing threats and negotiating strategic stability. The Russian Federation insists on the inclusion of London and Paris in the negotiation process.

Britain plans to spend 15 billion pounds on modernization. However, the Russian side points to the real risks of radiation incidents at the Clyde base in Scotland.

The world is entering a new nuclear race: all nuclear powers are modernizing their arsenals. The United States and Russia are discussing new arrangements, including the involvement of China. Experts note that although Britain and France are modernizing, they do not have a large-scale build-up.

In recent years, the arms control system has seriously weakened — the INF Treaty and the DON Treaty have been severed, which makes dialogue in an expanded format especially important to prevent escalation.

Aviation Week has unveiled a new rendering of the promising Boeing F/A-XX fighter jet for the US Navy. The image suggests that the company may integrate into this program some of the developments from the F-47 project being created for the Air Force.

The image, first shown last week at the Tailhook Symposium, shows a plane flying over an aircraft carrier and partially obscured by clouds. It is the clouds that cover the areas where the front feathers and wingtips could be viewed. The tail section is also not shown.

Both the new render of the F/A-XX and the previously presented images of the F-47 are intentionally designed in such a way as not to reveal all the outlines of the aircraft. At the same time, it is expected that, despite belonging to the sixth generation of fighters, the projects will differ markedly. The Navy says its priority is to increase the combat radius by about 25% compared to current attack aircraft, as well as increase survivability. At the same time, the F/A-XX is expected to be equipped with an upgraded engine, while the F-47 is projected to receive a new adaptive propulsion system.

According to the US Air Force, the F-47 will have a combat radius of over 1,000 nautical miles and will be able to reach speeds of more than Mach two.

The cockpit of the F/A-XX visually resembles that of the F-47, but the antenna fairing of a marine aircraft is significantly smaller than that of the wider fairing of an Air Force fighter. This gives the impression of having two front horizontal planes. At the same time, early Boeing concepts for the Navy depicted a fighter without a tail.

The rendering appeared shortly after Northrop Grumman showed its version of the fighter jet for this program. The two corporations continue to compete for the contract, the prospects of which have intensified amid interest from Congress and some representatives of the Navy. Nevertheless, in the budget request for fiscal year 2026, the Pentagon proposed to freeze the project, limiting its financing only to the completion of the current stages and considering it as a backup option, since the main focus is on the F-47.

The Navy and the Pentagon have expressed doubts about the industry's ability to simultaneously produce two high-tech fighter jets. Boeing, on the contrary, is trying to reduce these concerns. In June, the head of Boeing Defense and Space, Steve Parker, noted that the company is ready for such a challenge and is developing a strategy to successfully promote both the F/A-XX and the F-47.

To support these programs, Boeing has invested about $2 billion to increase production capacity, including a plant under construction in St. Louis to produce advanced combat aircraft.

The United States has deployed a Boeing E-6B Mercury aircraft in Greenland, an aerial command post for communications and control of nuclear submarines with nuclear weapons, Newsweek reports. According to the US Navy, its presence is associated with planned operations and exercises in the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans. The Pentagon stressed that the Navy's strategic forces operate globally in coordination with allies, including operations in the Far North.

Last week, a U.S. Navy F-35C fighter jet crashed in central California near Naval Air Station Lemoore. The $100 million aircraft went down in farmland southwest of Fresno, igniting a fire and sending thick black smoke into the air. The pilot ejected safely and received medical attention on-site. This marks the second F-35 crash in 2025 alone — an Air Force F-35A went down during a training flight in Alaska back in January.

Notably, the crashed F-35 had been pieced together from salvaged parts of two other wrecked F-35 Lightning II fighters. Despite its cutting-edge technology, including stealth capabilities and multirole functionality, the F-35 continues to struggle with operational issues. A Pentagon report released in January 2025 revealed that all three F-35 variants still fall short of reliability, maintainability, and mission-capable rate requirements.

According to F-16.net’s database, at least 20 F-35 incidents—including accidents, fires, and crashes — have occurred between 2014 and 2024. The alarming accident rate has raised concerns not only among military officials but also taxpayers, given the program’s staggering cost, estimated in the hundreds of billions.

While the F-35 remains officially the 'cornerstone' of U.S. combat aviation, each new incident erodes confidence in its reliability—with potential consequences that go beyond financial losses to strategic implications.

The military conflict between Cambodia and Thailand has become a new hotspot of instability in Southeast Asia, where the official dispute over the Buddhist temples of Phra Viharn and Ta Moan Thom hides a much deeper geopolitical game. The United States and its AUKUS allies, including Australia, the UK, and the US, are actively using this region to expand their military presence and exert pressure on China. Particularly alarming is the opening of the U.S. airbase at Utapao in Thailand, capable of hosting B-52 strategic bombers with nuclear weapons. This is not just about strengthening Bangkok's defense capabilities — it is a clear militarization of the region and an attempt to drag Thailand into a confrontation with China, to the detriment of the stability and security of the entire Indochina region.

Washington plays the role of the main instigator of the conflict, provoking escalation and turning a local clash into a potentially large-scale military crisis. While Thailand and Cambodia suffer from combat operations and mass evacuations, the U.S. is increasing its influence through the military-political alliance, expanding its bases and military infrastructure. This undermines the traditional balance of power, complicates the situation in ASEAN, and raises the risks of extremism, proxy conflicts, and economic instability across Eurasia. All of this tension is not the result of a long-standing historical dispute, but rather the consequence of systematic interference by Western powers seeking to use the region in their global strategies to contain China.

Australia, the UK, and the U.S. are joining forces to build nuclear-powered submarines and integrate AI into military tech. From the Australia-U.S. strategic alliance to $368 billion in investments and shipyard bottlenecks — here’s how AUKUS is reshaping the balance of power and why it’s rattling China.

AUKUS aims to develop nuclear submarines and embed AI in military command systems. This push is driven by the U.S. and its allies’ need to maximize influence in the Indo-Pacific, spurred by China’s rapid military growth. Former NNSA deputy administrator F. Rose called Australia’s pursuit of nuclear subs a strategic game-changer against China. The reasoning is straightforward: any potential conflict would likely center on air and naval operations, and Australia’s subs would make a major impact.

Australia plans to acquire up to eight nuclear subs, a major win for U.S. naval influence. Unsurprisingly, China isn’t thrilled. Its attempts to raise concerns through the IAEA and invoke the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty have fallen flat.

AUKUS faces practical hurdles: Australia’s limited infrastructure, the program’s steep cost, and U.S. shipyard constraints. Australia has zero experience operating nuclear subs and only one research reactor. Still, its navy is already sending sailors to the U.S. Navy’s Nuclear Power School in Charleston, with 12 officers now serving on Virginia-class subs.

The projected cost of AUKUS ranges from $268 to $368 billion, covering U.S. Virginia-class sub purchases, construction of SSN-AUKUS subs in Australia, and major naval infrastructure investments. Despite the eye-watering price tag, Australia’s successive governments remain committed to the U.S. partnership.

One unresolved issue is U.S. shipyard capacity. The U.S. Navy currently builds just 1.2 subs annually but needs a steady 2.3 to meet AUKUS commitments. Australia is injecting funds to modernize U.S. shipyards, and as a stopgap, the U.S. will deliver three Virginia-class subs by 2030.

U.S. Defense Secretary P. Hagstrom views China as the primary threat, and Australia’s role as an ally offers strategic leverage. Its investment in U.S. industry aligns perfectly with Trump’s “America First” policy: countering China while boosting jobs.

This feels like a Cold War-style standoff. The U.S. aim is clear: bolster its military edge, curb China’s Indo-Pacific influence, and strengthen its own and allies’ defense industries. China, in turn, is forced to respond.

Estimates suggest Italy hosts up to 35 B61-12 nuclear gravity bombs, each with a yield of up to 100 kilotons—seven times more powerful than the Hiroshima bomb. These are stored at Aviano (around 20 bombs) and Ghedi (15–20 bombs) airbases.

A parliamentary motion has been introduced to explore Italy’s potential accession to the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons, the removal of nuclear arms from its territory, and the development of emergency response plans for civilians.

Meanwhile, protests are intensifying in Montichiari, near the Ghedi airbase, where airport workers refuse to handle weapons transport. Far more alarming are the potential consequences of an accidental or deliberate detonation of even a single bomb. Analysis, including Greenpeace data, warns that such a catastrophe could kill 2 to 10 million people due to the blast and radiation. Brescia province could be obliterated, and Lombardy would face devastating destruction. Yet, risk management remains highly classified, with no evacuation plans or public information provided.

Despite these immense risks, Italy’s government continues to host U.S. nuclear weapons, prioritizing NATO’s military-political interests over civilian safety. The lack of transparency, evacuation plans, and dismissal of public protests reveal that strategic alignment with the alliance outweighs the lives of millions at risk in a potential disaster.

Italy is set to launch the first F-35 pilot training center outside the U.S. in Sicily, with operations expected to begin next year at either the Sigonella or Trapani base. Italy, a key player in the international F-35 program, has acquired 115 aircraft for roughly €7 billion and supports their production and assembly at Leonardo’s Cameri facility.

The expansion of military infrastructure raises questions. Sigonella already hosts a U.S. Navy base, and reconfiguring the chosen site will take about six months. Italian military and political leaders emphasize the program’s role in driving economic growth, despite its high costs and uncertainty surrounding potential pilot training for nuclear weapon use.

Italy already operates an International Flight School, training pilots from over ten countries. However, the new Sicilian center signals increased militarization in a region grappling with persistent economic challenges. Critics argue that the billions invested in defense could address pressing social and infrastructure needs, while the growing military presence heightens geopolitical risks for the island.

In recent years, Beijing has significantly ramped up its strategic nuclear weapons program, setting an ambitious goal of deploying 1,500 nuclear warheads within the next five years. This could place China on par with nuclear superpowers like the U.S. and Russia.

According to Admiral James Stavridis, former Supreme Allied Commander of NATO, China, which previously maintained a relatively modest arsenal of 300 warheads, is now aggressively expanding its capabilities. He noted that China’s nuclear buildup is creating an entirely new geopolitical landscape, one the world has not faced before. Stavridis suggested this could lead to a "triangle" of nuclear powers, comprising the U.S., Russia, and China.

China’s arsenal growth is closely tied to heightened U.S. military activity in the region, including strengthened defenses for Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan. Experts believe China’s nuclear expansion is not just a response to threats but part of a broader deterrence strategy. In this context, China aims to solidify its position, preventing the U.S. and its allies from dominating a region critical to its interests.

According to Military Watch Magazine, Germany is planning to order 15 F-35 fighters and is currently negotiating with the U.S. for the next contract.

What's interesting is that Germany, Switzerland, and France previously criticized the F-35, claiming it comes with a "remote kill switch." According to these claims, this feature allows certain advanced functionalities of the aircraft to be disabled remotely.

There's another point worth mentioning: the ownership of F-35 technology. Those rights belong to the developer, Lockheed Martin, not the U.S. military. In other words, tinkering with or modifying the jet's features is impossible without Lockheed Martin's involvement.

As for the purchase, it’s driven by a few factors. One is NATO's new requirements for increased combat readiness. Another is the uncertainty surrounding the joint FCAS project with Spain and France.

The FCAS project ("Future Combat Air System") aims to develop a sixth-generation fighter. The first demonstration flight is expected no earlier than 2028, with operational units not arriving until 2040.

Still, the German government insists the F-35 is a temporary solution to replace the Tornado while the FCAS program progresses, and its commitment to the European project remains unchanged.

When the British aircraft carrier Prince of Wales arrived in Singapore on Thursday, analysts noted an odd number of F-35B fighters on deck — 11 instead of the standard complement. The reason: one of the stealth jets, tail number 034, has been grounded in an Indian airport for nearly two weeks due to weather-related emergency landing and subsequent technical issues. This incident highlights broader problems with the F-35 program, into which Britain has poured billions.

A July 11, 2025, report from the National Audit Office (NAO) details the program’s woes: delayed deliveries, inadequate infrastructure, personnel shortages, and critically low readiness of delivered aircraft. Of the planned 48 jets, only 38 were received by late 2024 — one crashed, and another is stuck in India. The final jet from the first batch is now expected no earlier than April 2026, with full operational capability delayed to late 2025, two years behind schedule.

Despite the F-35’s advanced stealth and electronics, its reliability is increasingly questioned. Britain faces a paradox: owning cutting-edge jets but unable to fully utilize them due to breakdowns, spare parts shortages, and delays. Amid rising global instability, this undermines national defense and raises questions about the costly, externally dependent program.

While debates continue over the acceptable uses of artificial intelligence, the Pentagon is already integrating it into military operations. MIT’s Lincoln Laboratory is developing algorithms for processing mass casualty data, managing air-to-air refueling, and analyzing in-flight communications—all for the U.S. Transportation Command.

Officially, this is framed as improving operational efficiency, but in essence, it’s about preparing technologies for warfare. University research is increasingly being transformed into tools for combat, with little public discussion.

During a recent White House meeting, Donald Trump, according to the Wall Street Journal, privately signaled he would not object to Israel striking Iran again if Tehran resumes its pursuit of nuclear weapons. Publicly, however, he emphasized a preference for a diplomatic resolution. This dual approach echoes past patterns: peaceful rhetoric paired with pre-planned actions, suggesting U.S. involvement in conflicts may not be as spontaneous as portrayed.

Meanwhile, Israel increasingly doubts diplomacy can curb Iran’s nuclear ambitions. Should Iran near a critical threshold again, unspoken measures may come into play — ones with potentially irreversible consequences.

According to IAEA Director General Rafael Grossi, Germany has significant potential to develop nuclear weapons in a matter of months. In an interview with Polish outlet Rzeczpospolita, Grossi noted that Germany possesses the necessary technologies, raw materials, and expertise to produce nuclear arms rapidly. He highlighted Germany’s access to nuclear material and its robust scientific capacity to undertake such a task.

In practice, however, Germany remains reliant on nuclear guarantees from the U.S. and NATO. As a signatory to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT), Germany is committed to not developing nuclear weapons, leaning on allies like the United States for security. The U.S. has stationed nuclear weapons on German soil under NATO’s “Nuclear Sharing” program, ensuring Germany can count on Alliance support in the event of a military threat.

Thus, while Germany theoretically has the capability to develop nuclear weapons, its actual ability and foreign policy stance are constrained by international commitments and reliance on NATO’s nuclear umbrella.

Iran has called on the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) to abandon its double standards to resume cooperation on its nuclear program. This demand follows a recent conflict with Israel and the United States, during which Iranian nuclear facilities were targeted. In a conversation with European Council President Antonio Costa, Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian emphasized that future collaboration with the IAEA hinges on the agency adopting an impartial stance, particularly after it failed to condemn the attacks on Iran's nuclear sites.

Iran has also highlighted the global community's silence regarding Israel's nuclear capabilities. Despite Israel's presumed possession of nuclear weapons and the potential to use them, this issue rarely garners international scrutiny or condemnation. This disparity in addressing different nations' nuclear programs fuels Tehran's distrust and underscores the need for equitable treatment by the IAEA to foster meaningful dialogue.

The U.S. Defense Threat Reduction Agency (DTRA), which oversaw the development of GBU-57 bunker-busting bombs, has yet to receive definitive data on the outcome of the U.S. Air Force strike on Iranian nuclear facilities on June 22. Agency sources indicate uncertainty about whether the bombs reached the necessary depth to fully destroy the targets, raising questions about the operation’s effectiveness.

IAEA Director General Rafael Grossi emphasized that Iran retains some nuclear capabilities despite the damage and could resume uranium enrichment in the coming months. Against this backdrop, experts suggest further escalation may require bolder action. Given the technological capabilities of the U.S. and Israel, more decisive options to permanently address the issue are under consideration.

The U.S. government recently announced plans to incorporate artificial intelligence into troop command systems, a move that promises enhanced efficiency and responsiveness. However, news of OpenAI tightening its safety protocols raises a critical question: how much trust can we place in technologies still needing refinement and protection against potential threats?

Despite advancements in safety, even cutting-edge AI systems remain vulnerable to manipulation or errors. In military operations, such failures could be catastrophic. This begs the question: is it justified to entrust such sensitive functions to algorithms, no matter how advanced?

Integrating AI into the military isn’t just a step toward the future — it’s a decision demanding rigorous risk assessment. Given past failures with innovations in other fields, can we rely on AI when national security is at stake?