Military Review

Shifts of "Satan" and "Minuteman" take up a combat post

31
Shifts of "Satan" and "Minuteman" take up a combat postTheme strategic weapons in non-nuclear equipment and the influence of this factor on the process of reducing nuclear weapons covers many aspects. It seems that for Russia this topic is no less important than the PRO issues that are often discussed in the media. However, despite its extreme relevance, it is still little studied and, unlike what happens in the United States, is rarely discussed in the Russian expert community.

What is the relevance of this topic? You can specify several related reasons.

FIRST CAUSE

The development of non-nuclear high-precision weapons has reached such a level that the question of a gradual replacement of the function of nuclear deterrence by non-nuclear is seriously being discussed.

It would seem that non-nuclear precision weapons play a positive role, helping to reduce the role of nuclear weapons, and, consequently, their reductions. However, the opposite trend is seen. The overwhelming advantage in conventional weapons of some states is prompted by the desire of other states to possess nuclear weapons in order to preserve their sovereignty and pursue an independent policy, and thus undermine the foundations of the nuclear non-proliferation regime.

Reducing the role of nuclear weapons in strategic deterrence by increasing the emphasis on non-nuclear high-precision weapons can also lead to undermining strategic stability, and not to strengthening it. In this regard, it is often argued that the use of such means as ICBMs or SLBMs in non-nuclear equipment can provoke a nuclear response in response, since these missiles cannot be distinguished from nuclear ones.

Sometimes, precision weapons are not considered as a substitute for nuclear weapons, but on the contrary, as an element that increases the credibility of nuclear deterrence. For example, there is an opinion that “a convincing threat of using high-precision long-range carrier with a warhead in conventional equipment could become the basis of a“ pre-nuclear deterrence ”system that complements the nuclear deterrence system” (A. Kokoshin, “Nuclear conflicts in the 21st century (types, forms, possible participants "), M .:" Media Press ", 2003). In the September issue of the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists for 2012, an article was published on the nuclear doctrine of the People's Republic of China. The authors believe that Chinese ballistic missiles in non-nuclear equipment are deployed precisely to perform this function.

SECOND AND THIRD REASONS

The qualitative leap in the development of high-precision non-nuclear weapons is beginning to raise concerns about the survival rate of declining strategic nuclear forces. In open publications, scenarios of a preventive disarming strike on the Russian strategic nuclear forces are considered, in particular with the use of non-nuclear sea-based cruise missiles. Since non-nuclear precision weapons are beginning to acquire counterforce capabilities, it seems reasonable to raise the question of the need to take this factor into account with further reductions in strategic offensive arms.

Some types of non-nuclear weapons had previously been the subject of agreements between Russia and the United States to reduce strategic offensive arms, and they were subject to restrictions and transparency measures. Currently, there is a tendency to withdraw such weapons from restrictions.

The most striking example is the B-1B heavy bomber. This type of weapon is no longer subject to the START Treaty. Restrictions on B-1B basing areas outside national territory also ceased to operate, and the United States are no longer obliged to notify on movements of this type of bombers.

At the same time, it is known that heavy B-1B bombers currently carry the main load aviation in Afghanistan. They delivered more than 60% of the bombs and missiles used there on ground targets. There are plans to increase the role of TB-1B in the Pacific region and to this end, deploy some of them at the US air base Guam. It is also known that from next year the full-time operation of the V-1B, armed with the JASSM-ER type ALCM with a range of more than 500 miles, will begin. In terms of the START Treaty, these types of cruise missiles refer to long-range ALCMs.

In order to substantively discuss the influence of non-nuclear strategic weapons on the role and place of nuclear weapons, it is first important to answer the question of what we mean by “non-nuclear strategic weapons”.

This term has become increasingly used, but so far there is no unity of views as to what types of weapons should be considered as such. Experts agree only that non-nuclear ICBMs and SLBMs are strategic weapons. According to the position of the US administration, the weapons systems developed under the “Fast Global Strike” program will not be covered by the new START Treaty, and therefore cannot be considered strategic. The Russian side, as is known, has the opposite point of view.

With regard to those existing systems that are no longer the subject of a new START Treaty, there is no unity even in the Russian expert community. There are also different opinions regarding long-range air and sea-based cruise missiles.

THERE ARE AND OTHER QUESTIONS

As is known, during negotiations on the “old” Treaty on START, the Soviet side tried to limit the secretive anti-submarine activity and proposed measures on how to do this. The same theme was heard at the stage of negotiations on START-3 at the end of 1990. Does it continue to be relevant in the light of the fact that Russian submarine missile carriers, as before, perform tasks to ensure nuclear deterrence and, apparently, American multi-purpose submarines, like during the Cold War, are trying to monitor them? Moreover, judging by the plans for the construction of the Armed Forces, the Russian naval SNF is waiting for a radical update, since the defense sector has been tasked with building eight new strategic submarines armed with the latest Bulava missile system by 2020.

If the topic of restricting anti-submarine activities is still relevant, should multi-purpose nuclear submarines be considered carriers of strategic weapons in the usual equipment? Should their anti-submarine weapons (non-nuclear torpedoes or torpedoes) be classified as strategic? In addition, as is well known, the DARPA agency of the US Department of Defense is developing remotely operated submarines, which are designed to detect potential enemy submarines and covertly monitor them for a long period. Is it also a strategic non-nuclear weapon?

As is known, Russia adheres to the position that the problem of reducing non-strategic nuclear weapons can be discussed only after the US nuclear bombs have been withdrawn from Europe. It has been repeatedly emphasized that Russia views these weapons as strategic, since the approach time of the tactical aviation of the NATO countries armed with these bombs to the Russian areas of deployment of strategic ICBMs is a few minutes. Should it be understood in such a way that if powerful non-nuclear bombs and air-to-air missiles possess counter-force capabilities against mining and mobile ICBMs, then being deployed at NATO tactical aviation bases in close proximity to the borders of Russia, they will also be considered as strategic weapons in non-nuclear equipment?

PROBLEM PRO

As is known, anti-missiles for the missile defense system of the territory of the United States and its allies will be equipped with non-nuclear kinetic warheads. Do these missile defenses also belong to strategic non-nuclear weapons? Or should it be necessary to separate strategic offensive and defensive weapons in non-nuclear equipment and consider the problems associated with them separately?

In the opinion of the author, it is hardly necessary to mix these two categories. Nevertheless, it appears that the Russian position on missile defense would become more consistent and convincing if it were voiced in conjunction with the problem of strategic weapons in non-nuclear equipment. For example, Russia declares the need for guarantees that the ABM will not be directed against the Russian SNF. And how can a missile defense system, being defensive, be directed somewhere? What is the scenario of its use against the Russian strategic nuclear forces? The one in which the first blow is delivered by the Russian strategic nuclear forces? It is more likely to assume that this is a hypothetical scenario, when the United States and NATO are delivering a disarming strike with non-nuclear means, and their missile defense system is assigned to intercept Russian strategic missiles that have survived the first strike. Then why not emphasize this idea explicitly? In any case, there would be a strong argument against the statement that seems today obvious to Western audiences: Russian fears are exaggerated, because the limited number of antimissiles in Europe is clearly not enough to neutralize the many times greater number of Russian strategic nuclear forces.

The list of types of weapons that can be considered as strategic non-nuclear weapons is not limited to this. Opinions are expressed that they should also include support systems, including space reconnaissance and target designation systems, anti-satellite weapons, attack unmanned aerial vehicles, and even cyber-weapons.

Obviously, if the Russian side wants to make progress in the further reduction of nuclear weapons, then this list will have to be limited by defining priorities. At the moment, it seems that the list of priorities includes only ICBMs and SLBMs in non-nuclear equipment, as well as types of weapons that are being developed in the United States as part of the Fast Global Strike program. As is known, the current US administration has completely abandoned plans to deploy conventional warheads on ballistic missiles. Armaments for a “fast global strike” are still at the stage of research development, which can last for more than a decade. For this reason, there are big doubts that they pose the greatest danger to the survival of the Russian strategic nuclear forces in the foreseeable future, unlike SLCMs and long-range ALCMs. The latter are constantly being upgraded and acquire qualitatively new opportunities mainly due to the improvement of ammunition and providing reconnaissance and targeting systems.

It is unlikely that the problem of strategic non-nuclear weapons can be solved by introducing new contractual restrictions. Apparently, the way to solve it is to increase transparency and make unilateral obligations. American non-governmental experts are already actively discussing this issue and are proposing concrete measures to reduce the concern of the Russian side about the increasing potential for non-nuclear strategic offensive weapons. Are Russian experts ready to discuss these measures? So far there is no such sensation, and this circumstance once again confirms the relevance of the topic under discussion.
Author:
Originator:
http://nvo.ng.ru
31 comment
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. Alexander Romanov
    Alexander Romanov 1 October 2012 16: 38
    +4
    I don’t know, I don’t know, but the amers will not go for a drastic reduction, simply because Congress will block any kind of initiative, and the share of nuclear weapons in the world is so high that all this will be on the database for decades. Well, if they invent something new, then it will be possible to reduce it, but now we would all of us avoid a nuclear catastrophe with peacekeeper Obama.
    1. ShturmKGB
      ShturmKGB 1 October 2012 18: 26
      +6
      The problem is that only strategic missiles can reach the United States, while tactical missiles can reach Russia. Reduction of missiles is undesirable for Russia, because besides the well-known nuclear powers, others will appear in the world soon. Russia should, on the contrary, build up medium-range tactical missiles as opposed to China, Turkey and, in the future, Iran.
    2. Trofimov174
      Trofimov174 1 October 2012 20: 17
      0
      The Americans do not need to cut anything; it is enough to postpone the development and testing of new ICBMs for another five to seven years. With the meager arsenal that they possess, it will soon be possible to scare only fleas. And tactical "partners" alone cannot be convinced of their sovereignty. And that's bad. This will not add to stability.
      1. Diesel
        Diesel 1 October 2012 20: 30
        0
        Yes, not to say, 240 traders in the sea on constant duty, as it were, not weak))
  2. andrei332809
    andrei332809 1 October 2012 16: 55
    +10
    no matter what the Yankees say, one cannot believe. they have unilaterally violated so many contracts that you are tormented by listing. therefore, I believe that in the next 50 years the nuclear component should only be developed and strengthened
    1. Rossmk
      Rossmk 1 October 2012 17: 02
      +3
      Totally agree
  3. valton
    valton 1 October 2012 16: 59
    +2
    "With regard to those existing systems that are no longer the subject of the new START Treaty, there is no unity even in the Russian expert community. There are also different opinions regarding long-range air and sea-based cruise missiles."


    And what if we take and check some comrades from this expert community for loyalty? No matter how such "generals of the KaluGins" find themselves here
  4. AK-74-1
    AK-74-1 1 October 2012 17: 04
    +3
    Rave. Nuclear weapons are no substitute for deterrence. Too many directions of the damaging effect are nuclear munitions from electromagnetic, to high explosive and incendiary, and a large area of ​​effective destruction.
    And it is not necessary to stop developing only operational or operational-strategic systems; it is necessary to radically update tactical systems, including purely artillery systems with inertial correctable ammunition and reactive-guided munitions.
    1. Aeneas
      Aeneas 1 October 2012 17: 23
      +2
      Quote: AK-74-1
      And it is not necessary to stop developing only operational or operational-strategic systems; it is necessary to radically update tactical systems, including purely artillery systems with inertial correctable ammunition and reactive-guided munitions.
      If you mean all kinds of artillery ammunition, tactical missiles with nuclear warheads, then expect similar actions from the Americans and their allies (Great Britain, France), which they will succeed in, and the deployment of these weapons on the border with Russia. However, Russian tactical missile systems will not reach the territory of the main enemy (USA, Great Britain, France), and can only inflict damage on NATO bases in Poland, the Baltic states and a little East Germany. But NATO's tactical "non-strategic" complexes may well strike at the most densely populated and industrialized European regions of Russia and Belarus, including Moscow and St. Petersburg. In general, the Pershing-Pioneer situation will repeat itself, and strategically Russia will be more vulnerable.
    2. wax
      wax 1 October 2012 23: 33
      +1
      Moreover, in flight, a warhead with nuclear weapons is indistinguishable from non-nuclear weapons. Therefore, the most destructive weapon has the most restraining factor, and it should be enough (with delivery vehicles, essno) to deliver a crushing blow of retaliation. This is in our time the struggle for peace.
  5. Mr.Fox
    Mr.Fox 1 October 2012 17: 09
    +2
    If someone begins to actively promote a topic, then someone needs it. Most of the talk about "non-nuclear deterrence" is made by the Americans, for obvious reasons. They sleep and see how they will iron Russia and China with impunity, after they destroy the enemy's ICBMs at the start. To do this, you just need to guarantee by any means the overwhelming technological and quantitative superiority. They do not yet have the technological, but the quantitative. Now they are beginning to "accustom" the world's population to the idea of ​​a "non-nuclear shield" through the press, so that when a real possibility of its creation appears, everyone will accept it as a fait accompli and even support it.
    1. patsantre
      patsantre 1 October 2012 21: 33
      -1
      Do they have technological? Of course, I do not say that they surpass us in all directions, and you believe more in carbon monoxide power.
  6. bask
    bask 1 October 2012 17: 39
    +2
    Amer withdrawn from the ABM Treaty. Russia urgently needs to withdraw from all START 1.2,3, and restore the production of medium and short-range missiles.
    1. donchepano
      donchepano 1 October 2012 20: 21
      +1
      AND LONG RANGE
    2. Allegedly
      Allegedly 1 October 2012 21: 40
      0
      It is small, and a lot ...
      I hope no need to justify ...
      1. Allegedly
        Allegedly 1 October 2012 22: 11
        0
        And ... short-range missiles to Cuba and Venezuela ... Mutants understand only stupid power ...
        1. Nick
          Nick 1 October 2012 23: 42
          +1
          Quote: JACOB
          And ... short-range missiles to Cuba and Venezuela

          And how to get their consent? They understand that by hosting our country's nuclear missile potential, in the event of a Conflict between Russia and the US-NATO, they will become targets for American strike weapons.
  7. strannik595
    strannik595 1 October 2012 17: 52
    +1
    but it is better that both they and we use these missiles to launch satellites into orbit, tanks to extinguish fires, aircraft to transport goods .......... if at the beginning of the play a gun hangs on the wall, then at the end it will fire ....... how many guns are already hanging on the wall of the world? when people will change their minds and channel resources from the military to the creative, feed the hungry, dress the naked and build housing for the homeless ....... how little we live in this world and how much evil we bring to this world
    1. donchepano
      donchepano 1 October 2012 20: 25
      +1
      HOW MUCH MRS. ALBRIGHT, MANDALIZA PRICE AND THEIR FRIENDS ON THE COMMITTEE OF 300 TOLD YOU: THE POPULATION OF THE EARTH IS ABOUT 7 BILLION. THE LAND ALSO CAN FEED ONLY 1 BILLION ... TO THE QUESTION OF WHAT TO DO THE ANSWER WAS THE ANSWER TO REDUCE. SO EXPECT AN EVEN BIGGER REDUCTION WITH THE "PEACEKEEPERS" OF THE WEST
      1. Allegedly
        Allegedly 1 October 2012 22: 13
        +3
        If in the film by Pedro Almadovar a gun hangs on the wall, then he has an AIDS patient father, a transvestite, a prostitute in a coma. And this is normal.

        If in a James Cameron film a gun hangs on the wall, then about $ 50 million was spent on shooting this gun from different angles and on computer special effects of the scene with a gun on the wall.

        If a shotgun hangs on the wall in Andrei Tarkovsky’s film, then it will be shot for 17 minutes, in one shot and through sepia.

        If in a film by Peter Jackson a gun hangs on the wall, then it is from mithril.

        If in a film with Stephen Seagal a gun hangs on the wall, then the bad guys will not even have time to look in his direction.

        If in the Tinto Brass film a gun hangs on the wall, then YOU DO NOT REPRESENT WHERE IT WILL be at the end.

        If in the film Federico Felini a gun hangs on the wall, then at the end a dwarf clown will cut a cake for a fat woman-cellist.

        If in the film of Emir Kusturica a gun hangs on the wall, then in the end drunk bears will dance to the music of Bregovic and shoot from it into the air.

        If in the film of Fyodor Bondarchuk a gun hangs on the wall, then in Sergey Bondarchuk it hung on the wall much better.

        If a gun hangs on the wall of the Rajah’s palace in an Indian film, it recognizes by a special birthmark his brother, who has been hanging on the wall of the poor shack all this time and everyone will dance and sing.

        If in the film by Francis Ford Coppola a gun hangs on the wall, then with his help someone will make an offer that he will not be able to refuse.

        If in a film with Arnold Schwarzenegger a gun hangs on the wall, then he was sent here from the future to kill Sarah Connor.

        If a gun hangs on the wall in Santa Barbara, then only your grandchildren will know what will happen to it.

        If a gun hangs on a wall in a Mexican series, then Juan Pedro wants to shoot Jose Ignacias out of it for Maria’s evil, but he will lose his memory and forget where it actually hangs.

        If in a film by Leonid Gaidai a gun hangs on the wall, then every resident of the post-Soviet space knows at least seven quotes about this gun.

        If in a black comedy a gun hangs on the wall, then it farts and smokes weed.

        If in the film of Tim Burton, a gun hangs on the wall, then he is played by Johnny Depp.

        If a shotgun hangs on a wall in a George Lucas movie, it didn't kill your father. IT IS YOUR FATHER !!!!!
    2. Allegedly
      Allegedly 1 October 2012 22: 13
      +2
      If in the first act of the play a gun hangs on the wall, then in the last act it must certainly shoot. © A.P. Chekhov

      If in a film by Alfred Hitchcock a gun hangs on the wall, then it with all its appearance pumps suspense.

      If a shotgun hangs on a wall in a David Lynch film, it will shoot in the middle, which should mean that it shot at the beginning, although we will find out about it at the very end. And it also killed Laura Palmer.

      If in the Takeshi Kitano film a gun hangs on the wall, then a connoisseur of Japanese culture will be able to note that it hangs in accordance with all the rules of the Kabuki Theater.

      If in the movie of Quentin Tarantino a gun hangs on the wall, then it shoots bursts and toxic explosive ammunition.

      If a shotgun hangs on a wall in Rodriguez’s film, it shoots in bursts that are twice as long as Tarantino’s, poison is twice as poisonous and tears are twice as bursting.

      If in the film by Valeria Guy Germanicus a gun hangs on the wall, then it smokes, drinks, swears and makes abortions.

      If in the film of Sergei Eisenstein a gun hangs on the wall, then before Eisenstein NOBODY AND NEVER took off a gun hanging on the wall.

      If in the film of the Wachowski brothers a gun hangs on the wall, then IT IS NOT. As well as the walls.

      If in the film by Woody Alain a gun hangs on the wall, then in the film there will certainly be some subtle ironic joke about Chekhov and the Jews. And most likely only about the Jews.

      If in a Jim Jarmusch film a gun hangs on the wall, then it just hangs there. It does not symbolize anything, it does not mean anything, leave this gun alone!

      If in the film by Lars von Trier, a gun hangs on the wall, then it does not hang on the wall, but is painted with chalk on the floor.

      If in the Guy Ritchie film a gun hangs on the wall, then this will be followed by a biographical insert, from which we will find out what kind of guy he is and where he got such a strange nickname - “Shotgun”.
  8. Ruslan67
    Ruslan67 1 October 2012 18: 14
    +7
    God forbid, wise heads in governments will decide to completely destroy nuclear weapons on the day the last warhead is destroyed. World War 3 will begin. No deterring factors will be left here. The simple conclusion is that you need to develop all directions and put idiotic agreements into those who concluded them.
  9. bubla5
    bubla5 1 October 2012 18: 27
    +1
    YES any treaty on strategic offensive arms, etc., has been thoroughly studied by the Yankees and they present it to us, as in our crooks with a small note, and ours, drunk or with special intent, sign them, the result is the complete destruction of the years of experience
    1. wax
      wax 1 October 2012 23: 43
      0
      Any US START treaty with Russia upon ratification is considered beneficial to America.
  10. qeryravwdf
    qeryravwdf 1 October 2012 19: 24
    -11
    There are profuse weighty inventor handbags on the shop of speed, louis vuitton fake handbags and http://www.louislife.com but one of their not many drawbacks is the experience that they are so expensive that at times no rhino will-power be formerly larboard through to nauseate e leave in that extreme up to date purse. Find the a-one discounted artist handbags can give you the a- of both worlds and cure you pull down the renowned mammon you requirement and noiseless have some rake-off rich left more than to chance in that great advanced handbag.

    I was surfing the grating the other era, louis vuitton handbags clearance and http://www.pandorajewelryshop.com and came across an article that nautical port me flabbergasted. As you all liable positive not later than in, I am a designer handbag fanatic. There have been months where I own really considered bouncing my let out authenticate in pattern to buy a pucker up I ascetically could not do without. Who am I kidding? I have bounced my hire out to believe a strange handbag! And I would indubitably do it again.

    There are profuse weighty inventor handbags on the shop of speed, louis vuitton fake handbags and http://www.louislife.com but one of their not many drawbacks is the experience that they are so expensive that at times no rhino will-power be formerly larboard through to nauseate e leave in that extreme up to date purse. Find the a-one discounted artist handbags can give you the a- of both worlds and cure you pull down the renowned mammon you requirement and noiseless have some rake-off rich left more than to chance in that great advanced handbag.

    I was surfing the grating the other era, louis vuitton handbags clearance and http://www.pandorajewelryshop.com and came across an article that nautical port me flabbergasted. As you all liable positive not later than in, I am a designer handbag fanatic. There have been months where I own really considered bouncing my let out authenticate in pattern to buy a pucker up I ascetically could not do without. Who am I kidding? I have bounced my hire out to believe a strange handbag! And I would indubitably do it again.

    There are profuse weighty inventor handbags on the shop of speed, louis vuitton fake handbags and http://www.louislife.com but one of their not many drawbacks is the experience that they are so expensive that at times no rhino will-power be formerly larboard through to nauseate e leave in that extreme up to date purse. Find the a-one discounted artist handbags can give you the a- of both worlds and cure you pull down the renowned mammon you requirement and noiseless have some rake-off rich left more than to chance in that great advanced handbag.

    I was surfing the grating the other era, louis vuitton handbags clearance and http://www.pandorajewelryshop.com and came across an article that nautical port me flabbergasted. As you all liable positive not later than in, I am a designer handbag fanatic. There have been months where I own really considered bouncing my let out authenticate in pattern to buy a pucker up I ascetically could not do without. Who am I kidding? I have bounced my hire out to believe a strange handbag! And I would indubitably do it again.
    1. gispanec
      gispanec 1 October 2012 19: 38
      +3
      You minus for the goblin language, on a Russian-speaking website .......
    2. Ivan Tarasov
      Ivan Tarasov 1 October 2012 19: 46
      0
      qeryravwdf, what kind of spam?
    3. donchepano
      donchepano 1 October 2012 20: 28
      0
      don’t get too smart .. but let's load the reader again on a normal hair dryer again
    4. sesame
      sesame 1 October 2012 21: 02
      -1
      What kind of nonsense?
      1. Vanek
        Vanek 2 October 2012 06: 02
        0
        Quote: sezam
        What kind of nonsense?


        If no nonsense, then so, some kind of abra cadabra.

        And then, foreigner, please, translate. Your proposal in the form: - You need You and translate. Do not ride !!!
  11. Mr.Fox
    Mr.Fox 1 October 2012 19: 45
    +1
    And another minus for spam.
  12. Ivan Tarasov
    Ivan Tarasov 1 October 2012 19: 53
    -2
    The reason why all the RT-23 systems were destroyed is incomprehensible.
    In a couple of years, and "Satan" will be written off, how will we fight back?
    1. Trofimov174
      Trofimov174 1 October 2012 20: 21
      +2
      RS-24, RS-12M2, R-30, RSM-54, plus the new liquid heavy by 2018, are you not enough?
      1. Aeneas
        Aeneas 1 October 2012 20: 38
        0
        without Satan the Voivode will be completely pagan. On Voivode - every third warhead of Russia. The new liquid is good. But Tokmo is a completely new missile, not Topol’s modernization, and in modern conditions Russia has been developing and introducing new missiles for a very long time. the example of the Mace is already 15 years old, and has not yet been adopted.
      2. Ivan Tarasov
        Ivan Tarasov 1 October 2012 23: 10
        +2
        The last two are for the Premier League, this does not count.
        "Yars", several times weaker than the RT-23 (4 warheads of 0,15Mt, versus 10 of 0.5Mt.), These are missiles of different categories.
        "Topols" alone will not fight back ...
        And one more question; why create an analogue (albeit somewhat better), moreover, after the complete destruction of the RT-23, because by the year 18 it remains to be created, and there it will turn out ...
        First create new ones, and then destroy the previous ones, am I wrong?
        1. Trofimov174
          Trofimov174 2 October 2012 04: 47
          +1
          On the other hand, in counteracting the enemy’s missile defense, all of these missiles (with the exception of the RSM-54, I just don’t know it and didn’t read much information, I repent) are an order of magnitude superior to the RT-23 and RS-36. So, in my opinion, it’s better to have 3-4 blocks with increased accuracy than 10 half-megaton prodigy waffles that can fly, or maybe not, and it’s not clear where they will go. Well, again, I remind you, the governor’s heir will be ready by the time the latter expires, i.e. by 2020. Two test launches of the new rocket have already been carried out.
  13. Brother Sarych
    Brother Sarych 1 October 2012 20: 27
    0
    I misunderstood something - and who is the successor to the Minutemen?
    1. PSih2097
      PSih2097 2 October 2012 13: 01
      0
      I misunderstood something - and who is the successor to the Minutemen?

      was Minuteman 3, will become Minuteman 4 ...
  14. Allegedly
    Allegedly 1 October 2012 21: 38
    0
    Russia threw a rubber bomb on America - killed 20 million people. The bomb is still jumping ...
  15. Wedmak
    Wedmak 1 October 2012 22: 04
    0
    Shifts ... The development of precision weapons will replace the vigorous ... well, well ...
    You know, Arthur Clarke has a story called Absolute Superiority. Here's how it would not come out of this story ...
  16. Mr.Fox
    Mr.Fox 2 October 2012 15: 21
    0
    Quote: patsantre
    and you believe more carbon monoxide power.


    I believe the primary sources, since I had to repeatedly communicate with officers of NATO countries and the armies of other states on work. And not only with them. There is no technological superiority of the USA over Russia in the nuclear sphere and is not expected in the next 10 years.