Military Review

Expert: The United States does not have protection against Russian nuclear strike

21
Over the past decades, nuclear weapon. According to one of the widespread opinions, it is atomic bombs, rockets and their carriers that keep the leading states of the world from a direct collision. Nuclear weapons are still working to maintain balance in the world, but there are specific problems in this area that need to be considered when creating new strategies.




A few days ago on the blog platform of the Forbes publication appeared the article The US Has No Defense Against A Russian Nuclear Attack. Really. (“The United States does not have protection against a Russian nuclear strike. Indeed.”) Authored by international policy and security specialist Lauren Thompson. The author of this publication is concerned about the current situation in the field of nuclear weapons and international relations. In his opinion, official Washington should take measures aimed at preserving the security of the state in changing conditions, taking into account the existing and emerging threats.

L. Thompson begins his article with a reminder of the priorities of the American authorities. Thus, the administration of President Barack Obama proposes to include in the budget for the next fiscal year additional costs to protect against possible threats from Afghanistan, Iraq and other friendly countries. At the suggestion of the leadership of the United States, such costs should be approximately 1 billion dollars a week. These funds are planned to be spent on certain special operations abroad.

Then L. Thompson addresses the security topic of the United States itself. First of all, the question of a hypothetical nuclear missile strike from Russia is raised. Russia, the author recalls, has approximately 1600 nuclear warheads and their means of delivery. Even a small fraction of such an arsenal in the event of an impact can damage the country's energy systems, financial structures, and even the entire economy as a whole. L. Thompson asks the question: how much money does B. Obama's team plan to spend on protecting the US from the Russian nuclear threat?

The author of the article immediately gives the answer: not a cent. Official Washington has no such plans. At the same time, we all know perfectly well that most of the Russian missiles are aimed specifically at objects of the United States. In addition, relations between Russia and the United States are spoiled, which further aggravates the situation in the field of nuclear weapons.

L. Thompson is particularly worried about recent events in the international arena, as well as new information about last year’s events. The author recalls that in the recently shown documentary film on the annexation of the Crimea, Russian President Vladimir Putin spoke about some of the plans and intentions that had existed before. Among other things, the Russian leadership was ready for the worst case scenario, including the possibility of bringing strategic nuclear forces on high alert. At the same time, L. Thompson notes that the exact meaning of the term “increased combat readiness” in the context of Russian nuclear weapons raises certain questions, since it is known that the Russian nuclear forces, even in peacetime, are constantly ready for combat work and fulfillment of orders to strike at the specified targets .

However, in the article The US Has No Defense Against A Russian Nuclear Attack. Really. It is not Russia's intentions that are being considered, but the current situation in the United States. We are talking about the absence of any means of protection against a nuclear missile strike. At the moment, nuclear weapons are the only threat created by man and capable of destroying the United States at any time. L. Thompson proposes to submit to the reader that his friends and relatives were killed or injured, and the survivors were left without shelter and livelihood, and this happens not in the distant future, but tomorrow. Russia, the author recalls, has the opportunity to arrange a similar catastrophe. The United States, in turn, does not have the means of protection against Russian intercontinental ballistic missiles.

This situation does not suit anyone. Throughout stories countries sought to ensure their safety. Thus, the launch of the first artificial satellite of the Earth, made by the USSR in 1957, forced the US military to start building anti-missile defense systems. Nevertheless, the threat from the Soviet Union did not diminish - by the 1970s, the main adversary of the United States had about 40 thousand of different types of nuclear weapons. By this time, Washington had begun not only to develop means of protection, but also to try to slow down the arms race.

L. Thompson recalls that in 1972, two superpowers signed the Treaty on the Limitation of Anti-Ballistic Missile Systems. In fact, Washington had to sacrifice the defense of its country in order to slow down the pace of the arms race. However, such a slowdown did not mean a complete cessation of military buildup. Countries retained the possibility of destroying each other, but did not have a similar desire. It was believed that a potential aggressor, understanding the consequences of a retaliatory strike, would not risk and unleash a nuclear war.

In the future, the two countries agreed to reduce their arsenals. Began utilization of nuclear warheads and their means of delivery. A large number of weapons were removed from weapons, but the overall situation remained the same. Russia, like several decades ago, has the ability to cause unacceptably great damage to the United States. L. Thompson believes that this situation in the international arena will not change in the future. The fact is that Moscow does not trust Washington, and nuclear weapons are still the only available means for it to attain superpower status.

The author of the article The US Has No Defense Against A Russian Nuclear Attack. Really. Recalls that some US leaders, such as President Ronald Reagan, understood the complexity of the situation. The probability of mutual annihilation stopped countries from aggression, but such a system was associated with certain risks. Thus, in the existing situation there were no mechanisms of protection against “irrational” opponents, and besides, the system was not protected from accidents with disastrous consequences. Finally, nuclear weapons could not be used effectively in the event of a malfunction or damage to the control system. At the same time, there was an understanding that during a confrontation, similar to the Caribbean crisis of 1962, there was a high risk of incorrect assessments and decisions that could have the most unpleasant consequences. When nuclear forces are ready for combat, even the best leaders are not immune to mistakes.

When R. Reagan went some work in the field of missile defense, but the end of the Cold War led to the reduction of such projects. It was believed that the collapse of the Soviet Union significantly reduces the possible risks for the United States, because of which you can not spend budget money to develop new, complex and expensive projects. The interest in missile defense was not great until the end of the reign of Bill Clinton. Later, under George W. Bush, the likelihood of the appearance of nuclear weapons in the DPRK became a pretext for the resumption of work. In addition, at the same time the United States withdrew from the ABM Treaty, which did not allow to implement all the existing plans. L. Thompson notes that at that time Russian nuclear weapons were not the main reason for the development of anti-missile systems.

Further, the author examines recent developments in the field of missile defense relating to the period of Barack Obama’s rule. The administration of the latter was of the same opinion as the previous Democratic presidents. A promising missile defense system was called too complicated, extremely expensive and capable of destabilizing the military-political situation in the world. Until last year’s events in Ukraine, official Washington considered it necessary to continue to reduce nuclear arsenals and to support the missile defense system that protects the west coast of the country from possible attacks by North Korea. In the case of Russia, it was considered sufficient to have a certain number of missiles necessary for retaliation and deterrence.

The US continues to hold back Russia with the help of its “nuclear triad” - land-based missiles, submarines and bombers. Russia's strategic nuclear forces are the main threat to US security, and the strategy of deterrence in this case fully justifies itself. However, according to L. Thompson, all existing nuclear arsenals of the United States under certain circumstances may be useless. In the current situation, the US military is unable to intercept Russian intercontinental missiles. Their potential is only enough to strike back, which, however, does not reduce their own losses.

The existing US missile defense system can counter the North Korean threat, since the DPRK does not yet have a large number of missiles. If necessary, it is capable of intercepting Russian missiles, but with a mass launch, Russia is guaranteed to break through all existing lines of defense. Thus, L. Thompson sums up, the United States can detect the launch of Russian missiles and respond with a similar blow, but is unable to protect itself against enemy nuclear warheads.

Such a strategic myopia, according to the author of the publication The US Has No Defense Against the Russian Nuclear Attack. Really, in the end can lead to disastrous consequences. The United States needs an echeloned missile defense system that can counteract Russian ballistic missiles. Such a system should, if not completely destroy all missile strikes, then, at a minimum, prevent damage from a limited strike resulting from any error. L. Thompson believes that such a system should be implemented as a network of land, sea and space tools that can attack the detected targets several times. Thus, with the existence of three echelons with an efficiency of work at the level of 80%, the probability of even a single combat unit breaking through is extremely small.

It is noted that the construction of such a missile defense system will be extremely expensive. However, L. Thompson proposes to compare the cost of this program with the costs of "hopeless cases" like Afghanistan and Iraq. Even the accelerated deployment of missile defense systems should be significantly cheaper. In addition, the cost of building a missile defense system fades against the background of damage that a potential adversary can cause. It is assumed that only a couple of Russian nuclear warheads can cause damage equal to the cost of building the necessary missile defense.

Lauren Thompson is not the first time raising the issue of protecting the United States from third-party nuclear missiles. As an employee of several scientific organizations, he deals with issues of strategic security and actively supports the idea of ​​building a full-fledged echeloned missile defense system capable of protecting the US territory from nuclear missile strikes.

A characteristic feature of the article The US Has No Defense Against A Russian Nuclear Attack. Really. is the fact that behind the loud heading in it are quite obvious things. Indeed, the current level of development of anti-missile systems does not allow even the leading countries of the world to reflect a massive nuclear missile strike, which uses a large number of intercontinental ballistic missiles with a divided head and means to overcome missile defense. For this reason, as L. Thompson rightly notes, the United States cannot effectively intercept missiles and can only strike a similar retaliatory strike.

Over the past years, L. Thompson has regularly urged the country's leadership to review plans for the development of missile defense, the capabilities of which should be consistent with existing threats and risks. Nevertheless, the next publication is unlikely to affect the intentions of the country's leadership. The implementation of existing plans, which probably will not be significantly adjusted, is underway. Therefore, one should not expect that even in the distant future, the United States will have a missile defense system corresponding to the expectations of L. Thompson.


Article The US Has No Defense Against A Russian Nuclear Attack. Really .:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/lorenthompson/2015/03/20/the-u-s-has-no-defense-against-a-russian-nuclear-attack-really/
Author:
21 comment
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. vglazunov
    vglazunov 27 March 2015 05: 19
    +7
    There is no reception against scrap, there will be no winners when the nuclear winter comes on planet Earth.
    1. subbtin.725
      subbtin.725 27 March 2015 05: 35
      +5
      So, a little distraction.
    2. The comment was deleted.
    3. Starover_Z
      Starover_Z 27 March 2015 21: 45
      0
      Comrades, yes, he, this Mr. Lorena Thompson is just Maniac !
      current situation in the USA. We are talking about the absence of any means of protection against a nuclear missile strike. At the moment, nuclear weapons are the only threat created by man and capable of destroying the United States at any time.

      The states are white and fluffy, and the rest are all mad and only the ocean saves from an imminent attack!
      So build your missile defense on your continent, and do not place it on another continent!
      1. ACKiPaPa,
        ACKiPaPa, 27 March 2015 22: 59
        +2
        Comrades, yes, he, this Mr. Lorena Thompson is simply a Maniac!
        quote "starover-z"
        Why, dear? In reality - no, now, the opportunity to attack the "states" without nuclear weapons ... Or do you think they will allow a huge convoy with a landing party to swim to them, move on the ice of the Bering Strait, and they will be the first to blow it up "regardless of the collateral damage"; and they will be right.
        Axiom - any military clash with the USA (not local "sandbox games") - direct confrontation; it is a "nuclear conflict"; with all the "charms" accompanying it, and we must understand this, and their weakness is our strength. They care about themselves: "PRO- to help them"; OUR BUSINESS IS TO MAKE IT USELESS !!!
  2. subbtin.725
    subbtin.725 27 March 2015 05: 45
    +3
    Rogozin D.O.

    QUOTE:
    “No country in the world can create a missile defense (ABM) system that would give it a sense of impunity.

    According to him, the emergence of a missile defense system could upset the strategic balance. Rogozin called the very idea of ​​missile defense an illusion, "no matter what money is invested in it. Precisely because we will never allow it to be created."

    In his microblog, the Deputy Prime Minister added: "We will make holes in this fence".
    This is not our choice! "- he noted.
  3. saag
    saag 27 March 2015 06: 49
    +3
    So the Russian Federation does not have, there is a "security belt" around Moscow, and that's all, if a blow is struck at nuclear power plants, hydroelectric power plants, oil and gas fields and industrial regions, there is no sense from it, because after the loss of the above facilities, the country will not be at all
  4. qwert
    qwert 27 March 2015 07: 11
    +7
    “By this time, Washington began not only to develop means of defense, but also to try to slow down the arms race. L. Thompson recalls that in 1972 the two superpowers signed the Treaty on the Limitation of Anti-Ballistic Missile Systems. In fact, Washington had to sacrifice the defense of its country to slow down the pace of the race. weapons. "- funny)))) laughing laughing laughing
    The white and fluffy USA is against an arms race that it has begun and has actively supported. Oh well. And the USSR, an evil contempt, after the war, instead of thinking about restoring the destroyed cities, began an arms race.
    The Americans, as always, exactly the opposite, all that they say
    1. Samarin
      Samarin 27 March 2015 08: 58
      +1
      Quote: qwert
      The Americans, as always, exactly the opposite, all that they say

      yes, this is their tradition, and, moreover, the tendency to lie and turn the "upside down" is inherent in the very basis of the Anglo-Saxon language
  5. Hubun
    Hubun 27 March 2015 07: 35
    +2
    God forbid, there will be no winners in a nuclear war, kirdyk to everyone. It’s better to hang them in the old fashioned fashion.
    1. sharp-lad
      sharp-lad 28 March 2015 02: 23
      0
      According to new data, not everything is so simple! Nuclear weapons can be compared with catastrophic eruptions of volcanoes, although the power of some eruptions clearly exceeds the power of accumulated nuclear weapons, the effect of radiation has a time-limited effect measured only in tens of years, not hundreds, in addition, nuclear weapons will be used localized, rather than in areas, secondary vryatli effects can become global (such as a split of the globe into pieces), which in reality leaves shants to a person, as a species, for survival.
      1. Moore
        Moore 30 March 2015 11: 03
        0
        Quote: sharp-lad
        ... that in reality leaves shanty to man, as a species, for survival.

        Yeah, somewhere near the Barrier Reef and Polynesia.

        Quote: sharp-lad
        ..in addition, nuclear weapons will be used localized, and not over the areas ...

        Yes, it is localized within the positional area of ​​missile divisions - and this is just a couple hundred thousand square kilometers in total. I’m not talking about hitting the cities at all - these are practically pin shots.
        And the military chemists thought up a trace from the spread of the radioactive cloud in general for importance.
        Fallout in Mozyr after Chernobyl? No, have not heard.
  6. nemez1968
    nemez1968 27 March 2015 07: 45
    +1
    We will always find opposition to all their actions.
  7. Crown
    Crown 27 March 2015 07: 55
    0
    Perhaps our new missile, Rubezh, will be installed on the newly created BZHRK.
  8. lotar
    lotar 27 March 2015 08: 41
    +1
    This specialist forgot who used atomic weapons for the first time, and who often starts conflicts. As they say, one cannot see one's eyesore.
  9. Samarin
    Samarin 27 March 2015 08: 55
    0
    relations between Russia and the United States are spoiled, which further worsens the situation in the field of nuclear weapons

    What, piss, creatures?
    Russia's nuclear forces, even in peacetime, are constantly ready for combat work and the implementation of orders to strike at these targets

    bully
  10. Stiletto
    Stiletto 27 March 2015 09: 20
    +3
    Quite the Yankees ofonareli. They talk about some kind of "containment" of Russia - it's amazing to hear from rabid dogs that have eaten half of the world. And they dream about how to protect their skin - it is uncomfortable for them, you see, to live under constant sight. That is, they want to continue to shit, but they do not want to be responsible for it.
  11. bolat19640303
    bolat19640303 27 March 2015 09: 46
    +1
    There will be no winners in a nuclear war. Unacceptable damage caused in response to the aggressor country will be catastrophic. Yes, not only her - the whole world. The only right way out is to reduce nuclear weapons. However, Russia is in the ring of the military bases of the likely enemy, the only measure to prevent aggression is the threat of using nuclear weapons to defend the country. So far in the world such a situation for Russia there is no other way than the buildup and modernization of nuclear weapons.
  12. Makarov
    Makarov 27 March 2015 14: 27
    -1
    everything is logical. they protected themselves from such a development of events and missiles aimed at their cities by bribing officials in Russia ... therefore, in this regard, security should be sought in other expense items ...
  13. Selevc
    Selevc 27 March 2015 17: 39
    0
    Nuclear weapons are far from a guarantee of peace, as it was customary to think - they protect only from global war - the current situation shows that conventional weapons are no less deadly than nuclear ones - but certainly not as effective in use ... An ordinary protracted small or medium war without nuclear weapons it is capable of taking the number of lives no less than a local nuclear conflict, but certainly not immediately, but over a certain period of time ...
    The only serious deterrent reason for which nuclear weapons have not yet been used is that it was used for a very long time in just one historical episode. And nuclear clubs are all formalities or dummies while there are countries that are not part of them ...
    America, in favor of every possible limitation of the spread of nuclear weapons, actually spurs its spread through its wars ... Since serious countries understand that ONLY nuclear weapons are guaranteed protection against the open invasion of strong countries (primarily the United States, of course) ... North Korea is the clearest example .. .
    Therefore, many countries, if they have not yet created their own Nuclear Bomb, have probably already bought it, either contain foreign nuclear weapons carriers on their territory or built Nuclear Power Plants or reactors that make it easy to get nuclear weapons or at least a Dirty Bomb that is no less dangerous than nuclear weapons ...
  14. The comment was deleted.
  15. P. Yaroslav
    P. Yaroslav 28 March 2015 00: 33
    0
    The United States continues to restrain Russia with its "nuclear triad" - ground-based missiles, submarines and bombers. Russia's strategic nuclear forces are the main threat to US security, and the deterrence strategy in this case is fully justified
    As always .... RUSSIA is holding back! RUSSIA is the main threat to US security !!! And the United States does not threaten security at all !!! the world! If not for ours
    “Enhanced combat readiness” in the context of Russian nuclear weapons
    it’s scary to imagine how the world map would look .... Initiated countless conflicts, just to distract from the public debt and somehow block it, and the main threat is Russia ...
  16. alex-cn
    alex-cn 28 March 2015 09: 30
    0
    And in my opinion, this article is, to a large extent, intended to pump money to further finance missile defense.
  17. vfifrjdf95
    vfifrjdf95 30 March 2015 16: 16
    0
    Apparently they are afraid of Russia, like fire! It’s not for you to bomb Iraq !!!!!
  18. Denobstar
    Denobstar 30 June 2015 15: 58
    0
    It is necessary to create a missile defense system based on S-500 missiles, based on the Severodvinsk nuclear submarine. One nuclear submarine must carry 30 such missiles. The strategy is as follows: nuclear submarines are on duty in the Atlantic and in the Pacific Ocean at northern latitudes, as well as under the ice of the Arctic Ocean. At a certain moment, the nuclear submarines come to the surface and are already ready for defense. With the installation of the S-500 missile defense system on the nuclear submarine, two tasks are solved:
    1. Guaranteed destruction of the charges of the probable enemy at the top point.
    2. The ABM complex on the nuclear submarines has sufficient mobility and is not tied to the conditions of international law; it can be covertly located anywhere in the oceans.
  19. Old26
    Old26 4 July 2015 17: 27
    +1
    Quote: Denobstar
    It is necessary to create a missile defense system based on S-500 missiles, based on the Severodvinsk nuclear submarine. One nuclear submarine must carry 30 such missiles. The strategy is as follows: nuclear submarines are on duty in the Atlantic and in the Pacific Ocean at northern latitudes, as well as under the ice of the Arctic Ocean. At some point, the nuclear submarines come to the surface and are already ready for defense.

    To defense from what? From polar bears to the Arctic Ocean? Just don’t understand what defense it will be ready for in the Pacific

    Quote: Denobstar
    With the installation of the S-500 missile defense system on a nuclear submarine, two tasks are solved: 1. Guaranteed destruction of probable enemy charges at the top point.

    Guaranteed destruction of ballistic missile charges? Intercontinental? At the top point? Fresh, very fresh ....

    Quote: Denobstar
    2. The ABM complex on the nuclear submarines has sufficient mobility and is not tied to the conditions of international law; it can be covertly located anywhere in the oceans.

    Exactly.
    a) Has sufficient mobility.
    b) Not tied to the conditions of international law. And what laws should he be attached to
    c) Can really secretly placed anywhere in the oceans. May not even surface. For it is superfluous. The sense of it is zero integers and zero, zero, zero ... millionths
  20. MrCollins
    MrCollins 30 July 2016 16: 34
    0
    Do they need this missile defense? The United States has its own course - to throw on each country its own "lasso" and missile defense is not necessary.