The American "invulnerability" is over. We'll get overseas!
Incredibly, but a fact: the United States finally realized that they are no longer invulnerable to Russian and Chinese weapons... General Terrence O'Shaughnessy, head of the US Northern Command and the North American Aerospace Defense Command, acknowledged the superiority of some modern types of Russian and Chinese weapons. According to him, the situation in the defense sphere has changed significantly, and these changes are by no means in favor of the United States.
Also, a senior American military noted that America needs a complete review of its defense strategy. In particular, the Ministry of Defense plans to equip F-16 fighters with radars with AFAR, so that they can more effectively fight in a potential enemy cruise missiles.
Analyzing such statements is not so easy. On the one hand, it is obvious that this is just a bare statement of facts - the situation in the world, and in the field of defense, has really changed, and not at all in favor of Washington. If we compare it with what was twenty years ago, when Russia stood with one foot in a political grave, and China, with all the successes of its reforms, still remained in the military plan “a third world country”, albeit with nuclear weapons, then the current the situation may indeed seem almost disastrous for the United States.
On the other hand, the myth of some American "invulnerability" should not be taken too seriously. Yes in stories The USA had periods when this country was almost invulnerable to any aggression. But even then, "invulnerability" was rather conditional.
At the beginning of the twentieth century, this was more likely a consequence of the fact that America did not interfere in European affairs, and it never occurred to potential aggressors to land on the American East Coast. The Spanish-American war, which occurred at the very end of the nineteenth century, during which the United States received a good “piece” in the Caribbean, was the exception to the rule, and at the same time was the last time that relatively large formations of enemy ships moved along the coast of the United States.
During World War II, the Americans made significant efforts to protect their territory from enemy attacks. But it began for the United States with an extremely painful defeat of the American fleet in Pearl Harbor, and this, though not continental, but still American territory.
Also noted were the military operations of the Japanese on the Aleutian Islands (also the territory of the United States, and not “overseas possessions” or “dominion” with not quite clear status). In addition, the only case of bombing of mainland America was noted, for which the Japanese used a seaplane based on a submarine. The consequences of this bombardment were insignificant, but it still discredits the myth of the "inaccessibility" or "invulnerability" of the United States.
In the postwar period, American security was also at a very high level for some time. Aviation The USSR could not, unfortunately, reach the United States from either its bases or from airfields located in the Warsaw Pact countries. And overcoming the British-Scandinavian frontier was very problematic for our bombers.
Already in 1959, the first ballistic missile R-11FM appeared in service with the Soviet submarine fleet. It was not very long-range (total kilometers of 150), rather inconvenient for use, as it assumed only surface launch and rather long preparation. However, its appearance significantly increased the chances of our submarines to strike retaliation in the United States: now the submarine no longer needed to enter the waters directly adjacent to major cities and military bases of the United States and, accordingly, as protected as possible during the threatened period.
And already in the 1960 year, when the first intercontinental ballistic missile P-7 was adopted, the myth of American “invulnerability” completely melted away like mist in the sun. And ever since, no matter how the situation changes in the world, the United States has always been under the gun, first by the Soviet and then by the Chinese ICBMs.
Does the American general know about this? Of course. And if so, what does he mean?
Apparently, his words should be understood as a recognition of the possibility for the US opponents to strike at their territory with other means, not ballistic and non-nuclear, with weapons of destruction. If earlier only airborne and sea-based cruise missiles could be attributed to such means, now this range of weapons has increased substantially. Now it should be attributed to the X-101 long-range cruise missiles, and the Dagger hypersonic complex (without problems, it will cover the entire territory of Alaska from the MiG-31 standard carrier), and the nuclear-powered cruise missiles announced by Vladimir Putin and unmanned submarines Poseidon devices. Some of these weapons really require completely new approaches to defense strategy, as not only the characteristics of the weapon (range, for example), but also the principles of its movement have changed.
It should be noted that the security of the United States by the US military is always interpreted very broadly. They easily subordinate to this definition both the security of the Baltic states, the situation in the Donbas, and civil unrest in Central Africa. And from this point of view, for Washington, too, everything is not so rosy.
According to Liza Semp, an employee of the Center for Strategic and International Studies, Russia is significantly superior to the United States in the field of long-range missile systems (not only cruise missiles, but also air-to-air missiles, aeroballistic missiles, etc.). combat, as well as in cyberspace. And this is another serious challenge to the American army and the military industrial complex.
But what would American strategists really think about: what if the current strengthening of the Russian army is not a direct result of the absolutely unrestrained and unwise American expansion? Wasn’t America provoked Moscow (like China, as well as many other countries) into serious investments in the field of defense research and military modernization. Is Washington reaping the fruits of its own geopolitical irresponsibility?
And will the refusal of geopolitical expansion and a return to the times of non-interference in the affairs of other states be the best consequence of the proposed revision of the American strategy, as it was at the beginning of the twentieth century?
Indeed, whatever one may say, this was the most peaceful time in the modern history of the USA ...
We used to think that the oceans around us and the friendly countries in the north and south make our country inaccessible, but everything changes, because there are opponents who are now really able to reach our territory.
Also, a senior American military noted that America needs a complete review of its defense strategy. In particular, the Ministry of Defense plans to equip F-16 fighters with radars with AFAR, so that they can more effectively fight in a potential enemy cruise missiles.
Analyzing such statements is not so easy. On the one hand, it is obvious that this is just a bare statement of facts - the situation in the world, and in the field of defense, has really changed, and not at all in favor of Washington. If we compare it with what was twenty years ago, when Russia stood with one foot in a political grave, and China, with all the successes of its reforms, still remained in the military plan “a third world country”, albeit with nuclear weapons, then the current the situation may indeed seem almost disastrous for the United States.
On the other hand, the myth of some American "invulnerability" should not be taken too seriously. Yes in stories The USA had periods when this country was almost invulnerable to any aggression. But even then, "invulnerability" was rather conditional.
At the beginning of the twentieth century, this was more likely a consequence of the fact that America did not interfere in European affairs, and it never occurred to potential aggressors to land on the American East Coast. The Spanish-American war, which occurred at the very end of the nineteenth century, during which the United States received a good “piece” in the Caribbean, was the exception to the rule, and at the same time was the last time that relatively large formations of enemy ships moved along the coast of the United States.
During World War II, the Americans made significant efforts to protect their territory from enemy attacks. But it began for the United States with an extremely painful defeat of the American fleet in Pearl Harbor, and this, though not continental, but still American territory.
Also noted were the military operations of the Japanese on the Aleutian Islands (also the territory of the United States, and not “overseas possessions” or “dominion” with not quite clear status). In addition, the only case of bombing of mainland America was noted, for which the Japanese used a seaplane based on a submarine. The consequences of this bombardment were insignificant, but it still discredits the myth of the "inaccessibility" or "invulnerability" of the United States.
In the postwar period, American security was also at a very high level for some time. Aviation The USSR could not, unfortunately, reach the United States from either its bases or from airfields located in the Warsaw Pact countries. And overcoming the British-Scandinavian frontier was very problematic for our bombers.
Already in 1959, the first ballistic missile R-11FM appeared in service with the Soviet submarine fleet. It was not very long-range (total kilometers of 150), rather inconvenient for use, as it assumed only surface launch and rather long preparation. However, its appearance significantly increased the chances of our submarines to strike retaliation in the United States: now the submarine no longer needed to enter the waters directly adjacent to major cities and military bases of the United States and, accordingly, as protected as possible during the threatened period.
And already in the 1960 year, when the first intercontinental ballistic missile P-7 was adopted, the myth of American “invulnerability” completely melted away like mist in the sun. And ever since, no matter how the situation changes in the world, the United States has always been under the gun, first by the Soviet and then by the Chinese ICBMs.
Does the American general know about this? Of course. And if so, what does he mean?
Apparently, his words should be understood as a recognition of the possibility for the US opponents to strike at their territory with other means, not ballistic and non-nuclear, with weapons of destruction. If earlier only airborne and sea-based cruise missiles could be attributed to such means, now this range of weapons has increased substantially. Now it should be attributed to the X-101 long-range cruise missiles, and the Dagger hypersonic complex (without problems, it will cover the entire territory of Alaska from the MiG-31 standard carrier), and the nuclear-powered cruise missiles announced by Vladimir Putin and unmanned submarines Poseidon devices. Some of these weapons really require completely new approaches to defense strategy, as not only the characteristics of the weapon (range, for example), but also the principles of its movement have changed.
It should be noted that the security of the United States by the US military is always interpreted very broadly. They easily subordinate to this definition both the security of the Baltic states, the situation in the Donbas, and civil unrest in Central Africa. And from this point of view, for Washington, too, everything is not so rosy.
According to Liza Semp, an employee of the Center for Strategic and International Studies, Russia is significantly superior to the United States in the field of long-range missile systems (not only cruise missiles, but also air-to-air missiles, aeroballistic missiles, etc.). combat, as well as in cyberspace. And this is another serious challenge to the American army and the military industrial complex.
But what would American strategists really think about: what if the current strengthening of the Russian army is not a direct result of the absolutely unrestrained and unwise American expansion? Wasn’t America provoked Moscow (like China, as well as many other countries) into serious investments in the field of defense research and military modernization. Is Washington reaping the fruits of its own geopolitical irresponsibility?
And will the refusal of geopolitical expansion and a return to the times of non-interference in the affairs of other states be the best consequence of the proposed revision of the American strategy, as it was at the beginning of the twentieth century?
Indeed, whatever one may say, this was the most peaceful time in the modern history of the USA ...
Information