Military Review

The expert told, what is the danger of placing THAAD for Russia and China

34
The United States conducted successful tests of THAAD missile defense systems in Alaska. Military expert Vladimir Kozin explained what, in his opinion, is the danger of placing these complexes for Russia and China. His words leads RIA News.



Earlier, Fox News reported the successful testing of the THAAD ABM systems deployed in Alaska. According to the information, the system successfully intercepted a missile launched from the northern part of Hawaii.

According to the head of the missile defense agency Sam Greaves, the missile defense system data "will protect the country from a real and growing threat."

THAAD is also unfolding in South Korea. This step is worrying China and Russia. Moscow calls for the immediate cancellation of the placement of THAAD complexes in the region.

As Vladimir Kozin, a professor at the Academy of Military Sciences of the Russian Federation, noted, the capabilities and strength of the THAAD missile defense systems are capable of disrupting strategic stability no matter where they are located.

There are two points. The first: in the launchers of defensive systems of interceptor missiles, you can install offensive weapons. There is one more serious side: if the total number of defensive US missile defense systems exceeds the number of nuclear missile carriers weaponssay, in a two-to-one ratio, then the United States may be tempted to strike the first nuclear or high-precision non-nuclear strike on country X and successfully hide behind a paling of defensive missiles. That's the problem. Thus, strategic stability will be broken. The more Americans will have interceptor missiles of any kind, especially those that are called upon to perform strategic tasks, the greater will be the danger to our country. Because America in this case will be able to securely intercept a reciprocal nuclear missile strike. And no matter where these missiles will be placed: in South Korea, in Alaska or in the seas-oceans,
said the expert on the air radio Sputnik.
Photos used:
Flickr / US Missile Defense Agency
34 comments
Ad

Subscribe to our Telegram channel, regularly additional information about the special operation in Ukraine, a large amount of information, videos, something that does not fall on the site: https://t.me/topwar_official

Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. Geisenberg
    Geisenberg 12 July 2017 09: 34
    +2
    Something is hard to believe that they will instruct such a picket fence. More than 2000 interceptors must be put ... Tear.
    1. siberalt
      siberalt 12 July 2017 09: 40
      +1
      Judging by the "axes" issued by the States in Syria, little is believed in the effectiveness of their missile defense. At the present stage, there is no such “stockade” that could guarantee a deterrent to offensive strategic weapons.
    2. bouncyhunter
      bouncyhunter 12 July 2017 09: 41
      +8
      Actually, Vladimir Kozin said something that only the lazy did not speak to him. request
      1. Partyzan
        Partyzan 12 July 2017 09: 45
        +7
        Vladimir Kozin said that before him only the lazy did not speak
        PR as it should request
      2. hrych
        hrych 12 July 2017 09: 53
        +6
        Welcome hi Vladimir Kozin is behind the times. To begin with, our Military Doctrine is not defensive, like the USSR, not offensive, like the United States, but proactive, i.e. seeing their preparations and attempts, we beat the first laughing So our leader already talked about caliphates, in his youth in a fuss they taught, apparently snot wassat
        Quote: bouncyhunter
        US missile defense will exceed the number of carriers of nuclear missile weapons, say, in a ratio of two to one

        Secondly Kozin is generally a bad bookkeeper laughing not rockets and anti-missiles should be compared, but anti-missiles and the number of warheads. If the Mace or worse than the Voivode / Sarmatian carry a dozen, then a dozen missiles are needed for one missile, and in Kozinski, so do twenty wassat Status 6 them to the bay bully
        1. corporal
          corporal 12 July 2017 09: 56
          +1
          Quote: hrych
          then one missile needs a dozen anti-missiles, and in Kozinski it’s generally twenty

          And with false goals? wink
          1. hrych
            hrych 12 July 2017 09: 58
            +2
            Quote: Corporal
            And with false goals?

            You just don’t tell Kozin, otherwise he’ll give the thaade picket fence wassat
        2. bouncyhunter
          bouncyhunter 12 July 2017 09: 58
          +5
          Good day ! hi I agree, especially this one smiled:
          Quote: hrych
          Status 6 them to the bay

          good
        3. Kent0001
          Kent0001 12 July 2017 10: 20
          +3
          The Americans plan to shoot down our missiles before they go beyond the stratosphere, almost at take-off, there is nothing to divide there.
          1. Tusv
            Tusv 12 July 2017 11: 52
            +4
            Quote: Kent0001
            The Americans plan to shoot down our missiles before they go beyond the stratosphere, almost at take-off, there is nothing to divide there.

            How with parameters 200 km to 200 km can be shot down on takeoff?
      3. pvv113
        pvv113 12 July 2017 10: 00
        +3
        Repetition - the mother of learning
        1. bouncyhunter
          bouncyhunter 12 July 2017 10: 02
          +2
          Yeah, or for those who have not heard before. wassat
          1. pvv113
            pvv113 12 July 2017 10: 11
            +2
            And some do not even reach
      4. Juborg
        Juborg 12 July 2017 12: 11
        +1
        In addition, Kozin is not a military expert, as stated in the article, he is an adviser to the Institute for Strategic Studies, nothing more. He is simply engaged in the analysis of the situation, but in this matter there is no need to be “seven spans in the forehead” to add 2 + 2.
    3. Vadim237
      Vadim237 12 July 2017 10: 17
      +1
      They have money to fig, if they want, these missile defense missiles will do like sausages.
      1. Oleg Monarchist
        Oleg Monarchist 12 July 2017 13: 19
        +1
        Vadim237
        They have money to fig, if they want, these missile defense missiles will do like sausages.


        Vadim, and you are a process engineer in what area?
        1. Vadim237
          Vadim237 12 July 2017 14: 45
          0
          Aircraft, rocket science.
          1. Oleg Monarchist
            Oleg Monarchist 12 July 2017 15: 20
            +1
            Well, you know, honestly I doubt it.
            Otherwise, you would have wondered how the TAAAD will destroy the Russian ICBM launched, for example, from the Siberian region. All of their missile defense can destroy ICBMs at the initial stage. But after the separation of warhead how? How will they oppose the imitators of warheads. How does the TCAAD ballistic missile fight the maneuverable warhead of ICBMs. How the radar of the complex will perceive an electromagnetic pulse after an atmospheric nuclear explosion above the positions of the complex.
            In general, the complex is designed to destroy missiles of the 50s of the last century, on which they train.

            It should be noted, however, that tests are carried out only on simulators of massive, but morally obsolete R-17 missiles (according to NATO classification SS-1 Scud), developed in the mid-1950s, which do not have the means to overcome missile defense. THAAD intercepted a ballistic target missile simulating a Scud missile at an altitude of over 50 kilometers. [19]


            The cost is about $ 2,3 billion for 1 complex, try to make them like a "sausage". Of course the "bubble sawmills" DARPA and Lockheed would be delighted with this. But here, most likely, even the US budget is unlikely to sustain it.
            1. Vadim237
              Vadim237 12 July 2017 19: 00
              +1
              “Otherwise, you would ask a question” - I don’t ask this question - we only have about 380 land and sea-based ICBMs, theoretically, the future THAAD modification will be able to work on ICBM warheads, as they will shoot further and higher, but Aegis comes first Well, let’s say for each of our ICBMs there are 20 false targets in a compartment of 7600 plus 1700 real warheads - but whatever you do with the false target recognition system, the same thing develops along with missile defense, the number of kinetic interceptors on one missile will increase - from one to six, so the number of launchers and the satellite constellation SPRN PRO will also increase. Therefore, the threat is real, so in 10 years, our nuclear parity will be minimized by the saturation of US missile defense systems. But alas, there are no maneuvering warheads, there is only a given flight program, the warhead itself cannot deviate from the kinetic interceptor - since the warhead does not see it. "Most likely even the US budget is unlikely to sustain it." - Withstand and add on top. I am more than sure that after the tests of Sarmat, allocations for missile defense will begin to grow up.
    4. Dead duck
      Dead duck 12 July 2017 10: 35
      +6
      Quote: Geisenberg
      Tear up.

      "The chicken is pecking a grain," before they hadn't had one.
      And what will happen in 20-40 years, in what areas and in what quantity will they be able to shoot down ?!
      It is better not to sit and not wait (hoping that they will not succeed), but to prepare countermeasures.
  2. corporal
    corporal 12 July 2017 09: 35
    +3
    .... in a two-to-one ratio ...... it may be tempting to inflict the first nuclear ........ to successfully hide behind the "stockade" of defensive missiles. That's the problem

    Man, yes you read our VO, local iksperds on your fingers will explain to you that our missiles are dodging their missile defense like Jackie Chan in The Drunken Master. laughing
    You are also a professor of military sciences. wassat
    1. iliitchitch
      iliitchitch 12 July 2017 09: 45
      +3
      Quote: Corporal
      Man, yes you read our VO, local iksperds on your fingers will explain to you that our missiles are dodging their missile defense like Jackie Chan in The Drunken Master.
      You are also a professor of military sciences.


      Threesome he. According to the latest data, our missiles are able to shoot back from the adversary, I tell you this as an expert. But
      - ts-s ..
    2. Vadim237
      Vadim237 12 July 2017 19: 04
      0
      "That our missiles are dodging their missile defense." Unfortunately, this is not the case in practice.
      1. corporal
        corporal 12 July 2017 20: 54
        +1
        Quote: Vadim237
        Unfortunately, this is not the case in practice.

        That was sarcasm for the holy faith of the cheers-patriots about maneuvering warheads.
  3. Altona
    Altona 12 July 2017 09: 43
    +4
    Quote: Geisenberg
    Something is hard to believe that they will instruct such a picket fence. More than 2000 interceptors must be put ... Tear.

    -------------------------------
    The military task is not solved head-on, blunt. In order to reduce carriers from Russia, there are good-natured talks and negotiations of the US State Department on reducing nuclear potentials, as well as "resolutions" of the UN General Assembly on the part of non-nuclear powers to ban nuclear weapons. Although it is clear even to a child that a nuclear missile shield today is a defense of the sovereignty of a country, like a shield with one.
  4. Alexey-74
    Alexey-74 12 July 2017 09: 46
    +3
    The Pentagon’s military experts themselves do not really believe in the possibility of THAAD, given the capabilities of modern missiles to overcome various missile defense systems. Although the capabilities and quality of intercepting missiles are not yet clear, perhaps the Yankees are counting on a quantitative indicator ........
    1. Vadim237
      Vadim237 12 July 2017 10: 20
      +1
      Missile defense systems continue to improve.
  5. Altona
    Altona 12 July 2017 10: 19
    +2
    Quote: Alexey-74
    The Pentagon’s military experts themselves do not really believe in the possibility of THAAD, given the capabilities of modern missiles to overcome various missile defense systems. Although the capabilities and quality of missile interception are not yet clear, perhaps the Yankees are counting on a quantitative indicator ....

    -------------------------------------------
    Good opportunities even today. At least THAAD radars scan the area within a radius of 2000 km. Covering Chinese and our territory with interest.
    1. Dead duck
      Dead duck 12 July 2017 10: 41
      +5
      Quote: Altona
      At least THAAD radars scan the area within 2000 km.

      Kozin forgot about radars, but in vain. yes request
    2. Oleg Monarchist
      Oleg Monarchist 12 July 2017 13: 00
      0
      Radar station "Voronezh" 4000-6000 km (and possibly up to 8 thousand km)

  6. Garri_
    Garri_ 12 July 2017 10: 56
    +1
    Quote: iliitch
    Quote: Corporal
    Man, yes you read our VO, local iksperds on your fingers will explain to you that our missiles are dodging their missile defense like Jackie Chan in The Drunken Master.
    You are also a professor of military sciences.

    Threesome he. According to the latest data, our missiles are able to shoot back from the adversary, I tell you this as an expert. But
    - ts-s ..

    .. huh ... and they themselves start at the slightest threat from outside, and even reproduce themselves (yes, at our economic level) ... winked
    .. Americans have a powerful economy, developed military industry, a lot of "green candy wrappers" for which the whole world pays with its resources .. do not underestimate them, they will do as many of these missiles as necessary (for example, "Tomogavkov" - several thousand) ... and you shouldn’t think that only we have the best, there, too, people don’t just get a “salary" ... so there’s always something to think about ... in 41 they also wanted to throw all their headdresses ..
  7. Oleg Monarchist
    Oleg Monarchist 12 July 2017 12: 39
    +1
    Professor of the Academy of Military Sciences of the Russian Federation, military expert Vladimir Kozin


    According to the RISI website, Kozin is a candidate of historical sciences, I really thought he was really an expert in rocketry, but no. The Academy of Military Sciences of the Russian Federation does not train military officers and does not develop military equipment, despite its sonorous name. This is a non-governmental public organization. laughing Kozin is also a member of the correspondent of the Russian Academy of Natural Sciences, whose experts regularly try to convince us on the REN-TV canal that it was not the Ukrainians who dug the Black Sea and built the Egyptian pyramids, but the most ancient Rusichs with the help of ancient Slavic BoHs and friendly aliens from Alpha Centauri. The level of these iksperdoff is clear. laughing
    There is a video of launching this type of target missile from a military transport aircraft, apparently she flew after launching in the "airplane" mode, and Thad acted as a conventional air defense system.
    In general, the usual scam for an exclusively idiotic American people on cutting budget dough.
  8. magadan72
    magadan72 12 July 2017 16: 32
    0
    Something that is not justified is the danger for us of deploying anti-ballistic missiles in Korea. Since they do not stand on the trajectory of our ballistic missiles. missiles. And in South Korea it makes sense to shoot!? Korea is one of not many who really are not our enemy. But the northerners with their missiles and unpredictable leader are really dangerous for them. And modern missile defense will not hinder them. Perhaps this is the only place where the US missile defense NEEDED.
  9. Andrey123
    Andrey123 12 July 2017 22: 08
    0
    Installing American missile systems around the world for the United States is a huge military business. They must show that their six allies are under reliable protection and demand more money from them for defense, that’s all, and to attack Russia or China they have a small intestine.