The Pentagon has recognized the impossibility of creating a missile defense system that can protect against Russia

The Pentagon has recognized the impossibility of creating a missile defense system that can protect against Russia

Creating a missile defense system (ABM) capable of fully protecting the United States from Russia is impossible. This statement was made by the head of the Strategic Command (STRATK) of the US Armed Forces, Admiral Charles Richard.


At a hearing in one of the subcommittees of the Armed Forces Committee of the US House of Representatives, the admiral said that creating a missile defense system that would fully protect America from Russia was technically impossible and poses a threat to strategic stability.

Answering the question whether the American missile defense can protect against Russian ballistic missiles, Richard explained that the US missile defense system can protect only from imperfect third-world missiles, but not from Russia or China.

Our current missile defense systems are designed to protect us from rogue countries, and are deliberately designed so as not to interfere with the strategic (means) of deterring the Russian Federation and China

- he said.

To one of the congressmen’s statement that the reason for the inability of the American missile defense system to intercept Russian ICBMs was the banal lack of missile defense, Richard replied that the creation of such an missile defense system was technically impossible and, moreover, could require enormous expenses.

This is not only technically unrealizable and costly, but also raises serious questions in terms of strategic stability.

- declared admiral.
Ctrl Enter

Noticed a mistake Highlight text and press. Ctrl + Enter

25 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. lucul 28 February 2020 09: 32 New
    • 11
    • 4
    +7
    The Pentagon has recognized the impossibility of creating a missile defense system that can protect against Russia

    Not even a week had passed before Hawkeye noticed that there wasn’t one wall in the cell where the Indian cowboys were put .....
    1. Nikolay3 28 February 2020 10: 18 New
      • 6
      • 0
      +6
      It's not only not technically feasible and costly but also causes serious issues in terms of strategic stability

      There are still adequate people in the Pentagon. Even with a probability of P = 0,9999 damage to ballistic and other types of missiles, at least 3 anti-missiles with a probability of destruction of each P = 0,95 for each target are needed, and this will not save in the global chaos of nuclear war ...
      And in the global chaos of nuclear war: it will increase many times: the number of targets in the air at the same time, the number of affected missile defense and air defense systems, the number and type of interference from electronic warfare systems and the number of airborne nuclear explosions - sources of electromagnetic pulses and so on. I would like to note - this will use such types of weapons, about which a simple layman doesn't even know.
      Therefore, God forbid this happen!
    2. Orel 28 February 2020 10: 21 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      To be precise, they have never officially set such a goal since the time of the SDI, so such an interpretation is victorious that we defended ourselves from someone there, anyway, screaming about the enemy’s flight when his army just passed by to another place)))
      1. The comment was deleted.
        1. Orel 28 February 2020 10: 38 New
          • 1
          • 1
          0
          Quote: Nikolay3
          An example of this is SOI USA!


          So SDI was not for the same reason, expensive and inefficient)))
          1. Nikolay3 28 February 2020 10: 49 New
            • 3
            • 0
            +3
            Quote: Orel
            To be precise, they have never officially set such a goal since the days of SDI ... So, SDI wasn’t for the same reason, it’s expensive and inefficient)))

            But they did the work, according to the SDI and spent their money. Contradiction, "the end justifies the means." I just deleted my comment, since from the time of SDI - the concept is extensible, but no, it will be correct after the closing of the SDI program, according to your comment.
            1. Orel 28 February 2020 10: 54 New
              • 1
              • 1
              0
              Quote: Nikolay3
              But they did the work, according to the SDI and spent their money.


              Well, there weren’t astronomical figures, in general I am inclined to think that it was originally a bluff to force us to arm ourselves even more and to deplete our economy
              1. Nikolay3 28 February 2020 11: 27 New
                • 3
                • 0
                +3
                ... that it was originally a bluff to force us to arm ourselves even more and deplete our economy

                You can think differently about SDI. However, as part of that program, they made kinetic interceptors for working in outer space, made an electromagnetic gun (railgun), worked on nuclear-pumped X-ray lasers and chemical lasers. It was not a bluff, they had concrete results ... However, technically and economically, they overstrained. They could not make trains running from ICBMs. It was an American idea with SDI.
                1. Orel 28 February 2020 11: 47 New
                  • 1
                  • 1
                  0
                  I won’t argue, I’m just a subjective opinion, so that he believed in a bluff he should be like the truth, and as a result they didn’t spend astronomical money on reproducing all of the above, and I had to increase the warheads from 2000 to 16 (I can make mistakes in accuracy), and the fact that nuclear weapons are very expensive to contain is not for me to tell you
  2. Victor_B 28 February 2020 09: 32 New
    • 3
    • 2
    +1
    PRO - it's abruptly phallus Goethe!
    And oooooochen much more expensive than the F-35 with an aircraft carrier!
    So what would mug the wallet is not cracked, if stir up!
    Well, a sufficient amount of brains to flow to yourself where you type?
  3. aszzz888 28 February 2020 09: 32 New
    • 3
    • 1
    +2
    The Pentagon has recognized the impossibility of creating a missile defense system that can protect against Russia
    And why then jerk, world gendarmes)) ?! bully
  4. Talgarets 28 February 2020 09: 37 New
    • 2
    • 1
    +1
    How much money is invested in the ABM system and all in vain ...
    1. Wodan 28 February 2020 09: 52 New
      • 2
      • 1
      +1
      And to continue the admiral’s thought a step further? ABM - a system of the 2nd purpose, not only for defense. But if it is not suitable for defense, then they built it for? That is not in vain.
  5. maidan.izrailovich 28 February 2020 09: 38 New
    • 2
    • 3
    -1
    Well recognized. And what? Who benefits or harms this? crying
    1. Well done 28 February 2020 09: 57 New
      • 0
      • 1
      -1
      This is a subtle hint from the series - "Give more money!"
    2. g1washntwn 28 February 2020 10: 02 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      Nothing has changed. As Taldychili "it's all against Iranian missiles", so blah blah blah. And the money and plans for position areas, missiles and developments went as wide as the Potomac, and flow from global ABMs are not going to refuse. If they had global problems with rogue countries (and they all had the opportunity to carry the US military threat), the Americans would have sung “Nobody loves me, nobody caresses ...”, but no, they sing “Light” and joy we bring to people. "
  6. Loess 28 February 2020 09: 39 New
    • 4
    • 1
    +3
    At a hearing in one of the subcommittees of the Armed Forces Committee of the US House of Representatives, the admiral said that creating a missile defense system that would fully protect America from Russia was technically impossible and poses a threat to strategic stability.
    A very interesting statement for American citizens against the backdrop of the threat of a military clash between one of the NATO countries and Russia ... Or are the states thus canceling their newly declared support for Turkey? ..
  7. rocket757 28 February 2020 09: 58 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    To one of the congressmen’s statement that the reason for the inability of the American missile defense system to intercept Russian ICBMs was the banal lack of missile defense, Richard replied that the creation of such an missile defense system was technically impossible and, moreover, could require enormous expenses.

    Interesting question .... although, most likely everything is natural. The topic has long been thoroughly covered, revealed, understood by all who are in their right mind! Then what is the state of those who are sitting in Congress and where are many more, declaring all sorts of ... stupid things?
    However, this is their business.
  8. g1washntwn 28 February 2020 10: 04 New
    • 2
    • 0
    +2
    Quote: Talgarets
    How much money is invested in the ABM system and all in vain ...

    Not "..and all in vain", but "... and all Ise" lol
  9. unhappy 28 February 2020 10: 27 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    Problems of democracy - people judging the world by Hollywood blockbusters are going to Congress or the Duma.
    We miss missile defense - well, not a foolish person? Protection against a large-scale missile strike is after the creation of force field generators and other disintegrators.
    1. unhappy 28 February 2020 10: 33 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      And can I write - an unwise person in the interpretation of Sergei Lavrov?
  10. askort154 28 February 2020 11: 15 New
    • 0
    • 1
    -1
    Our current missile defense systems are designed to protect us from rogue countries, and are deliberately designed so as not to interfere with the strategic (means) of deterring the Russian Federation and China (Admiral Richard)

    The military is always more sober than politicians. Because, they professionally evaluate the possibilities and consequences of wars.
    1. lvov_aleksey 29 February 2020 20: 29 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      naively, politicians understand, but the military question is the oath? !!!
  11. Dizel200 28 February 2020 12: 29 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    begs for trite bucks)))) first nightmare, then make an unhappy look and say that there is no money, but you hold on))))
  12. Old26 28 February 2020 12: 44 New
    • 2
    • 2
    0
    Quote: Nikolay3
    ... that it was originally a bluff to force us to arm ourselves even more and deplete our economy

    You can think differently about SDI. However, as part of that program, they made kinetic interceptors for working in outer space, made an electromagnetic gun (railgun), worked on nuclear-pumped X-ray lasers and chemical lasers. It was not a bluff, they had concrete results ... However, technically and economically, they overstrained. They could not make trains running from ICBMs. It was an American idea with SDI.

    You are right, Nikolai. They received SDI developments, although not to the extent that they planned.
    As for the missile trains, they constructed them, but they did not deploy them. It turned out to be very expensive. Moreover, the roads in the USA are private, with their own established schedule. rocket trains would disrupt this schedule. And for them to act “without a hitch”, the creation of a parallel railway would be required. What was expensive

    Quote: Orel
    I won’t argue, I’m just a subjective opinion, so that he believed in a bluff he should be like the truth, and as a result they didn’t spend astronomical money on reproducing all of the above, and I had to increase the warheads from 2000 to 16 (I can make mistakes in accuracy), and the fact that nuclear weapons are very expensive to contain is not for me to tell you


    We did not have to build up the BG. For 1983, each of the parties had:
    USA - 13 113 strategic warheads and 10 041 non-strategic warheads.
    In 1983, the United States had 23 strategic and non-strategic BGs.
    The USSR for 1983 had 9 strategic and 704 non-strategic BGs. In total - 26 100. We have increased the number of strategic BGs, but by about 35 units ...

    Quote: Talgarets
    How much money is invested in the ABM system and all in vain ...

    Nothing is being done. Any missile defense system in any country can prevent only a limited strike. And such a strike can be delivered only by nuclear countries that are not members of the "nuclear club." In relation to Russia or China, the United States has no doubt

    Quote: rocket757
    To one of the congressmen’s statement that the reason for the inability of the American missile defense system to intercept Russian ICBMs was the banal lack of missile defense, Richard replied that the creation of such an missile defense system was technically impossible and, moreover, could require enormous expenses.

    Interesting question .... although, most likely everything is natural. The topic has long been thoroughly covered, revealed, understood by all who are in their right mind! Then what is the state of those who are sitting in Congress and where are many more, declaring all sorts of ... stupid things?
    However, this is their business.

    Of course, everything is natural, Victor! And the admiral, in fact, announced what half a century has been known to those who deal with this problem. The American Congress of 1970-1972 also knew this. Well, the current ones .... Current politicians in all countries put their personal PR at the forefront, rather than knowing the topic that they have to deal with. Ignorance of the topic has become a fashion trend for many politicians.
    Congressmen of the sample of the 70s perfectly understood what and how, otherwise the 1972 ABM Treaty would not have been signed.
    But years pass, both the political and the military-technical situation are changing, and the politicians in power continue to show for the most part their incompetence

    Quote: askort154
    Our current missile defense systems are designed to protect us from rogue countries, and are deliberately designed so as not to interfere with the strategic (means) of deterring the Russian Federation and China (Admiral Richard)

    The military is always more sober than politicians. Because, they professionally evaluate the possibilities and consequences of wars.

    That's right, Alexander! Sober up. They are well aware that they will be able to intercept 5-7 North Korean warheads without much stress. But alas, they cannot intercept 80 Chinese. Not to mention Russian. And in reality, such a missile defense system will protect exclusively from missiles of rogue states (which they basically say the last 20 years, after withdrawing from the treaty)
    1. lvov_aleksey 29 February 2020 20: 21 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      If so, why are there no missiles to visit us from abroad?
  13. The comment was deleted.
  14. The comment was deleted.