Military Review

Like in the old days. Pershing 2 will be aimed at Moscow?

59
As is known, the era of Gorbachev and Shevardnadze did not indulge us with major diplomatic successes, if not vice versa. However, it cannot be said that they were not there at all. If you think well, you can give a couple of examples of simply grand diplomatic victories of the perestroika Soviet Foreign Ministry.


Both of our diplomatic victories belong to the category of international arms limitation treaties. These are the Soviet-American Treaty on the Limitation of Anti-Ballistic Missile Systems and the Treaty on the Elimination of Medium and Short Range Missiles. Why can they be called the success of our diplomacy? If only because they were not particularly profitable by the United States, and the fact that Washington went to sign them, in a sense, is indeed evidence of either American stupidity, or, conversely, some very Jesuit foresight.



The ABM Treaty, as it is commonly called in everyday political and expert practice, was unprofitable for the United States because the USSR (and later Russia) didn’t have the necessary springboard for deploying missile defense systems near American territory. And since it is only in this case that the task of attacking missiles in the upper stage of the trajectory is solved, and this is the most effective way of organizing any total missile defense system, for Americans in principle there was no threat from this direction. The entire missile defense system of the USSR was aimed at protecting Moscow and the Moscow industrial region, which implied limited effectiveness and was, in general, a reflection of a priori passive defensive doctrine.

The Americans, on the other hand, already had a theoretical base of a more aggressive “early missile defense system” aimed at the destruction of launching ballistic missiles. In addition, the outlines of the placement of the advanced echelons of this system were already visible - the Warsaw Pact has not yet collapsed, but was very close to that.

Add to this the fact that the lion’s share of US nuclear weapons It focuses on submarines (the ballistic component, the Trident-2 system), walking around the world's oceans, as well as surface and air carriers (Tomahawk cruise missiles, free-falling aerial bombs). It was impossible to build a system of early, pre-emptive destruction of the launching ballistic missiles along the entire perimeter of the USSR threats, even in theory. But the Americans seriously hoped to cut off the accelerating sectors of the Russian ICBMs, which were the main part of our nuclear shield, and lock up our nuclear submarine fleet in the Barents Sea, which made their task quite feasible.

That is, this treaty was indeed unprofitable to the world hegemon, which was rapidly subject to Eastern Europe. It is so unprofitable that we can safely assume that the Americans signed it only to put Gorbachev's watchfulness to sleep and not prevent him from further ravaging the Warsaw Pact.

It is not surprising that the Americans withdrew from this treaty as soon as their theoretical calculations began to turn into a working “iron” capable of hitting the starting Russian ICBM.

However, for 1987, the signing of the ABM Treaty was still a huge success. And he probably would still be of great benefit to our country, if at that time it was not ruled by such incompetent personalities.

Equally beneficial for the USSR, and then Russia, was the INF Treaty. To evaluate its profitability for our side, you need to understand a few basic provisions.

First: US medium-range missiles were stationed in Europe and threatened from there directly by the USSR and Russia. Soviet missiles were also deployed in Europe, and they threatened only American allies and American bases. That is, the American pistol was put directly to our temple, and ours - to the temple of the American satellites.

I think it makes no sense to explain how uneven it was. The fact that the Americans would easily sacrifice their European allies, if in exchange they had a chance to destroy their main enemy, does not cause the slightest doubt. Yes, they would have sent a huge beautiful wreath to the funeral of the Federal Republic of Germany, but such is the nature of the Anglo-Saxons - to let crocodile tears with one eye, and with the other to see whether something valuable was left on the killed.

Second: the quality of the threat. The American Pershing-2 rocket reached Moscow in 6 minutes. Perhaps during this time you can evacuate the inhabitants of the Kremlin, but it is impossible to hope for more. The range of the rocket allowed it to block a significant part of the European territory of the USSR, including the whole of Ukraine and Belarus, as well as a significant part of the European territory of the RSFSR. The accuracy of the rocket for that time was the highest - the circular probable deviation was no more than 30 meters, which for a nuclear warhead is actually equal to a direct hit on the target.

It was the emergence of the "Pershing" with their outstanding at that time TTX led to the development by the Americans of the concept of the so-called "decapitating strike" - a sudden attack, destroying the highest political and military leadership of the USSR, as well as key military and industrial infrastructure. And this threat was assessed, including by the Soviet military, as critical.

That is, for the United States, the rejection of such a tool was not very profitable. And nevertheless, the leadership of the USSR managed to sign this agreement, albeit with great concessions in the line of sea-based and air-launched cruise missiles.

The INF Treaty is still in force, and this allows Russia to feel more comfortable. However, more and more situations arise in which the United States wants to find a reason to get out of this agreement.

In recent years, the United States has already had several accusations of Russia in the alleged breach of the INF Treaty. In particular, the Americans did not like the Iskander-M OTR deployed in the Kaliningrad region and accused us of the fact that the real missile technology of these missiles was understated. Information is also constantly exaggerated on the development by Russia of a ground-based cruise missile 9М729, which, ostensibly, does not fit into the existing agreement either.

The current statement by the US ambassador to NATO, Kay Bailey Hadchison, is in fact a continuation of American efforts aimed at discrediting Russia and fulfilling its obligations under the INF Treaty. Otherwise, it’s impossible to explain why Russia needed to break the treaty, beneficial for it from all sides, and to develop a ground-based cruise missile when we have enough air and sea carriers, as well as missiles of the corresponding class.

Therefore, let us proceed from the fact that this statement is not purely stupid (although this is exactly what it looks like), but continues the “artillery preparation” that should lead to the withdrawal of the Americans from the INF Treaty.

The threats and challenges that we face in this case are very serious. But about it, probably, somehow next time.
Author:
59 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. Pax tecum
    Pax tecum 3 October 2018 05: 26
    +7
    As in the old days. "Pershing-2" ...

    How will the Pershing Hunters spetsnaz groups be back in business in the old days?
    For example, in Europe, a special forces brigade stationed in Germany, at hour "X" was supposed to destroy the launch sites of American "Pershing".
    Although, in our time, high-precision weapons, missile defense is very unlikely. Ah, what were the specialists!
    1. Megatron
      Megatron 3 October 2018 06: 57
      +10
      If the states unilaterally terminate the treaty and begin to deploy medium-range missiles in Europe, we will only have one, categorically declare that such actions will be equated to the outbreak of war and the installations will be destroyed by preventive strikes.

      Another question is that ours will not go for it, as the villas and children they have abroad.
      1. Mestny
        Mestny 3 October 2018 09: 39
        -9
        Enough already whining about the villas abroad.
        In every news.
        1. Mordvin 3
          Mordvin 3 3 October 2018 09: 48
          +7
          Quote: Mestny
          Enough already whining about the villas abroad.

          And what is wrong? Do you have kids there too?
          1. Sergej1972
            Sergej1972 3 October 2018 12: 14
            -3
            A lot of relatives of leading workers of the PRC live abroad, study, and do business. And no one says that if you aggravate relations between the PRC and the USA, they will think first of all about these relatives.
            1. NordUral
              NordUral 3 October 2018 14: 30
              +2
              You either do not understand something, or pretend only.
            2. Mordvin 3
              Mordvin 3 3 October 2018 14: 42
              0
              Quote: Sergej1972
              And no one says that if you aggravate relations between the PRC and the USA, they will think first of all about these relatives.

              Correctly. To the wall of them! But seriously, you will think like Khrushchev with his son.
          2. NordUral
            NordUral 3 October 2018 14: 29
            0
            He had not yet lost hope in this.
        2. Hole puncher
          Hole puncher 3 October 2018 10: 23
          +4
          Quote: Mestny
          Enough already whining about the villas abroad.
          In every news.

          This is a statement of fact that you clearly want to forget.
        3. Bogatyrev
          Bogatyrev 3 October 2018 11: 22
          -1
          The whining is really enough. It's time to act!
      2. lukewarm
        lukewarm 3 October 2018 13: 39
        +1
        Quote: Megatron
        will be destroyed by preemptive strikes.

        I am begging you! The most we can count on is concern. And to start a big war ... it really is somehow. But you can say that. And before the blows - whether it will come or not ... Yes, and our people ... A very large part would like to "drink Bavarian"
    2. Ros 56
      Ros 56 3 October 2018 09: 48
      -3
      Launching pads are easier to destroy with Caliber and Iskander, and specialists will be needed elsewhere, but about this to no one. bully
      1. AUL
        AUL 3 October 2018 11: 35
        +2
        Quote: Ros 56
        Launching pads are easier to destroy with Caliber and Iskander,

        When did the Pershing take off? And how long will Caliber fly to that site (Pershing to Moscow - 6 minutes)?
        1. Ros 56
          Ros 56 4 October 2018 09: 12
          0
          And Pershingam to fly, is that a walk in the park?
      2. Boa kaa
        Boa kaa 3 October 2018 12: 27
        +1
        Quote: Ros 56
        Launching pads are easier to destroy with Caliber and Iskander,
        Calibers (Iskander-KR, product R-500) - fly for a long time, but their start is not visible to the AO radar. Iskanders RB - the start is visible and spotted on the ascending branch of the trajectory ... Then, a preemptive strike can only be inflicted on the INF storage bases, and when they went to the field area (to the launch position) - it's too late to drink Borjomi! They can strike from an unprepared position, from a march. This is where GRU specialists are needed with "Vintorezs" and "Bumblebees". So in the matter of protecting the "national interests of the Russian Federation" nothing will be superfluous! yes
        ("All sorts of mothers are needed, all sorts of mothers are important!" (C) laughing
        1. Henderson
          Henderson 3 October 2018 18: 39
          -1
          GRU specialists can run a lot in 6 minutes?
    3. Forestol
      Forestol 3 October 2018 10: 51
      +4
      These specialists have long been dispersed by the KGB, these are the FSO and the FSB. Like the GRU itself. This is about strategic forces. And not so seemingly secondary, there is generally a back fillet. Not so long ago, in 2012, all GRU services in Syria were completely eliminated. And today, OUR Kurds are fighting against us, Assad and Russia. But the next FSB general is sitting quietly in his chair.
    4. Zubr
      Zubr 3 October 2018 12: 35
      +1
      Although, in our time, high-precision weapons, missile defense is very unlikely. Ah, what were the specialists!


      That is yes. Yes, probably most likely electronic warfare systems and Iskander systems will work on such facilities. And satellites and unmanned scouts now provide guaranteed destruction of any target. The thing is different, Pershing eliminated, PU, ​​too, to replace something necessary. Missile defense systems? Yes, in the mine of their complexes, it is theoretically possible to place RSD. But this is a stationary complex and it will be immediately covered. Missile cruisers are also very clearly visible and controlled.
    5. Zaurbek
      Zaurbek 3 October 2018 12: 44
      0
      Where will he be based? In Germany, there were Peonies and Hyacinths with nuclear shells ...
    6. vadimtt
      vadimtt 3 October 2018 15: 56
      0
      So it seems that there were even units that, from large-caliber sniper rifles, were supposed to hit the fuel tanks of ballistic missiles when leaving the mines. True, thermal imagers have divorced and there is practically no liquid fuel left. bully
    7. Lex.
      Lex. 3 October 2018 21: 11
      0
      Well there and are guarded by special forces do you think?
      Iskanders will cover
      1. Zaurbek
        Zaurbek 4 October 2018 07: 22
        0
        Iskander will not fly ... he is short-range
        1. Lex.
          Lex. 4 October 2018 18: 39
          0
          So, if in fact the performance characteristics of Iskander are underestimated?
          That will fly, so in Kamchatka you can put the pioneers to deliver 5000 km fly across America like a gun at the temple
  2. Moore
    Moore 3 October 2018 06: 03
    +10
    If only because they were not particularly beneficial to the United States, and the fact that Washington went to sign them, in a sense, is really evidence of either American stupidity, or, conversely, some kind of absolutely Jesuit foresight.

    It is so disadvantageous that we can safely assume that the Americans signed it only in order to lull Gorbachev’s vigilance and not prevent him from breaking apart the Warsaw Pact.

    It was a classic gambit: sacrificing little to win. In this case, they donated not even allies, but poorly flying raw products - a fact from the history of disposal of Pershing under the contract speaks of their disgusting reliability. According to the agreement, the Americans tried to dispose of some of the missiles by launches, faced big problems, spat and simply sawed up.
    Our Pioneers used the launch method to dispose of the 4th and 23rd - only one missile fell somewhere in the Far East.
    It was impossible to build a system of early, proactive destruction of launching ballistic missiles along the entire perimeter of threats to the USSR, even in theory. But the Americans seriously hoped to block the booster sections of the Russian ICBMs, which were the main part of our nuclear shield, and to lock up our nuclear submarine fleet in the Barents Sea, which made their task quite feasible

    Impossible and contrary to the ABM Treaty. Ours have defended and are still defending Moscow Ave. and Moscow, the Americans then chose the Grand Forks missile base.
    As for the overlapping of the booster sections by strikes from military space laser (nuclear-pumped) stations - Mechnyi and his henchmen played poorly in poker and took the bluff as a royal grand piano for a rival. Moreover, the talkative Gorbi, at the first opportunity, blurted out the proposals of Soviet scientists on an asymmetric response to American fiction.
    Something like this ...
    1. Sergey Goncharov
      Sergey Goncharov 3 October 2018 06: 17
      +2
      As for the overlapping of booster sections by strikes from military space laser (nuclear-pumped) stations - Mechnyi and his henchmen played poorly in poker and took the bluff as a royal grand piano for a flash

      Major General Vladimir Semenovich Belous, who published the major work "Missile Defense and Weapons of the XXI Century" in 2002, - with you resolutely not I agree!! bully
      1. Moore
        Moore 3 October 2018 08: 58
        +4
        Quote: Sergey Goncharov
        Major General Vladimir Semenovich Belous, who published the major work "Missile Defense and Weapons of the XXI Century" in 2002, - with you resolutely not I agree!! bully

        Well, do I, a miserable scribe of other people's speeches, a student of students, argue with the luminous luminaries ... smile
        However, the general writes:
        Indeed, as a result of many years of work and significant financial costs The United States could not begin to deploy a missile defense system in the country. In technical terms, they turned out to be unprepared to solve this extremely difficult task, as evidenced by the events of recent years.
        However, it should be recognized that the research and development carried out in those years led to serious success in the field of dual-use technologies, laid a solid foundation for the creation of fundamentally new types of anti-ballistic weapons, which in the future, as they improve, they can become the basis of a promising missile defense system, with increased effectiveness in the fight against attacking missiles. What today looks like a sci-fi idea in the future may take on a very real embodiment. Therefore, considering the recent past, we thereby largely turn to the future of the US national missile defense system.

        In other words, at the time of the "game" Reagan only had a bootor in the form of cartoons and possibly promising research, while Gorby had "2 + 3" in the form of a cheap, quick asymmetric answer. But Marked flashed the cards and shamefully passed.
        And whether they played with a cheater in four hands - then we do not know ...
        1. Mordvin 3
          Mordvin 3 3 October 2018 09: 52
          +5
          Quote: Moore
          But Tagged lit up the cards and shamefully pasanul.

          Gorby handed over all the cards. He wanted to become a man of peace, to swim in Haiti with Raiska, together with Margot Thatcher on the same beach.
        2. Henderson
          Henderson 3 October 2018 18: 42
          -4
          Quote: Moore
          , and Gorby has "2 + 3" in the form of a cheap, quick asymmetric answer.

          Gorby at that time had a collapsed economy and coup grub if that
          1. dvina71
            dvina71 4 October 2018 23: 03
            +2
            Quote: Henderson
            Gorby at that time had a collapsed economy and coup grub if that

            That collapsed economy has not yet been completely drunk in one neighboring country. Products were coupons, and warehouses were littered with products. USSR fell the easiest way .. through the stomach of the population ..
        3. Sergey Goncharov
          Sergey Goncharov 3 October 2018 23: 58
          +1
          at the time of the "game" Reagan only had a bootor in the form of cartoons and possibly promising research

          Hm ... As follows from the work of the same comrade. Whitebeard - "Mr. Ron" had not only "cartoons". And also successful tests of nuclear pumping technology for an X-ray laser, for example. And also "something different" ...
          In fact - if the strategic arms race continued at the same pace - the SDI by now would be at the stage of at least full-scale practical implementation.
      2. Bogatyrev
        Bogatyrev 3 October 2018 11: 33
        +2
        And they shouldn't have played poker at all. Basically. Especially not knowing how.
  3. Sergey Goncharov
    Sergey Goncharov 3 October 2018 06: 12
    +7
    However, for 1987, the signing of the ABM Treaty was still a huge success.

    Well, yes ... Only ... This is not counting the "minor" circumstance that the Treaty on the Limitation of ABM Systems was signed by the USSR and the USA in 1972-m. tongue hi
    1. Bigbraza
      3 October 2018 07: 03
      +2
      Quote: Sergey Goncharov
      However, for 1987, the signing of the ABM Treaty was still a huge success.

      Well, yes ... Only ... This is not counting the "minor" circumstance that the Treaty on the Limitation of ABM Systems was signed by the USSR and the USA in 1972-m. tongue hi

      I apologize, this is the date I signed the contract for the liquidation of the INF Treaty. I repent: (
      1. The comment was deleted.
  4. rocket757
    rocket757 3 October 2018 06: 28
    -3
    One diplomat ..... joked, but the wave has already gone!
    That is what world politics asks for.
    1. Semurg
      Semurg 3 October 2018 07: 30
      +1
      Quote: rocket757
      One diplomat ..... joked, but the wave has already gone!
      That is what world politics asks for.

      If the US can drag Russia into an arms race, I think by the end of this race there will be one superpower China.
      1. rocket757
        rocket757 3 October 2018 08: 05
        -2
        Yeah, the text I got turned out wassatfrom the morning, okay, at least in terms of meaning.
        Quote: Semurg
        If the US can drag Russia into an arms race


        At the expense of the arms race - a feeling that some people don’t have an end in itself will arm itself from and to and best of all !!! There really is a profit, everyone is straining enrichment!
        We, after all, do not have everything smoothly, although "poverty", limited financial resources, imposes the need for better efficiency in use and finances, too ... as far as it turns out, those who should have followed!
        So sho such an unconditional confrontation in acquiring a technical, tactical advantage, this is unlikely! Enrich, sawing, stealing .... and all business!
        Although in this embodiment, the WORLD does not become safer!
  5. Vikxnumx
    Vikxnumx 3 October 2018 09: 17
    0
    From where should the missile launch start and what parameters should it have in order to catch up on the launch site of the ICBM, starting from Transbaikalia to the USA towards the North Pole ???
    1. Mestny
      Mestny 3 October 2018 09: 41
      -6
      From nowhere.
      In fact of the matter.
      So what do you need? Correctly. To make it so that it would not be Transbaikalia, but the Trans-Baikal People's Republic, for example.
      And for this it is necessary to curtail the power in Moscow. For which, in turn, the "people" should go out to the square and start galloping.
      Hot Internet support for the movement for Truth is already working to its full potential - just read at least a discussion of any article, even in VO.
    2. Boa kaa
      Boa kaa 3 October 2018 12: 07
      +1
      Quote: VIK1711
      From where should the missile launch start and what parameters should it have in order to catch up on the launch site of the ICBM, starting from Transbaikalia to the USA towards the North Pole ???

      Look on the map: Dombarovskaya and Teykovskaya divisions do not shoot through the joint venture when they strike Washington (and the surrounding area) ... This is nonsense!
      But the fact that the ATU is the most dangerous section of ICBM withdrawal (there is no possibility of maneuver) has long been said by serious people:
      “The period of preparation for the use of US missile defense provides a sufficient balance of time for shelling Russian ICBMs in the ascending active section of their flight path. The numbers are as follows. When using external target designation from the spacecraft (the 24 satellite of the space missile defense system hangs in orbit), the launch of anti-missiles is possible already at the 85 second after the launch of the ICBM. 20 seconds is a start detection. 20 seconds - time to bring the combat command teams. 45 seconds - prelaunch time for missile defense taking into account the coordinates of the meeting. Thus, at the 150 second, the possibility of defeating the ICBMs is already real according to the time balance, ”said Sergei Yagolnikov, head of the Central Research Institute of the Aerospace Defense Forces of the Russian Federation during the VI Moscow International Security Conference MCIS-26, 2017 on April 2017.
      The first deputy head of the State Armed Forces General Staff of the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation, Lieutenant-General Viktor Poznihir, said that according to the results of computer simulation by scientists of the Russian Defense Ministry, the introduction of a missile defense system in the northeastern United States will allow to intercept all Russian and Chinese ballistic missiles aimed at the States.
      Moreover, it was established that the American missile defense is aimed specifically at Russia and China.

      One thing calms you down: maneuvering BBs for this system are too tough for now.
      And the second one. When carrying out support actions (a strike on the missile defense bases in Europe and the mobile naval missile defense areas in the Atlantic), it will be possible to fulfill the strategic missile defense strategic missile mission set with high probability.
  6. Aleks2048
    Aleks2048 3 October 2018 10: 04
    -2
    I read the title of the article
    Like in the old days. Pershing 2 will be aimed at Moscow?


    At the end of the article
    The threats and challenges that we face in this case are very serious. But about it, probably, somehow next time.


    After that, I would like to take a marker on the monitor to write another name for the article or change the contents of the article.

    Well, okay, as a matter of fact, when the US withdraws from the RSMD of the Russian Federation, it is necessary to be prepared for the possibility of a nuclear strike against Moscow headquarters, communication centers, command and control centers of military groups, and so on ... Moreover, to date, this strike does not really reflect the possibility.

    Of the answer options are viewed:
    The transfer of the capital in the Trans-Urals or closer to the North ... However, this will stretch the communication ...
    Creation in metal of a group of underwater vehicles of the "Status-6" type, which is numerous, at least two, or even three times as large as the number of US and European naval bases, or something working on the same principles ... Although this is an option, to be honest expensive and ineffective, because while such an autonomous and super-high-speed device that has no analogues in the world, it will take quite a long time from the launch site to reach the target, and in fact it will arrive after all the other means of nuclear attack of the Russian Federation have already worked, that is, the missiles will reach the planes too are already being fired and missiles from them have already reached (or not?) their targets, missiles from submarines by this time will also fall somewhere. So it turns out that such a weapon as "Status-6" not only does not guarantee victory, but also is not a means of helping other means of delivering a nuclear charge to the territory of the United States (namely the United States, and not some conditional adversary there, since under a conditional adversary for the Russian Federation for today and for the foreseeable years, 100-200 will be the United States).
    As an answer option, albeit quite expensive, there may be a bolt bag for not placing weapons in space. The deployment of an orbital constellation of nuclear missiles guarantees, if not superiority, then at least parity and balance in terms of the exchange of unexpected nuclear strikes between the Russian Federation and the United States. By the way, the price tag for this option may be comparable with the first two options.
  7. Forestol
    Forestol 3 October 2018 10: 55
    -4
    Calm down everyone. “Pershing2” was needed when we had ultra-deep CCP. To do this, these missiles were provided with a first deepening up to 30 meters, and then undermining. Today, out of savings and personal wool, all the super-worth objects worth billions of dollars are closed. Simple enough CDs. Even the addresses of our objects have long been shown on TV.
  8. shinobi
    shinobi 3 October 2018 11: 21
    0
    They will not go to the exit from the RMSD, no matter how they chatter and no matter how frightened. A trivial fact that is not publicized by our defense industry, the same missiles to the Iskander can "suddenly" increase the radius from 500 to 1500 km and drag a warhead of 250 kt. About calibers not wrote only lazy. The United States is no longer in the position, no matter how puffed up and puffed out their cheeks, so as to place something somewhere with impunity. Moreover, they were explicitly warned that in any case, the answer would be on their territory.
  9. Vadim237
    Vadim237 3 October 2018 12: 10
    -2
    From the new Pershing, Russia will have on its western borders the C 400 and C 500 divisions.
    1. Zaurbek
      Zaurbek 3 October 2018 12: 50
      0
      They are unlikely to help ...
      1. Vadim237
        Vadim237 3 October 2018 18: 03
        0
        Against medium-range ballistic missiles - they will even help, especially the warhead of such missiles is one.
        1. Zubr
          Zubr 3 October 2018 20: 22
          +1
          Our RSD-10 "Pioneer" complex had three warheads, 150 K-tons each ...
      2. Sergey Goncharov
        Sergey Goncharov 4 October 2018 00: 09
        0
        According to the published specifications - should help. soldier Although of course - "there are nuances": what reaction time and by no means not 100% chance of interception even with sufficient reaction time.
  10. Zaurbek
    Zaurbek 3 October 2018 12: 49
    +1
    Now the situation is a little different and there are a different number of long-range ballistic missiles and there are nuclear submarines and a decapitating strike will not solve anything. Missiles will take off anyway. For the Russian Federation, this is more necessary than for NATO, we have less tactical aviation and navy (as a carrier of the Kyrgyz Republic) and more important even in non-nuclear versions. And more important is the medium-range missile defense than the missile system, which the warning system will confuse with the nuclear missile system.
  11. iouris
    iouris 3 October 2018 12: 53
    -2
    Don't wait. It is necessary either to force the "partners" to peace, or to surrender.
    1. Sergey Goncharov
      Sergey Goncharov 4 October 2018 00: 04
      +1
      The fact that in the case of an attempt to "force" partners "to peace" - from you also there will be only finely divided radioactive rattles - doesn’t it seem to bother you ?? fool
  12. TOR2
    TOR2 3 October 2018 20: 21
    +1
    Both of our diplomatic victories are classified as international arms limitation treaties. This is the Soviet-American Treaty on the Limitation of Missile Defense Systems and the Treaty on the Elimination of Intermediate-Range and Shorter-Range Missiles. Why can they be called the success of our diplomacy?
    The author clearly overestimated the "tagged cattle" and the company of "windbags" from his entourage. Back in the late 90s in one of the print media there was a good article about the INF Treaty. To begin with, NATO allies were extremely unhappy with these missiles. There have been few protests in Western Europe, which, moreover, were accompanied by a drop in ratings for the parties needed for mattress toppers. Do not belittle this factor.
    Now to the technical side of the matter. Those who had only a party school behind them were shaking with fear, those who had a more serious education were looking for ways of counteraction. It even came to the test. As soon as the target began to decelerate to exit the plasma cloud, the irradiators were turned on on the ground. The environment around the target was ionized to such an extent that it stopped transmitting any radio signals. It is clear that in this situation one can simply forget about the phenomenal accuracy of the Pershing. In addition, there was a fairly high probability of damage to the warhead equipment. The Pentagon was well aware of this, as well as how many such missiles that had lost their accuracy would be required for a large territory with scattered infrastructure. The medium-range missile project was considered temporarily unpromising and decided to cover it up. So there is no goodwill here, the usual pragmatic calculation.
  13. Sergey Goncharov
    Sergey Goncharov 3 October 2018 23: 53
    +2
    Those who criticize the INF Treaty ignore subsequent political history.
    If this contract not It was concluded and forcefully implemented - Ukraine would inherit from the USSR a powerful group of mobile infantry and infantry reconnaissance detachments with a full base infrastructure. From which certainly not would refuse. Yes, we would love that. good But guys - are you sure you would like it ??
    1. Zaurbek
      Zaurbek 4 October 2018 07: 24
      +3
      Believe me, by modern times, all these missiles would already be in the possession of the Arabs / Iranians / in Africa .... and it would not be bad for us.
      1. Sergey Goncharov
        Sergey Goncharov 5 October 2018 02: 21
        0
        smile smile Well, let's put not all. But in this case, Pakistan, Iran and some Arab countries would really get the "nuclear missile" nishtyaks. wink
  14. Sergey Goncharov
    Sergey Goncharov 4 October 2018 00: 02
    +2
    In general - just look at the political geographic map to understand - Now the INF Treaty is definitely more beneficial to Russia than the United States.
    1. Zaurbek
      Zaurbek 4 October 2018 07: 27
      0
      We have fewer aircraft at times and fewer missiles and their carriers .... NATO countries do not really need RSDs; their tasks are successfully carried out by ship-based missiles.
    2. Waddimm
      Waddimm 4 October 2018 16: 21
      0
      No contracts with those who are not going to fulfill them can be beneficial. There is no sense to disarm in our time. The weak are immediately trampled into the mud.
      Look at the political map again.
  15. tezey
    tezey 6 October 2018 01: 16
    0
    There are many inaccuracies in the article. "However, for 1987 the signing of the ABM Treaty was still a tremendous success." In fact, in May 1972, the Treaty on the Limitation of Anti-Ballistic Missile Systems was signed, and the treaty between the USSR and the United States on the elimination of their missiles medium-range and shorter-range (INF) signed on December 8, 1987. The author needed to know such basic things when writing an article. In my opinion, the author's conclusions are superficial and do not reflect the realities regarding the creation of missile defense systems in the United States in the 60-70s and the course of negotiations between the USSR and the USA on the problem of limiting missile defense systems. The author writes: "The ABM Treaty, as it is usually called in everyday political and expert practice, was disadvantageous to the United States for the reason that the USSR (and later Russia), in principle, did not have the necessary foothold to deploy missile defense systems near American territory." Why does the author make such a conclusion. It is not supported by any documents related to the negotiations, nor by the practice of that time. It is worth recalling that it was the American side that insistently during the negotiations put forward a demand to limit the ABM systems and, ultimately, the Americans persuaded the Soviet delegation to conclude an agreement. Secondly, it is completely incomprehensible why the USSR needed a bridgehead to deploy missile defense near American territory. The anti-missile missiles, both Soviet and American, created at that time, in principle, did not have the ability to intercept ICBMs in the acceleration sector. As for the treaty on the elimination of medium and short-range missiles, its value for the USSR and today's Russia is highly questionable. Yes, in Western Europe today there are no American medium-range ballistic missiles, and what does it change for Russia if the British Tridents start from the waters of the North Sea? What is the flight time of these missiles to Moscow? The same 8 minutes as Pershing-2. So that horseradish radish is not sweeter. Can the Americans withdraw from the INF Treaty? Of course they can. But there will be no radical change in the balance of power. The Russian Federation has the ability to destroy the United States, and if there is someone overseas who seriously thinks of exposing their European allies to a nuclear strike, and sit it out themselves, then at least this is naive and stupid. For us, what difference does it make where the rocket from Europe or America was launched that will kill us. The answer will be both. However, let's hope that such a scenario will never come true.
  16. Antipatr
    Antipatr 6 January 2019 17: 41
    0
    Why no one talks about a clear violation of the agreement on the liquidation of the INF Treaty, and repeated warnings about it. How much can you warn?