Military Review

Star Wars: Yesterday and Today

51
April 2 at the international multimedia press center RIA News there was a round table on the topic "Star Wars: yesterday and today." The event was devoted to the thirtieth anniversary of the beginning of the US SDI program (Strategic Defense Initiative - Strategic Defense Initiative). Dean of the Faculty of World Politics at Moscow State University, Corresponding Member of the RAS A.A. Kokoshin, former Chief of the General Staff of the Armed Forces of Russia, General of the Army Yu.N. Baluevsky and the former Chief of Staff of the Strategic Missile Forces, Colonel-General V.I. Esin.


Loading into the mine of an intercontinental ballistic missile of the 5 generation of the RT-2PM2 Topol-M missile system


Past

At first, participants in the event raised the topic of SDI, since it was this program that at one time greatly influenced the further development of anti-missile systems. According to A. Kokoshin, one of the prerequisites for the beginning of the unsuccessful project was the peculiarities of the personality and worldview of the then American President R. Reagan. Obviously, he didn’t feel very comfortable knowing that a lot of Soviet missiles were aimed at the United States. Kokoshin noted that previous US presidents had a normal attitude to the concept of deterrence based on the possible guaranteed mutual destruction. As for the Reagan administration, she decided to revise the existing principles. In addition, there were politicians and scientists who, one way or another, were interested in the beginning of the new program, who eventually convinced the country's leadership in the possibility of creating some kind of “multi-layer missile shield” and leveling the role of the enemy’s nuclear weapons.

At the same time, as the dean of the Faculty of World Politics recalled, a number of scientists and politicians spoke out against SDI, since in those conditions the project was simply unrealizable. However, the views of the president and his entourage, the desire to embroil the USSR in a new arms race, as well as the vested interests of some individuals, overwhelmed the view that the outcome of the project was impossible to succeed. Nevertheless, ultimately, the SOI program was quietly and quietly closed, since she gave almost no results. The vast majority of new technologies have not yet been used for military purposes. The total cost of the program costs, according to V. Esin, has reached the level of one hundred billion dollars. The most notable result of the SDI program was the rejection of the so-called. non-traditional means of interception in favor of the usual and spent rocket technology.

Despite the lack of noticeable successes of a technical or practical nature, the American Strategic Defense Initiative had some other kinds of consequences, primarily political ones. As an example of such consequences, A. Kokoshin cites the general deterioration of relations between the USSR and the USA as a whole and the aggravation of disputes over medium-range ballistic missiles deployed in Europe in particular. These historical facts can also be considered as an example of another trend noted by Kokoshin. According to him, the problem of missile defense and the development of offensive weapons are tightly connected with each other and should be considered only together.

The ex-chief of the General Staff, Y. Baluyevsky, noted that, despite all its failures, the SDI program did provide practical benefits. During the implementation of all ideas, American scientists have created many new technologies that are used and are developing so far. In this regard, the situation with the PIO resembles the Soviet project “Buran”: the spacecraft itself made only one flight into space, but left behind several thousand technologies, design solutions, etc.

Baluevsky also drew attention to the very concept of SDI and subsequent similar programs. According to him, the main reason for the emergence of these projects is the desire of Americans to isolate themselves from a possible nuclear threat and thereby significantly increase their defense capabilities. The PIO program itself has not yielded any tangible results in this aspect, but subsequent projects of anti-missile defense systems have been more successful. In the future, their development will continue, and the US command will not abandon the idea of ​​an anti-missile shield.

Our time

When discussing the current situation with the American missile defense system, several questions were raised at once. First, V. Yesin touched on the subject of the proliferation of anti-missile systems. The system originally created to protect the continental territory of the United States is gradually expanding and now has to cover Europe and East Asia. At the same time, the Asian direction is developing slightly more actively than the European one, which is facilitated by the pace of development of China and the statements of the DPRK.

Speaking about the effectiveness of US missile defense systems, the former chief of staff of the rocket forces noted both the insufficient number and the low potential of the antimissile systems. According to him, only three dozen GBI-type interceptor missiles are currently deployed, all of which are concentrated on the west coast of the United States, Alaska and California. At the same time, with reference to the Director of the Missile Defense Agency, Lieutenant General P. O'Reilly, Esin cited the following figures. In order to intercept a Russian Topol-M intercontinental missile, 5-7 GBI interceptors may be needed. It should be remembered that the Topol-M missile carries only one combat unit and a set of countermeasures. As Esinu O'Reilly said, these estimates are still of a calculated nature. GBI missiles have not yet been tested on real targets, so in practice, interceptors may be less expensive.

From these data, Colonel-General V. Yosin makes a simple and clear conclusion. If Russia launches all available missiles at the same time, the United States missile defense systems will not be able to significantly affect the impact results. It is easy to calculate that for effective interception thousands of antimissiles will be needed, and this is still an unattainable goal. The United States is limited not only technically, but also financially. In the course of a recent sequestration of the budget, including the military, the Pentagon was forced to curtail or reduce a number of programs. Therefore, as Yesin believes, at least until the 2025 of the year, the American missile defense system will not be able to tangibly change the situation with the potential of nuclear forces. Predict the events of the following years, the former chief of staff of the Strategic Missile Forces is not taken yet.

At the same time, Yesin recognized certain successes of the USA. Their missile defense system now allows them to deal with missiles of the types that North Korea has. Therefore, anti-missile batteries with Patriot complexes of the latest modifications are being deployed in Japan and South Korea; Korea By these forces, the United States and its allies are fully capable of holding back the nuclear potential of the DPRK. At the same time, the available capabilities are only enough to fight North Korean missiles. China currently does not have hundreds of intercontinental missiles, but at the same time even their existing number is enough for a confident breakthrough of all echelons of the US missile defense system.

Y. Baluevsky noted that all the conclusions of V. Esin are absolutely correct and are even recognized by the Americans. All this information is contained in the report of the Agency on missile defense, published in 2010 year. However, the greatest emphasis Baluevsky made on the information component of anti-missile systems. The flight of an intercontinental missile lasts less than half an hour, and there is still less time to respond to a threat. Therefore, in the current state of missile defense systems there are some risks. The ex-chief of the General Staff cited the incident as an example, when the American missile launch detection system recorded a torch fire on a gas field and mistakenly thought it was launching a rocket. From fatal consequences saved the actions of responsible persons. The question of the correct determination of the fact of launch, its interpretation and retaliatory strike remains difficult to solve and, as a result, will continue to be a source of danger over the next years.

Missile against missile defense

Also continues to be relevant topics of response to US projects. A. Kokoshin recalled that even at the time of the work on SDI in the Soviet Union, an analysis of the possibilities was carried out, according to the results of which the so-called asymmetric response. This means that Russian rocket engineers try to level out the importance of missile defense systems and enemy missiles, not by creating their own anti-missile systems, but using various means of breaking through enemy defenses. Along this path, all domestic strategic missiles are still developing. For example, work is underway to reduce the active part of the flight, in which a ballistic missile is most vulnerable to interceptors.

A characteristic feature of a nuclear missile strike is the fact that intercepting several missiles, even if they are of a relatively large number, still does not save the country from catastrophic consequences. Therefore, the means of breakthrough ABM are the most effective way to counter the cost. At the same time, the benefits of such an approach, as Kokoshin notes, manifest themselves not only at the first but also at a retaliatory strike. According to him, in case of successful completion of the PIO program, it is an asymmetric response that could preserve the country's defense capability. The fact is that if there are some alternative ways of intercepting, the United States could almost completely defend itself. According to this logic, it was possible to “knock out” the main part of the enemy’s strategic forces with the first strike and to protect oneself from a retaliatory strike with the help of the ABM system. However, as a result, the PIO program did not produce the expected results, and the Soviet idea of ​​an asymmetric response still casts doubt on all new American projects.

V. Yesin agreed with the opinion of the high qualities of the asymmetric response in terms of the “cost-effectiveness” criterion. In addition, he recalled that in the current conditions Russia simply cannot afford to build an anti-missile system similar to the American one. The country simply does not have the financial capacity to do this. Therefore, the further development of missiles and means of breakthrough remains the most simple, convenient and real way to counter the US missile defense system under construction.

Policy issue

All participants in the discussion agreed on the “plane” into which the question of the American missile defense system has now moved. Now it is considered not so much in the military-technical aspect, as in the political. It is the politicians who lead the bulk of the disputes, while the military and engineers continue to work on the technical part. According to V. Esin, the prerequisites for this phenomenon are the same as in the case of the beginning of the SDI program. One side disagreeable actions of the other. Russia does not benefit from the creation of an anti-missile fence around it, despite all its flaws. At the same time, we should not forget that the United States will continue to build its missile defense, and Russia will not be able to influence them in any way. Signing a contract like an agreement from 1972, is simply impossible. The topic of international treaties was continued by Y. Baluevsky. According to him, the ABM treaty between the USA and the USSR from 1972 was due to the difference in the level of development of the systems. The Soviet Union’s missile defense program was more successful and therefore the United States tried to keep it in place by concluding a treaty.

The US military doctrine is specific and ambiguous. Among other things, Baluevsky recalled, it provides for preventive strikes against enemy targets, including with the use of nuclear weapons. Thus, the Americans reserve the right to strike the first blow. The goal, first of all, can be Russia and China. In this case, under ideal conditions, the Americans will be able to reduce the scale of the retaliatory strike several times and intercept the remaining enemy missiles with available means. It is unwillingness to undergo a massive blow and makes the United States leadership annually invest in the development of missile defense systems of the order of 10 billions of dollars.



The third player

During the discussion, the presenter of the round table raised the topic of Chinese opportunities. He noted that he had not met the official Beijing’s statements regarding the American missile defense system and reminiscent of the words of Moscow. A. Kokoshin corrected him, noting that even the public statements of the Chinese leadership are quite bold and hard. According to the dean of the faculty of international politics, China’s capabilities are not great yet, so for him the American missile defense system presents a certain danger. Fortunately for Beijing, it is still possible to develop its nuclear forces without getting involved in international processes. In the near future, the current order of things will remain, in which the main processes of deterrence and negotiations on nuclear weapons go between Russia and the United States. China, in turn, will not yet participate in them and will use the time available to develop its missiles.

Nevertheless, China sees the current situation and understands what steps need to be taken to ensure their security. As an example of such activities, V. Esin cited the latest DF-31 ballistic missiles. Previously, all Chinese missiles of this class had a monoblock warhead. Such a payload is a relatively simple target for antimissiles. The newest DF-31, in turn, will be equipped with a split head with blocks of individual guidance. Thus, the missile capabilities for the breakthrough of the missile defense system are significantly increased. Also developed new mobile ground launchers. Finally, Chinese designers create new nuclear submarines and ballistic missiles for them.

Y. Baluevsky recalled the 2007 incident of the year when China hit a failed meteorological satellite with a special rocket. The ex-chief of the General Staff described this operation and everything connected with it with the phrase: "China does not shout loudly, but does its job." The case of a successful satellite attack clearly shows that Chinese science and industry is engaged not only in missiles, but also in intercept equipment.

With regard to the possible release of China to the "foreground", this country, in the opinion of the participants of the round table, is doing everything possible to increase its military power. Ultimately, this will make China one of the leading countries in the world. According to Yu. Baluevsky, the Soviet experience helps him in this. The Chinese take Soviet achievements, shift them to their own conditions and get good results, allowing them to develop the armed forces. The general also spoke about his visit to particularly important objects of the Chinese armed forces: the command post of the People’s Liberation Army of China and the Mission Control Center of the space department. These objects seemed to him familiar and reminiscent of domestic. At the same time, they were equipped with new equipment. This is the manifestation of the Chinese approach using the experience of others.

Future

The final topic of discussion was the hypothetical refusal of the United States to build its missile defense system. According to A. Kokoshin, the Americans are already able to protect themselves or their allies from North Korean missiles. Existing missile defense systems, despite a lot of flaws, look promising and profitable politically. Therefore, their development will continue, although fluctuations in the course of development are possible. For example, in the event of a victory in the presidential elections of M. Romney, one would expect a call for a return to the ideas of the Reagan times.

Y. Baluevsky advised to recall not only the Russian and American experience, but also the developments of other countries. Israel and Japan already have some missile systems with limited capabilities. Baluyevsky referred to the 2010 report of the year and recalled that the US plans to build not only its missile defense system, but also similar regional ones. Then they should all be collected into a single network of global scale. The main goals of this global system are Russian and, in the long term, Chinese strategic missiles. Therefore, the construction of the US missile defense will continue, since its goal is to ensure the military, political and economic security of the United States.

V. Yesin, in turn, recalled the old concept of the sword and shield, which stimulate the development of each other. Therefore, as long as swords exist, shields will remain in the world. Accordingly, as long as strategic nuclear forces exist, no one will abandon the means of countering them. According to the apt remark of Yu. Baluevsky, the “sword” is always cheaper than the “shield”. It was probably a direct hint at the further development of events around the American missile defense system and intercontinental ballistic missiles.


On the materials of the sites:
http://ria.ru/
http://newsland.com/
Author:
51 comment
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. shinobi
    shinobi April 10 2013 08: 35
    10
    The article is what the doctor prescribed. Dry and balanced. Zachet. And recently, more often "the boss has disappeared! The plaster is removed, the client is discharged!"
    1. Mitek
      Mitek April 10 2013 08: 51
      +2
      In fact, there is a danger. Now it is minimal, but what will happen next? The danger of the missile defense system is that our missiles are shot down on the acceleration stage. They cannot maneuver. And a missile defense breakthrough implies its breakthrough not with a missile at the initial stage of the trajectory, but with a maneuvering unit + false targets. Until the separation of warheads and false targets, the missile is defenseless. YET there are few interceptor missiles. Interceptor missiles are also a controversial thing ... What prevents to equip it with a tactical nuclear warhead and use it for the manager of our Iskander?
      1. Papakiko
        Papakiko April 10 2013 09: 13
        +8
        Quote: Mitek
        The danger of the missile defense system is that our missiles go astray on the upper stage.

        It will not happen.
        Missile defense Who are you? : The US military doctrine is specific and ambiguous. Among other things, Baluevsky recalled, it provides preventive strikes on enemy targets, including using nuclear weapons. Thus, the Americans reserve the right to strike first.
        Breaking in from the above, it becomes very clear who these "missile defense missiles" are.
      2. Nayhas
        Nayhas April 10 2013 10: 54
        +3
        "The danger of the missile defense system is that our missiles are knocked out on the acceleration section" - this will be possible when launching ICBMs from the European part of Russia, and if the acceleration section will pass over Europe. Otherwise it is not possible.
  2. erased
    erased April 10 2013 08: 49
    +6
    It is necessary not only to improve their missiles, but also to develop anti-ballistic systems. It is true that the United States will not be able to intercept Chinese missiles, but we will not be able to intercept them. But it would be necessary, because a war with China is no less likely than with America.
    1. Manager
      Manager April 10 2013 09: 39
      +1
      Quote: erased
      It is necessary not only to improve their missiles, but also to develop anti-ballistic systems. It is true that the United States will not be able to intercept Chinese missiles, but we will not be able to intercept them. But it would be necessary, because a war with China is no less likely than with America.


      God forbid we have a war with China, th. This is the case when you have to nucleate your own land.
      1. erased
        erased April 10 2013 12: 07
        0
        Why your own? First stranger. And if you don’t calm down, then the borderland.
  3. MilaPhone
    MilaPhone April 10 2013 09: 06
    +8
    Interesting article. +
    Is this ar2d2? Or the title of the article inspired. smile
    1. Manager
      Manager April 10 2013 09: 22
      +5
      He is! He is....
      1. MilaPhone
        MilaPhone April 10 2013 09: 38
        +5
        Or maybe this is ar2d2? (about China, too, the article says).
        1. Manager
          Manager April 10 2013 09: 54
          +6
          This is their daughter =))
      2. Chicot 1
        Chicot 1 April 10 2013 14: 15
        +2
        Quote: Manager
        He is! He is....

        You have kag-be already its final, so to speak - serial version. But in my photo kag-be another prototype ... wink laughingYYY
    2. Heccrbq
      Heccrbq April 10 2013 12: 43
      0
      Please change your avatar or is it you, iPhone? am
      1. MilaPhone
        MilaPhone April 10 2013 13: 26
        +3
        No, it's not him. This is Werther. HA HA HA.
      2. Manager
        Manager April 10 2013 13: 35
        +4
        Quote: Heccrbq
        Please change your avatar or is it you, iPhone?


        He is not Dimon! And not iPhone!
        In an extreme case, Dmitry Ayfonovich!
    3. Ascetic
      Ascetic April 10 2013 19: 02
      +5
      Quote: Milafon
      Is this ar2d2? Or the title of the article inspired


      These are special sensors.





      On the left in the photo in the article there is a green cone antenna RBU for those who still do not believe that the autonomous launch system exists and is on duty. It used to be called "eye looking to the east" Now, in theory, it should be oriented to the north. You need to ask the "miners" because the modest "tractor driver" is far from their monumental grandeur (and trousers on the floor) drinks





      1. Ascetic
        Ascetic April 10 2013 19: 37
        +4
        And this is a pencil case for transporting the Battle Block



        active defense complex silos of ICBM Strategic Missile Forces in the USSR
        link





        in the late 1980s, a low-altitude non-nuclear interception of a simulator of an ICBM warhead launched from the Plesetsk test site was carried out for the first time (according to other data from Baikonur). Probably the development was called the ROC "Mozyr" (see below). This development did not contradict the 1972 ABM Treaty. Funding for the work was stopped in August 1991 (Gorbachev said personally).
        a fundamental decision was made to resume testing the complex in 2013. According to him, “a feature of KAZ is that the defeat of air objects occurs with metal arrows and balls with a diameter of 30 mm at an altitude of up to 6 km. Arrows and balls are fired at an initial speed of 1,8 km / s, which is comparable to the projectile of the most long-range gun, and create a real iron cloud. In one salvo up to 40 thousand elements. KAZ can be considered anti-ballistic artillery. ”

        The complex will be the last frontier of missile defense. He must destroy the objects that managed to break through the curtain of the existing Gazelle missiles and the promising S-500 Prometheus. KAZ includes radar detection and guidance systems, as well as special gun mounts.

        It is reported that KAZ is designed to cover point objects, such as missile launch pits, command posts, communication centers, and this differs from missile defense systems that cover the sky in sectors. The military hopes that the complex will be able to destroy not only ballistic missiles, but also all types of modern high-precision weapons, including cruise missiles and GPS-corrected bombs.
        1. elmi
          elmi April 10 2013 21: 22
          +6
          Thanks for the clarification, I noticed that you seldom go past misunderstandings - as there is an incomprehensible, so detailed answer from you right away. I didn’t know that we have a KAZ, I read somewhere that it’s in the development project, but it already comes out.
          1. Ascetic
            Ascetic April 10 2013 22: 31
            +5
            Quote: elmi
            . I didn’t know that we have a KAZ, I read somewhere that he is in the development project, but it already appears.


            So far, they only want to resume testing ... not in service. If earlier it was not particularly necessary because silos had a sufficient protection class, all our silos have at least a higher protection class, and there is also a high class for Topol-M. There was a series of tests called "Argon" and so I watched the secret film, which was shot based on the results of the tests, it's impressive. That is, ICBMs against silos are effective 50 to 50, relatively speaking. The appearance of the WTO with nuclear warheads is another matter, and this is almost 100 percent. incapacitation and impossibility of launching without repair work. There is also penetrating ammunition, etc. therefore, the question of KAZ became, which at one time was safely fucked.
            Just with their appearance (WTO-Kr) in 2001. The Americans issued a plan for a "disarming strike" using holes in our early warning and air defense systems, they believed that it was possible to use tactics and 100% confirmation of the defeat of all Pu and submarines (which rusted at bases and yes at airfields) became possible. They scored only for Poplars, since it is difficult to destroy them all completely simultaneously in a short interval. Then they abandoned this venture, taking as the basis of the BGU what we get, we will destroy, and what will take off to intercept the missile defense.
            Therefore, we are developing the aerospace defense, first of all, and ICBMs capable of overcoming any missile defense.
            1. elmi
              elmi April 11 2013 00: 41
              +5
              Quote: Ascetic
              They only scored for Poplar since it is difficult to destroy them all at the same time in a short interval.

              It seems to me that they were more afraid of our BZHRK than poplars, since the amers got under the agreement on a limited area patrolling with poplars, respectively, a small area of ​​the country is easier to track. And they will make every effort so that we could not revive the BZHRK, it seems that they are already taking the first steps - they have refused to deploy missile defense systems in Europe - they lull vigilance. We can’t take these allegedly peaceful steps, we don’t need to scare the amers about their intention to revive the BZHRK, but specifically to start building and allocating money for the construction.
              1. Ascetic
                Ascetic April 11 2013 09: 33
                +2
                in accordance with the START-3 treaty, there are no restrictions for the patrol areas of the Strategic Missile Forces mobile missile systems.
                1. elmi
                  elmi April 11 2013 11: 35
                  +4
                  Yes, but at that time there were restrictions. And START-3 - The Treaty was signed by Presidents Dmitry Medvedev and Barack Obama on April 8 of the 2010 of the year in Prague and entered into force on February 5 of the 2011 of the year. It’s good that the restrictions were lifted, the Americans, in my opinion, back then at the factory, controlled every piece of equipment released, were at the factory and saw everything at the exit.
                  1. Ascetic
                    Ascetic April 11 2013 21: 34
                    +3
                    Quote: elmi
                    It’s good that the restrictions were lifted, the Americans, in my opinion, back then at the factory controlled every piece of equipment released, they were at the factory and saw everything at the exit.


                    We are also in Utah at the factory .. duty on a 12-hour schedule day-night .. the men went on a business trip telling mortal longing there is absolutely nothing to do, the town is dying out after eight in the evening .. And this limit was 125 sq km in my opinion. .. I remember the period when it was forbidden to go further than 5 km ... Well, the Crones opened on demand and rolled out half of the APU and all this was done suddenly and a similar situation was considered abnormal, which caused tension and irritation for everyone of course.
  4. domokl
    domokl April 10 2013 09: 30
    +6
    I read and caught myself thinking - Is that? Misunderstanding, betrayal or science? SDI was one of the stakes in the chest of the USSR, and now we are seriously talking about its significance ... Well done by the Americans, the disinformation, which cost a lot of money of the USSR.
    And on the topic, as long as the United States reserves the right to the first strike, 100% protection is not provided even by God ... So we need to focus on the retaliatory strike and systems like the Dead Hand ... No matter how frightening the Americans need to understand, our missiles will deliver much more US damage than even the first strike (sudden) of Russia ... And in these conditions, the Americans will not go to confrontation ...
    The creation of mobile nuclear forces, the strengthening of strategic aviation, and counteraction aviation .. That’s the task .. The rest, alas (money is also a problem) is still at the theoretical development stage
    1. Sirocco
      Sirocco April 10 2013 09: 42
      +1
      Quote: domokl
      So you need to focus on the retaliatory strike and systems such as Dead Hand

      Somehow they discussed the topic of Hands. Someone of our colleagues wrote that this project is functioning. But this is also not a panacea. Signals are given by several rockets. Which Amer in theory may try to bring down. BZHRK time to release from the siding. laughing
      1. domokl
        domokl April 10 2013 10: 04
        +2
        Quote: Sirocco
        . BZHRK time to release from the siding. laughing
        Already released .. They are already running and will still be ... Therefore, friends from overseas and western ones probably panicked ... The presence of these steam locomotives practically negates any intelligence data and enables Russia to adequately smash any European country to shreds ...
        1. fzr1000
          fzr1000 April 10 2013 10: 43
          +2
          Can you give the facts? I really want confirmation of this good news.
          1. Manager
            Manager April 10 2013 10: 57
            0
            Quote: fzr1000
            Can you give the facts? I really want confirmation of this good news.


            Who will lay out such facts to you? What nonsense. If such facts existed, Amer would have raised so much shit a long time ago that no toilet paper would have been enough.
            Anyway, discussing the topic of response or security in the Nuclear War is stupid. No one has a chance. No one has decent air defense in this case. The only thing that could safeguard was invented and then actually manually destroyed by N. Tesla. (By the way, this is what he proposed to Stalin)
            1. fzr1000
              fzr1000 April 10 2013 11: 27
              0
              "Calm is only calm"
              1. Manager
                Manager April 10 2013 11: 29
                0
                Quote: fzr1000
                "Calm is only calm"

                Persen just does not need to advertise =)))
          2. Sirocco
            Sirocco April 10 2013 11: 08
            0
            At the expense of facts. Itself recently saw (standing on the railway crossing) as a part of a pair of cars with three-axle carts. Although the BZHRK does not consist of two cars, what was it? a riddle.
          3. domokl
            domokl April 10 2013 14: 24
            0
            Quote: fzr1000
            Can you give the facts? At
            Two weeks ago, the President’s decree on the restoration of the BZHRK was made publicly available. For a long time no one has concealed this fact ... Even here, such infa slipped ...
            1. fzr1000
              fzr1000 April 10 2013 15: 10
              +2
              Yes, I know it. Only orders to the prototype, it happens, and 20 years will pass.
      2. Ascetic
        Ascetic April 10 2013 19: 28
        +1
        Quote: Sirocco
        Someone of our colleagues wrote that this project is functioning. But this is also not a panacea. Signals are given by several rockets. Which Amer in theory may try to bring down. BZHRK time to release from the siding.


        How can they, for example, be able to shoot down an anti-missile launched in the Moscow region? If its start is impossible to catch with the human eye? Previously, the CGCH was on the mine launcher, now the PGRK in Yurye, for example, and transferring it to any other carrier will not be difficult. The Ipulse Design Bureau is also successfully engaged in this topic in conjunction with the manufacturer NPO Strela.
  5. fenix57
    fenix57 April 10 2013 09: 56
    +2
    Quote: domokl
    And on the topic, while the United States reserves the right to take a first strike, even God God will not provide 100% protection ... So we need to focus on the retaliatory strike and systems like the Dead Hand ... No matter how much the Americans scare, we need to understand that our missiles will deliver more US damage than even Russia's first (sudden) blow ...

    The thing is absolutely necessary. But in any case, it is not sad, but there will be no winners ....
  6. Per se.
    Per se. April 10 2013 09: 59
    +4
    "According to Yuri Baluevsky's apt remark, a" sword "is always cheaper than a" shield "." Well, if we really compare, then the sword is cheaper not sewn, but full armor, where the symbolic confrontation between arrow and chain mail continues in new guises of attack and defense weapons, with varying success. The article does not consider the possibility of militarizing space, where, instead of bluffing on SDI, it is quite possible that unmanned shuttles may appear for preemptive bombardment of the enemy directly from space, or for attacking warheads with small anti-missile missiles directly on the near-earth trajectory. The Americans have already tested their X37 device, it was able to hang in orbit for a long time before returning, which eventually hatch out of this chicken, a big question. This, coupled with the creation of a multi-ring missile defense system and pressure to reduce nuclear weapons, is very alarming.
  7. bubla5
    bubla5 April 10 2013 10: 01
    0
    From the article it is clear that no one will go unpunished, and the one who will start first, and the one who will defend himself, which means that no one will benefit from this, there will be no winners.
    1. Per se.
      Per se. April 10 2013 10: 36
      +1
      Quote: bubla5
      no one will benefit from this, there will be no winners.
      Yes, the fact of the matter is that this is true only as long as there is a risk of a nuclear apocalypse. The modern aggressor first of all needs clean resources, the radioactive deserts deprive the invader of prey, even with a one-sided massive strike, such a victory is hardly desirable, in addition, it is dangerous even without a retaliatory strike for the aggressor and its allies. High-precision weapons, the modernization of nuclear charges to eliminate pollution (or replacing them with neutron ones), a powerful, multi-ring missile defense with a marine and space component, however, is not everything. That's all, if Russia runs out of Soviet designs and Soviet nuclear weapons stockpiles, and the Russians are unable to confront the United States, then, most likely, blackmail and pressure will begin, and with the recognition of acceptable damage, direct preventive aggression. We do not need American lands, the United States can become an overseas exclusion zone, which is why for us nuclear weapons, weapons of defense.
      1. ziqzaq
        ziqzaq April 10 2013 13: 12
        +1
        Quote: Per se.
        We do not need American lands

        I am not an aggressive person, but it would be much calmer if, for example, in Alaska, Russian became the official language again ....
        1. Per se.
          Per se. April 10 2013 13: 58
          +1
          Quote: ziqzaq
          but it would be much calmer if, for example, in Alaska, the state language again became Russian ....
          As for Alaska, I agree, this is a "thank you" to Alexander II the Liberator, I think there was a big mistake ... But what has been done is done, Antarctica was not staked out, Alaska was sold for a pittance, and Crimea was generally presented, like other pieces of Russia. It is noteworthy how little Denmark grabbed the huge Greenland, where nothing "valuable" was also observed, and Britain climbed to fight on the other side of the world for the tiny Falklands (Malvinas). Russia, apparently, is already big and we are not greedy ...
    2. waisson
      waisson April 10 2013 11: 17
      +1
      totally agree winners will not be
  8. Canep
    Canep April 10 2013 10: 13
    +1
    The danger of the American missile defense is not that it can theoretically bring down several missiles, but that the American government will think that they are under the insurmountable umbrella of the missile defense and begin to build their policies based on their impunity. And I’m not sure that there are no nuclear warheads, ours or American, in orbit.
  9. nickname 1 and 2
    nickname 1 and 2 April 10 2013 10: 39
    +2
    Perhaps the casket opens simply = ahead of the ballistic missile launch, a light anti-aircraft missile leaves which scatters fireworks, foil, etc. and all this on the way to the acceleration section.
  10. Vtel
    Vtel April 10 2013 11: 12
    0
    Precisely in Kaliningrad to produce salutes in honor of the launch of our missiles. Let our salutes catch the missile technology.
  11. B_KypTke
    B_KypTke April 10 2013 11: 16
    +2
    3.14ndos need less to rush about their missile defense, because back in the 70s, the concept of an attack on the United States was developed, given that all of the crucial objects for the country are located in coastal areas. Megaton-class warheads are detonated at a half-kilometer depth of the coastal zone near the bottom.
    We know from physicists that liquids do not compress, so the resulting wave 300 meters high washes everything to a depth of 200-250 km. And they need to think about what to do with colossal debt to the whole world and what to do with 250 million. trunks on the hands of citizens in the event of a riot. And they are guaranteed to be with an inevitable drop in living standards. But they all missile defense and missile defense must be forgotten about world domination and lost ... if they are all swimming in excess of the dollar mass.
  12. dmn2
    dmn2 April 10 2013 11: 53
    0
    Quote: erased
    But it would be necessary, because a war with China is no less likely than with America.


    China has a different mentality. History has shown that over the past 5000 years, China has not unleashed a single serious war. Mostly he only responded to aggression. And how many wars have the USA unleashed at least in the last 70-80 years ?! The Chinese are not stupid and understand that they stay 1 on 1 with the West - and they will devour them. Therefore, they will not jump to Russia. Except in very extreme cases (if the United States cuts off China from raw materials, and Russia refuses to sell them to China). I think that the leadership of Russia and China will have enough wisdom to avoid this scenario ...
    1. Nitup
      Nitup April 10 2013 15: 00
      +3
      I agree with you. China does not need a war with Russia. All this hysteria about aggressive China is being pumped up by the West. China is an ally of Russia. And we need to be friends. And Stalin knew and understood this well. And the idiot Khrushchev did everything so that the USSR and China quarreled. It’s good that now Putin understands all this and acts in the right direction. And for all these wiring type SDI is not amenable to. Russia is quietly creating a new generation of missiles - Yars and its naval variant - Bulava, for which the whole missile defense is not a threat: try to notch the missile launch at an ultra-high launch speed, and even if they detect it, intercept warheads that are hypersound and actively this maneuvering, not a single system is capable. They are not satellites flying along a predictable trajectory to shoot down. As for the preemptive strike, in order to successfully carry out it, the Americans need to know where our SSBNs and the mobile Yars and Poplars are currently on duty at night when there are no tracking satellites over the bases. In addition, aggregates have recently been used for sweeping tracks from PGRK. Here's a video of Yars launching. Pay attention to how quickly it, in comparison with old rockets, is gaining height:
  13. ajden
    ajden April 10 2013 12: 21
    0
    IMHO. "Preventive strike" - there are enough high-precision missiles and delivery vehicles too. The main thing here is not to miss.
  14. Strannik_GO
    Strannik_GO April 10 2013 16: 10
    +2
    A bit of fiction ...
    "There is one interesting place in Russia - a lake with bottom sediments, which are very conducive to thermonuclear fusion (I will even hint where MIRs floated there recently), and if a thermonuclear explosion is arranged in that place (quantity, strength, configuration is mathematics) , then Russia will have a Weapon of Above Mass Destruction - WMD, and all living beings living on the continent of North America will receive a complete "Kerdyk".
    Moreover, the site of exposure will undergo several damaging factors:
    1. Hard cosmic radiation - due to the strong thinning of the atmosphere.
    2. A sharp drop in temperature - from the same reasons.
    3. And finally, the arrival of not even a giant, but a Colossal wave that will travel through the mainland, blowing everything in its path.
    + minimal costs, all components are available.
    - damage, even in areas not directly affected by WMD, is significant.
    Let's call it PROJECT POMPEIA. "
  15. Fregate
    Fregate April 10 2013 18: 32
    -1
    Well, if you imagine that you have to use nuclear weapons. Suppose we launch a few dozen missiles in the USA, will anyone survive on earth from such a number of nuclear explosions? I doubt it. Only Americans will die quickly, and we will be long and painful. And in view of this, the question arises whether we need our missiles to reach them. It might be better to blow them up and let them die long and painfully. If so then.
  16. Shick
    Shick April 10 2013 19: 00
    0
    Eh .. my city is a strategic American target
  17. Nitup
    Nitup April 10 2013 19: 07
    0
    Quote: Fregate
    Well, if you imagine that you have to use nuclear weapons. Suppose we launch a few dozen missiles in the USA, will anyone survive on earth from such a number of nuclear explosions? I doubt it.

    And why doubt it? The Americans were not stupid when they planned the atomic bombing of the USSR. So, they had no doubt that everything would be fine with them after that.
    1. Fregate
      Fregate April 10 2013 19: 37
      0
      Well, judge for yourself. In addition to nuclear warheads (I don’t know how many of them will fly), there are nuclear power plants in the United States that are likely to suffer and there will be an emission of radiation. Plus, I don’t know, it’s difficult to calculate (at least for me) how such a number of nuclear explosions in a short time will affect the atmosphere and so on. T.ch. I am inclined to the fact that in a nuclear war there will be no winner, and if someone survives, their life will not be enviable for sure.
      1. Nitup
        Nitup April 10 2013 20: 43
        0
        Namely, in a nuclear war, when both sides are capable of striking, there will be no victory. But if we are left without nuclear weapons, then I doubt that the Americans will not hit us.
        1. Fregate
          Fregate April 10 2013 22: 36
          0
          I just wanted to say about missile defense, which is directed against our strategic nuclear forces. If in any case the use of nuclear weapons is suicide, and because of missile defense there is a risk that missiles will not reach, then the point is to let them go far, all the same, all the time, to whom sooner, later. In this case, even the sooner the better IMHO. I don’t know why we will be left without nuclear weapons? And the Americans will strike, though looking where, because their goal is not to erase us, but our resources.
  18. max702
    max702 April 10 2013 22: 55
    0
    In Chernobyl, one block of a roof lost its leaking half of Europe ... and we say a nuclear war .. even ordinary ammunition will cause such technological disasters in the attacked country that there’s not enough money to deal with the consequences, what do you think if it damages a large hydroelectric dam? I’m not talking about chemical plants and nuclear power plants, humanity has reached and stands on a very thin and fragile edge of civilization, swing it and there will be a reverse rollback in the Middle Ages and only if someone survives.
  19. VadimSt
    VadimSt April 11 2013 04: 52
    0
    Nuclear war can only be unleashed by fanatics and those who have nothing to lose already, and everyone understands this. Of the non-signatories of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (Israel, India, Pakistan and the DPRK), these, perhaps, can be attributed only ideologically to the leader of the DPRK nation. Well, God forbid, it will appear in Iran!
  20. nod739
    nod739 April 11 2013 13: 44
    0
    Quote: Nitup
    Quote: Fregate
    Well, if you imagine that you have to use nuclear weapons. Suppose we launch a few dozen missiles in the USA, will anyone survive on earth from such a number of nuclear explosions? I doubt it.
    And why doubt it? The Americans were not stupid when they planned the atomic bombing of the USSR. So, they had no doubt that everything would be fine with them after that.


    for all time on the earth, more than one hundred nuclear charges were blown up - and the background somehow didn’t change much

    Quote: Fregate
    And the Americans will strike, though looking where, because their goal is not to erase us, but our resources.


    so they for that s / n will not extract these resources, for which we extract them
    1. Fregate
      Fregate April 11 2013 19: 07
      0
      Quote: nod739
      for all time on the earth, more than one hundred nuclear charges were blown up - and the background somehow didn’t change much

      It’s one thing for several decades to blow them up at landfills. And another for several hours at nuclear power plants, chem. factories, in places of faults of the earth's crust etc. Is the difference felt?
      Quote: nod739
      so they for that s / n will not extract these resources, for which we extract them

      What does s / n have to do with it? I do not think that they will use nuclear weapons in those regions where resources can be extracted.
  21. 400
    400 April 16 2013 15: 36
    0
    Quote: Canep
    The danger of the American missile defense is not that it can theoretically bring down several missiles, but that the American government will think that they are under the insurmountable umbrella of the missile defense and begin to build their policies based on their impunity

    I agree, against this background, they can do stupid things