Military Review

Leonid Ivashov: A quick global strike became the basis of American strategy

21
Leonid Ivashov: A quick global strike became the basis of American strategy



- It turns out that the Patriot US air defense system failed to intercept an old Soviet missile in Saudi Arabia. Prior to this, the THAAD system missed the rocket drills. Does this mean that the American air defense and missile defense systems are worse than the Russian ones?

- I would not be in a hurry to draw such conclusions. First, when was this Patriot system produced? How old is it already in use? Who is the calculation, whose people? If they are representatives of Saudi Arabia, they are not so hot which specialists. Moreover, they hire specialists from other countries who go to earn extra money. Therefore, here, most likely, the human factor is the main one.

The Patriot itself is a good system. And American air defense systems, and even missile defense systems, such as Aegis, are excellent systems. You can not underestimate them.

- The Saudis are purchasing anti-aircraft systems not only from the US, but also from us. For example, C-400.

- They declared intentions to purchase, until they purchased. Here, as in any business, competition. There is a process - someone rushes forward, someone is catching up. Our air defense systems, ranging from C-300, are developing at a fairly rapid pace. Somewhere we make a breakthrough, and then we follow in pursuit, and somewhere we are bypassed.

Do not forget that the Americans have the capacity for the production of even the same systems Patriot much more than ours. They can increase this production.

- It is clear that in the modern world there will be no nuclear war - it will immediately destroy the planet. The war will go massive strikes of conventional missiles. How are things going with air defense and missile defense? Can we sleep well?

- We can not sleep well. Yes, in suitable conditions, the interception of single targets, group targets for a specific object, we still provide, but we should not forget the scale of our territory. And in order to intercept everything (especially cruise missiles), a modern air defense system - first of all, C-400 - needs to be deployed throughout the country so that there are no “holes”. And the fact that we have deployed several regiments on a vast territory does not mean that we are protected.

The concept of a fast global strike envisages a strike with high-precision supersonic cruise missiles that go around the terrain. If at least 6 thousands of missiles are flying to us from different strategic directions at the same time, it is natural that most of them will not be intercepted. There is no such possibility in any country.

When 18 January 2003, George W. Bush, signed a directive on a quick global strike, we did not pay attention to it. And this was a fundamental change in the US military strategy. If earlier they relied on strategic nuclear weapons, the 2000 nuclear review of the year led them to conclude that nuclear weapon it is not worth developing, it should be maintained at the level and, moreover, even reduced on a reciprocal basis. START-3 then followed for the same reason.

And it is necessary to increase other means. And a quick global strike became the basis of American strategy.

Today we see that under this blow hundreds of thousands of different types of UAVs are already being deployed, which also turn into a powerful means of destruction.

We see that a cyber command has been created in the USA, which affects technical systems (electronic first and foremost) and human consciousness. And this is such a wound that is not cured, as a wound to the body.

- Knowing such a strong military equipment of the US Army, our military think about their own?

- The military think, think. Both the General Staff and the Minister pose questions, but we have been destroying our defense industry complex for a quarter of a century. Not only some industries have been lost - engineering schools have been lost. And today, all this frantically trying to recover.

This thesis - that we do not have external threats and enemies - led to the fact that Chubais and others privatized, destroyed the leading defense-industrial enterprises, broke up the research institutes that worked on this topic. This should not be forgotten.

The second. And who will deal with cyber threats? Why the Ministry of Defense? And these operations are soft power with drones? Drones - cheap massive weapons worth 20 dollars, than to shoot them down? Send a C-400 rocket that costs millions? All this needs to be solved already on the scale of the state, and not just the Ministry of Defense.

And anyway, who is responsible for the information war? Who is responsible for protecting against cyberdars?

We saw how the 12 of May was conducted training a blow to our territory. Not only military systems will be disabled. First of all, the blow will be dealt to our financial system. Who is here to protect?
Author:
Originator:
https://izborsk-club.ru/14455
21 comment
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Dangerous
    Dangerous 12 December 2017 15: 36 New
    +2
    Well, what does he (Ivashov) offer? Everyone can criticize, but where are the suggestions? Yes, those to engage in defense were not at the expense of other sectors of the economy?
    1. Siberia 9444
      Siberia 9444 12 December 2017 16: 34 New
      +5
      START 3 is a U.S. trick! On the contrary, it is necessary to increase the number of nuclear weapons, and thereby a quick global strike flies off by itself, they will not be able to destroy all of our installations (mine, ground)
      1. g1washntwn
        g1washntwn 13 December 2017 06: 59 New
        +3
        I agree. The number of carriers and warheads is limited by contracts, but 150-300 Kt is clearly not enough for large areal targets. To return megaton-class warheads in cobalt gift packaging would be the answer to all kinds of missile defense and BSU. Absolutely unacceptable damage, taking into account the prospects of missile defense and biogas systems, the enemy can and should be done with non-standard methods of delivering WMD.
    2. iouris
      iouris 14 December 2017 12: 57 New
      0
      Quote: Dangerous
      Well, what does he (Ivashov) offer?

      What can he offer? He is a publicist.
  2. Basil50
    Basil50 12 December 2017 16: 06 New
    +4
    It turns out that they are developing * blitzkrieg * again? Actually, this is not surprising; in the USA, war criminals from Germany hid as if no more than in all other countries. Perhaps the plan for a nimble war on new technical capabilities was born.
    The memory of the defeat of the Germans leaves. Moreover, in the United States they have been trumpeting victories for so long and loudly, all over the world, apparently they themselves believed in this.
  3. ul_vitalii
    ul_vitalii 12 December 2017 16: 54 New
    +7
    I did not see any criticism, but I raised a lot of questions. Putin clearly outlined the position, if he presses, we can use nuclear weapons. A global blow is precisely what Presses.
    1. iouris
      iouris 14 December 2017 12: 59 New
      0
      Quote: ul_vitalii
      Putin clearly outlined the position, if pressed, we will use nuclear weapons.

      Probably...
  4. zenion
    zenion 12 December 2017 18: 13 New
    +3
    We must praise their weapons excitedly. The more praise, the less anxiety that they will have anxiety. There is, of course, a proverb - trust in God, but don’t be bad. Suddenly they only pretend that they believe, and they themselves build a new, more effective slingshot.
  5. sa-ag
    sa-ag 12 December 2017 18: 20 New
    +2
    "First of all, the blow will be dealt to our financial system."
    More likely to the "financiers" :-) and soon
    1. aybolyt678
      aybolyt678 12 December 2017 20: 19 New
      +1
      it has already been inflicted, or rather not a blow but asphyxiation, and does not think to weaken.
  6. NordUral
    NordUral 12 December 2017 20: 09 New
    +1
    The first thing that the supreme power of Russia needs to do is to tell the West toughly that there will be an instantly massive nuclear response to any massive attack by non-nuclear weapons. Only this can stop the boors of the West. And cover all dangerous areas with air defense and missile defense, while at the same time creating conditions for the impossibility of such an attack. And for this, dozens, if not hundreds, of small and medium warships with a full range of weapons are needed, both to intercept missile flocks and to combat their starting positions and the aggressor fleet. Yes, and much more needs to be done, at least for the possibility of quickly destroying global positioning and disrupting all types of communications ..
    1. shura7782
      shura7782 12 December 2017 21: 22 New
      +1
      ......... there will be an immediately massive nuclear response ..........
      In 2014, on TV, GDP already said these words. And it was just about an attack on Russia ..
      1. Andrey Yuryevich
        Andrey Yuryevich 13 December 2017 08: 10 New
        +1
        Quote: NordUral
        The first thing that the supreme power of Russia needs to do is to tell the West toughly that there will be an immediate massive nuclear response to any massive attack by non-nuclear weapons

        Quote: shura7782
        In 2014, on TV, GDP already said these words. And it was just about an attack on Russia ..

        Friends, read the Doctrine, it’s all there. So, "your call is very important to us" ... wink
  7. Old26
    Old26 12 December 2017 23: 09 New
    0
    Quote: NordUral
    The first thing that the supreme power of Russia needs to do is to tell the West toughly that there will be an instantly massive nuclear response to any massive attack by non-nuclear weapons. Only this can stop the boors of the West. .

    laughing It must be understood that for the past few years you have slept a sweet dream ... Why repeat what everyone knows. They studied our military doctrine much better than you probably did. Therefore, they know when and under what conditions we will use nuclear weapons.

    Quote: NordUral
    And cover all dangerous areas with air defense and missile defense.

    Do not jump over your head. In the year EMNIP we can supply a pair of regimental sets of S-400 air defense systems

    Quote: NordUral
    And for this, dozens, if not hundreds, of small and medium warships with a full range of weapons are needed, both to intercept missile flocks and to combat their starting positions and the aggressor fleet.

    To do this, you must have a military budget comparable to or more than the US and several times more shipbuilding capacity


    Quote: Siberia 9444
    START 3 is a U.S. trick! On the contrary, it is necessary to increase the number of nuclear weapons, and thereby a quick global strike flies off by itself, they will not be able to destroy all of our installations (mine, ground)

    Of course the trick. We are reducing our old missiles, which have exhausted their resources. But they are cutting back. But do not be this agreement, they leave their missiles, and we continue to reduce. And for the replacement we do for the fleet and strategic missile forces 40-50 missiles per year, sometimes writing off twice as much. Of course the trick .... What will you put the increased amount of nuclear weapons on?
    1. Town Hall
      Town Hall 12 December 2017 23: 30 New
      0
      Quote: Old26
      It must be understood that for the past few years you have slept a sweet dream ... Why repeat what everyone knows. They studied our military doctrine much better than you probably did. Therefore, they know when and under what conditions we will use nuclear weapons.



      Russia will use nuclear weapons against NATO only in the event of the collective unanimous suicidal madness of several hundred people constituting the political elite of the state and the simultaneous same attack of madness of several thousand military on which the material execution of such an order depends.

      I doubt that when there are so many who want to kill themselves and their children for a show off, Russia, like any other country, has lost a lot of wars in its history. And nothing, they are healthy. Even Hitler and Stalin did not dare to use chemical weapons on the verge of a military catastrophe .Also they were more eaten than the current kings.


      This naturally applies to the other side.
      1. g1washntwn
        g1washntwn 13 December 2017 07: 26 New
        +1
        The effectiveness of chemical weapons, even taking into account modern weapons, is limited against protected armed groups. It is highly effective only against unprotected and civilians in places with high density. Proven back in World War I.
        And as for the use of organic matter: it was used in the chemical warfare, and many times later, but no one has changed the above wording so far.
        The effectiveness and consequences of the massive use of nuclear weapons are purely on a theoretical plane, which lowers the threshold for its use by several times - that's what is dangerous. The Americans are pushing for the "environmental friendliness of nuclear weapons", "limited strikes" and other heresies, trying to take us on this path. This is archaic. In this case, nuclear weapons are transformed from a deterrence tool into an ordinary toy for the military. In no case is it possible to monkey the Anglo-Saxons, it is necessary to do the opposite - increase the megatonnage and work on strengthening the negative consequences of the use of nuclear weapons. If we are not going to fight on our own territory, and we don’t need someone else’s, why do we have to linger with the “partners” and all sorts of Greenpeace?
  8. Alex Xorkam
    Alex Xorkam 13 December 2017 09: 27 New
    0
    One sentence follows directly from the article. Everyone needs to think when you are doing something, including as if not affecting defense capability. Putin’s team with a developed fifth column and the lack of a coherent program can only destroy the country. Massive approval of Putin without a coherent country development program will not give him the opportunity to cope with the team, and the team has long ruled on its own. Think about it.
  9. Old26
    Old26 13 December 2017 10: 05 New
    0
    Quote: Town Hall
    Russia will use nuclear weapons against NATO only if

    Kamrad! The Military Doctrine of Russia clearly spells out the following (not verbatim, but close to the text)
    Russia will use nuclear weapons against a country that has committed aggression against Russia, even if this country does not possess such weapons, but its aggression could entail the loss of Russia's sovereignty.

    Translating into ordinary human language, it sounds like this. If you don’t have nuclear weapons, but you attacked us and we see that your aggression may lead to the loss of sovereignty, we will cover you with nuclear weapons

    Quote: g1washntwn
    but 150-300 Kt is clearly not enough for large areal purposes

    Not enough for what? In order to glaze the enemy territory? Then really not enough. And when instead of 1 megaton or even one 8 megaton BG, 8-10 warheads of 150-300 ct each fall on you, then the area of ​​destruction will be larger and the effect will be COMPARISONLY large. An attack on a half-million city with one 1-3 mt warhead will lead to less damage than the same attack with at least 5 150 kt warheads inflicted on various parts of the city

    Quote: g1washntwn
    Returning megaton-class warheads in a cobalt gift box would be the most

    So the enemy will return. Or are they such mugs that they will let us do it, but they won’t?

    Quote: g1washntwn
    The Americans are pushing for the "environmental friendliness of nuclear weapons", "limited strikes" and other heresies, trying to take us on this path. This is archaic. In this case, nuclear weapons are transformed from a deterrence tool into an ordinary toy for the military.

    Nuclear weapons from a deterrent tool does not turn into a toy due to a decrease in the power of ammunition. The threshold for its use is reduced due to an increase in the number of countries possessing nuclear weapons and minimal nuclear arsenals. If country X has 2-3 nuclear warheads, and country XX has the same number, then politicians may have a great desire to resolve a dispute with a neighbor through nuclear weapons. Yes, they understand that 2-3 settlements on their territory will be destroyed. But the enemy, too. And if you put first, but in the capital, there is a chance that the enemy will not have time to use these weapons

    And when there is country A, which has an arsenal of 150 or 200 charges and country B, which has the same number, then even with their border disputes and conflicts they do not dare to use nuclear weapons against their neighbors, because know that they will receive the same answer (in quantity) and there will be no gain

    Regarding the environmental friendliness of nuclear weapons. Yes, such arguments, in principle, exist and have both their supporters and opponents. The meaning of such an "environmentally friendly" nuclear weapons is to use not megaton warheads that destroy everything within a radius of several kilometers, but use low-power weapons for the so-called. surgical strokes. for example, instead of destroying a city with a population of 300 and a tank factory, it’s enough to destroy an ammunition of 1-3 kt, not even the plant itself, but the powerful GRES that feeds it. Victims and destruction will be minimal, which is beneficial from the point of view of the aggressor in the subsequent seizure of territories.
    Yes, it is quite possible such weapons can be used more often, but not against nuclear powers. And against non-nuclear ... Sorry, but there you’ll still use -10 mt or 3 ct

    Quote: g1washntwn
    In no case is it possible to monkey the Anglo-Saxons, it is necessary to do the opposite - increase the megatonnage and work on strengthening the negative consequences of the use of nuclear weapons.

    Can. Everything is possible. But do not forget that the enemy can do the same in response to our increase in power. In any case, we will not achieve a reduction in civilian casualties in our own way. Here the "principle of mirroring" will work

    Quote: g1washntwn
    If we are not going to fight on our own territory, and we don’t need someone else’s, why do we have to linger with the “partners” and all kinds of Greenpeace?

    Will we need our own territory? Or figs with her, the main thing is that the "partners" have scorched territory. And an interesting decision - we are not going to fight on our territory. And has anyone, ever, in any wars planned to do this? I'm afraid in the history of wars you will not find examples in which they were originally going to fight on their territory. So at the end of the first half of the last century, we also said: little blood and on foreign territory. And they were forced to roll back to the Volga, having lost a significant part of the European part of our country. so it’s better not to promise and rely on weapons that can be used only on foreign territory because of its monstrous power ...
    1. g1washntwn
      g1washntwn 13 December 2017 14: 13 New
      0
      Why so many letters, if at the end you highlight the meaning of my post?
      Quote: Old26
      bet on weapons that can only be used on foreign territory because of its monstrous power

      ??
      Strategic nuclear weapons are not designed to catch fleas. 150 CT is a LOT, but let's think in perspective. Now there are no effective means against the massive use of nuclear weapons for BSU or for missile defense. We assume that the INF and peaceful outer space order a long life, and hypersonic BSU with effective interception of enemy carriers in all parts of the flight does not become fiction, but fits into the likelihood of reaching the United States only one 10-20 warhead. So, I want the unacceptable damage in this case would be multiple times higher. The reciprocal movements of the "partners" excite me a little. If the most negative scenario is destined to come true, I assure you that the only thought in everyone’s head will be only one hope that the enemy is BURNING IN HELL AS A WHOLE AND ALL THEIR COUNTRY, and not giggle, switching the power supply to his industry from reserves.
      It’s useless to swing the water pistol towards the enemy, but the “Kuzkin’s mother” impressed them instantly.
    2. Town Hall
      Town Hall 15 December 2017 01: 28 New
      0
      Quote: Old26
      Quote: Town Hall
      Russia will use nuclear weapons against NATO only if
      Kamrad! The Military Doctrine of Russia clearly spells out the following (not verbatim, but close to the text)
      Russia will use nuclear weapons against a country that has committed aggression against Russia, even if this country does not possess such weapons, but its aggression could entail the loss of Russia's sovereignty.
      Translating into ordinary human language, it sounds like this. If you don’t have nuclear weapons, but you attacked us and we see that your aggression may lead to the loss of sovereignty, we will cover you with nuclear weapons



      Hello ... I know what is written in general terms in the doctrine. But the doctrine is doctrine, and reality is reality. Tens of millions of dead, among whom will be the leadership and their children, will obviously spit upon the doctrine and sovereignty). they have no sovereignty.

      An ordinary war can be lost. Not the first and not the last. And it’s unlikely that a mini-apocalypse can be arranged because of this.

      In any case, my post was in the case of the Russia vs NATO war. That is, the case was considered when pressing a button is equivalent to shooting yourself in the temple.

  10. Old26
    Old26 15 December 2017 09: 14 New
    0
    Quote: g1washntwn
    It’s useless to swing the water pistol towards the enemy, but the “Kuzkin’s mother” impressed them instantly.

    Well, the "Kuz'kin mother" and similar multi-megaton charges still need to be delivered to enemy territory. And I prefer it to be 10-50 ct charges, but there would be a lot of them on one rocket. The interception system now does not allow intercepting ICBMs before separation, which means they will have to solve a practically unsolvable problem - choose from the pack of targets, and there will be several hundred of them precisely those 10-20 that need to be intercepted. When there is a multi-megaton fool, then it is very difficult to hide among false targets, it will be too different. This means that interception will be much easier for the enemy. Compare. The same “Voivode” can carry either one light unit of 8 MT, or one heavy unit of 20 MT, or 10 allowed per half megaton. But theoretically, it can carry not 10, but 20. Which target is easier to intercept? A warhead weighing 6 tons and corresponding sizes or 10 relatively small and relatively light blocks. Or 20 in general, surrounded by a "group of comrades"?