Will the US achieve a decisive strategic advantage over Russia?

Will the US achieve a decisive strategic advantage over Russia?The signing by the Americans of agreements with Turkey and Romania on the establishment of bases for American missile defense in these countries once again showed that Washington, stepping up the pace of building this global system, stubbornly refuses to take into account Russia's interests. Since the time of Reagan, who proposed the “star wars” program to defeat the “evil empire,” the US has been trying to achieve a one-sided advantage in a strategic confrontation with Russia ...


Although it would seem that a unilateral advantage in a nuclear-missile conflict is a chimera. No missile defense system guarantees the aggressor at least from a weakened retaliatory strike, threatening unacceptable damage. It would seem that the atmosphere of feverish preparation for a nuclear war has scattered, the world has entered a new development trajectory, and the Americans continue to work on missile defense, which is a component of nuclear war.

According to the statements of the US administration, these systems are being built in order to repel a possible attack from the "rogue" - Iran, North Korea and possibly Syria (?!). Without going into details of the geography of the deployment of American launchers, we note the main thing: the West will never allow these states to acquire their own nuclear weapons. weapons. There were no threats to America from these states, and the United States is playing a political performance against them, while taking steps towards encircling Russia with more and more effective missile defense systems.

According to the US Missile Defense Agency, the US missile defense system already includes facilities located in North America, Europe and the Far East, and by the year 2013 will count:

- 4 early warning radar: Cobra Dane (Island Chemia, Aleutian Islands); Beale (California); Fylingdales (UK); Thule (Greenland, Denmark);

- Sea-based SBX radar deployed in the Pacific Ocean in the Alaska region;

- radar forward-based FBX-T on the island of Honshu (Japan);

- 16 ground-based anti-missile missiles, of which 13 is in Fort Greely (Alaska) and 2 is at Vandenberg Air Base (California);

- 16 cruisers and destroyers of the Aegis system, equipped with a total of 18 SM-3 antimissiles and deployed in the Pacific Ocean and the Mediterranean Sea;

- Patriot anti-missile systems (PAC-3).

Before 2013, the ABM system will be expanded, and by this time the United States will have:

- 5 radar early warning, covering the entire Northern hemisphere (regions of deployment - Alaska, California, Greenland, UK, Central Europe);

- 4 radar sea-based SBX in the Pacific;

- 1 radar forward-based FBX-T (Japan);

- 54 ground-based anti-missiles (44 - in the USA, 10 - in Eastern Europe);

- 4 complex THAAD (task - the destruction of ballistic missiles at the stage of decline), equipped with a total of 96 antimissiles;

- up to 100 sea-based antimissile SM-2 (task - the destruction of ballistic missiles in the middle segment of the trajectory);

- 132 anti-missiles SM-3 (task - the destruction of ballistic missiles with a range of up to 3 thousand. Km in the middle segment of the trajectory).

The spaceborne early warning system for ballistic missile launches SBIRS is implemented in the 2-echelon version. It allows you to register missile launches through 40-50 seconds after launch and determine the flight path on the active segment.

In November, 2004, the Edwards (California) airbase, conducted the first test of the AL-1 air-based combat laser. The Americans began work on the creation of a combat air-based laser back in the 1980s. within the framework of the PIO (Strategic Defense Initiative - Strategic Defense Initiative). Back in 1983, tests were conducted on the use of such a laser against air-to-air missiles. In the future, the efforts of the Americans were focused on the development of more powerful ground-based lasers that would allow the destruction of flying ballistic missiles.

It is currently planned to include air-based combat lasers in the missile defense system being built. A squadron of aircraft equipped with these weapons must be dispersed throughout the world and be in constant readiness for takeoff to intercept and destroy launched ballistic missiles even before the moment of separation of the warheads from them.

Also tested the system NCDE (Net-Centric Airborne Defense Element), designed for quick guidance of unmanned vehicles and fighters on launching ballistic missiles.

By the year 2013, therefore, the United States will complete the next stage of creating a missile defense system, which, along with a multi-level space reconnaissance system and a radar network encircling Russia, will consist approximately of 500 ballistic interceptor missiles, not including the Patriot missile system. However, in this case, according to Russian military experts, the Americans will not be able to repel a retaliatory strike. Russia has the strength and means to overcome the American missile defense system, the country is working to improve the penetrating ability of the missiles. That is, nothing guarantees America from unacceptable damage in the event of a nuclear war, and the question arises: what then are the real goals for the United States to create this system?

The answer to the question leads to the following conclusions:

1. US missile defense is not intended for use in a nuclear missile war. We are dealing with long-term strategic planning, which provides for a radical weakening of Russia's nuclear missile potential to an extent that would eliminate the exchange of nuclear strikes.

2. According to American estimates, the military-economic potential of the Russian Federation can (should) after about 20 years weaken so much that the country will not be able to maintain its strategic defenses at the proper level. The further the Russian nuclear missile potential degrades, the more the American missile defense system will develop.

Washington’s main goal in this long-term policy is to do everything possible to gain an advantage over the Russian Federation in a strategic confrontation again. In the case of the solution of this task by the Americans, a possible strategic clash will not look the way it was previously thought. For the United States again, as in the 50-ies of the twentieth century, there is the temptation of a surprise attack on the Russian Federation. How realistic is the emergence of such intentions in Washington?

Recall history. Stalin had every reason not to believe that Hitler would attack the USSR in 1941. Germany had already waged war with England, in the Balkans, in Greece and North Africa. German military-technical capabilities were at the limit. Armed with a lot of obsolete artillery and weak tanks. The Red Army outnumbered the Wehrmacht in number and quantity of equipment, the human reserves of the two sides were not comparable. Sound reasoning, only an idiot could attack the USSR. And yet Hitler, being a reckless adventurer, decided to attack. Chimerical ideas about the superiority of the German spirit and Russian subhuman played a cruel joke with him. Hitler's decision was fundamentally wrong, but it took place and cost humanity countless sacrifices. Remembering the American tragedy of 9/11, we have the right to ask ourselves: aren't the invisible forces that organized this tragedy psychologically not the same cruel adventurers? Aren't they obsessed with myths about their own superiority over all of humanity? We simply have no right to exclude that one day they will come to the idea of ​​aggression against Russia.

In this situation, the Russian strategic forces could be beheaded not by a nuclear attack. A sudden attack of hundreds of hypersonic cruise missiles with penetrating warheads from all directions will destroy the remaining Russian strategic open and closed-base missiles. The calculation is made by the fact that through the 15-20 years, the Americans will create cruise missiles that will be invisible and unattainable for Russian air defense.

The US missile defense system being created today will serve as a guarantee in case any Russian launchers survive and can launch a return volley. And then satellite laser systems will finish off these carriers at the moment of launch. The rest of the missile defense system will be on guard, identifying broken missiles that have entered the combat trajectory. They will be destroyed in space, if possible without explosive warheads, to prevent serious contamination of the environment.

Remaining realistic, we must ask ourselves: why is the US so stubbornly trying to get its base fleet in the Sevastopol? Is it because the Black Sea and Central Russia have a flat surface like a table that allows hundreds of hypersonic cruise missiles to go overhead to Russian strategic targets, overcoming missile defense that is not capable of fighting low-flying targets?

In the US, the forces that allow the possibility of eliminating Russia from the map of the world have not gone away. Such a thought does not look at all seditious, if only because the Pentagon’s documents of the mid-50-s are declassified, among them the Dropshot plan, which provided for the 300 nuclear bombardment of the largest Soviet cities.

The tragedy of 9 / 11 showed that the children and grandchildren of the authors of the Dropshot plan remain in power and are engaged in long-term planning covering entire eras in the development of weapons. And each next US administration, regardless of its party affiliation, is moving further and further towards the desired goal - achieving a decisive strategic advantage over Russia ... True, life is wiser than the calculations of backstage forces and it is not yet known what they will do.
Ctrl Enter

Noticed a mistake Highlight text and press. Ctrl + Enter

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

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Vadivak 29 September 2011 08: 38 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    Will the US achieve a decisive strategic advantage over Russia?


    The heading is incomprehensible if everything in the country is converted to dollars about which more strategic advantage in question?
  2. Banshee 29 September 2011 09: 06 New
    • 2
    • 0
    +2
    No, that's it.
    The decisive advantage is when the Pindos will not ask any answer to any question.
    Of the two points, the conclusion suggests itself:

    "1. US missile defense is not intended for use in a nuclear missile war. We are dealing with a long-term strategic planning, which provides for a radical weakening of Russia's nuclear missile potential to a degree that would eliminate the exchange of nuclear strikes."

    Naturally, the most secure mode in which you can not be afraid of retaliation.

    Counteraction: and if there are SO MANY missiles, that the missile defense system will not intercept stupid? Or SUCH on TTX, that missile defense, too, can not cope?
    Normal option.
    Conclusion: START-3 fucking up.

    "2. According to American estimates, the military-economic potential of the Russian Federation can (should) after about 20 years weaken so much that the country will not be able to maintain its strategic defenses at the appropriate level. The further the Russian nuclear missile potential degrades, the more the American PRO. "

    Well, that's better. I mean, what if 20 doesn't fall apart in years? And if you do not faint? What then? Maybe / should - know this, that is still a forecast.
    No, the states need to rely on this, because in the other case, they donated money for the missile defense system in vain.
    1. von_Richten
      von_Richten 29 September 2011 12: 21 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      The probability of fulfillment of the second paragraph is more than real.
      1. Varnaga 29 September 2011 12: 43 New
        • -1
        • 0
        -1
        According to the second point, the further the journal will degrade in its development, the sooner it will be in a madhouse.
        What is it real, dear?
        The fact that they are on combat duty RS-24, and the Pacific Fleet is preparing to accept 3 RPKSN pr.955? I realized that I blurted out?
        1. von_Richten
          von_Richten 29 September 2011 15: 14 New
          • -1
          • 0
          -1
          The fact that the party "Eat Russia" is in power
          Yes, 5-10 pieces of each type of high-tech weapons can significantly affect the state of things.
          1. Varnaga 29 September 2011 19: 06 New
            • -2
            • 0
            -2
            "high-tech weapons"
            RT-2PM2: in silos-52 pcs., PGRK: 18 pcs.
            RS-24: 2 divisions (hello wiki)
            R-30 (will be adopted shortly), with the introduction of 3 SSBNs: 16 + 16 + 20 = 52 pcs.
            Question, are you out of your mind?
            Further, do not remind what Amers have with Trident and Minitem? However, you can not answer, one idea with bases in the Arctic suggests that the author is a complete zero.
            1. von_Richten
              von_Richten 29 September 2011 21: 07 New
              • 1
              • 0
              +1
              We are fighting in a civilized manner, led by the minister-furniture maker, yeah. Sharks for scrapping, AKP to India, AN-94 in special units, TU-160 are not doing new.
              A missile umbrella is only over Moscow, they just forget about medium-range missiles in Europe that reach us, but only Zamkady will come to an end. Cool same.
              And yes, do you still think that they will be operational by the deadline? By that time, the entire military-industrial complex would rather be completely bent than rise from the grave. Now we can do something else, but "the farther into the forest, the worse with tractors"
              1. Varnaga 29 September 2011 22: 33 New
                • 0
                • 0
                0
                And what, is there any justified need for the nuclear submarines pr.941, born as a result of a mistake by the senior leadership of the USSR? Or a noob, the more powerful, the cooler? What about the crane facilities at the bases?
                In general, before profaning on a topic like “We don’t do TU-160,” you need to think about the meaning of the “necessary and sufficient” sentence.
                Further, no missile defense system can provide cover for a given area during a massive strike. In particular, the A-135 (march on Wiki) is designed to intercept a single ICBM or with a limited number of ICBM strike. Pinds don't even have that.
                Further, the INF Treaty was eliminated even under an agreement between the USSR and the USA, the noob does not even know this, what a mischief.
                Do you know the timing? Wow) the military-industrial complex will bend only in the head of such asshole players (and not justified by anything) like you, noob.
                You already crap with 5-6 pieces (I’m sure that you’re completely unaware of such a concept as “unacceptable damage”), so come on, burn on. Returning to the topic of TU-160, I will even throw an idea. For what tasks was the Pindo B1B developed and what is happening to it now?
                1. Marat
                  Marat 29 September 2011 23: 23 New
                  • 0
                  • 0
                  0
                  I share the opinion of Varnagi! Even without the coming to power of the Communists, the current government will not allow a critical weakening of the Syas components — they are not their own enemies — on the contrary, we all see that steps are being taken to strengthen the military-industrial complex and Syas and unite the 3 republics — we will not be easy prey like Iraq, etc. - and pendosy will not risk it. The main thing is not to relax and continue
                  1. von_Richten
                    von_Richten 30 September 2011 05: 19 New
                    • 1
                    • 0
                    +1
                    Like Iraq or Libya is unlikely, of course, but in case of war, who will fight? Here the rule "My hut from the edge - I know nothing" will apply.
                2. von_Richten
                  von_Richten 30 September 2011 05: 13 New
                  • 1
                  • 0
                  +1
                  Propaganda, it is like that in Africa (remember Ferdinand).
                  We need a BIG army with modern weapons (the length of the borders of the kagbe hints).
                  ABM is also more of a propaganda step.
                  Yeah, only they are a little differently eliminated.
                  + NATO allies without missiles (even just deployed)? Good, yes.
                  Many, many plants are already resting.
                  See the first line. And under the same, sho and TU-160, modernized.
                  1. Varnaga 30 September 2011 06: 38 New
                    • -1
                    • 0
                    -1
                    I agree, propaganda is such propaganda. Only in your case, Pindo.
                    In general, I do not see the point of further discussion with a noob, I gave a chance with the TU-160, but you crap here too.
                    B1Bs were developed as highly specialized carriers of cruise missiles, under the very specific situation of the “vulnerability window” of Soviet air defense in the Arctic region. However, the Soviet response in the form of MIG-25 turned out to be much more effective, so much so that the B1B did not receive its cruise missiles. Hehe, about the modernization again ridiculed it when they tried to remake under 84 MK.82? but here is a bummer, to reset it is necessary to switch to subsonic speed, which again deprives him of all the advantages.
  3. lokdok
    lokdok 29 September 2011 09: 14 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    One of the missile defense goals is of course Russia, but it is a long-term scenario with an unknown ending. And another goal - now every mongrel that has acquired a pair of missiles with nuclear warheads can show off in front of the United States - an example with. Korea - it is necessary that the colonies remain colonies.
    1. PSih2097 29 September 2011 12: 44 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      And another goal - now every mongrel that has acquired a pair of missiles with nuclear warheads can show off in front of the United States - an example with. Korea - it is necessary that the colonies remain colonies.

      Mongrels do not have YaB; mongrels usually hide behind the back of a strong and yap - Poland, Baltic states, Georgia, etc. Because the mongrel with nuclear weapons - already pulls on a mutton ...
  4. DEfindER 29 September 2011 10: 23 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    I just don’t understand what sense it is for them to protect themselves from a retaliatory strike if, in the event of a nuclear bombardment of the territory of Russia, such an ecological catastrophe ensues that even shatans don't seem enough. Although the Japanese survived .. so of course there is some sense.
  5. Varnaga 29 September 2011 11: 15 New
    • -2
    • 0
    -2
    another journalist, oh my gosh ... About lasers, too, it delivered me, even Geitz rejected this next epic cut of budget money, however, the imagination of our journalist still seems to be impressed by star wars.
  6. Styx
    Styx 29 September 2011 11: 46 New
    • -2
    • 0
    -2
    I wonder where the data on the number, type and location of American missiles come from? Not from the ceiling by accident ??? We need normal sources. For example, when I indicated in the diploma the combat and numerical strength of the units under study, I pointed out the historical source - TsAMO of the Russian Federation and then the fund - an inventory of the case sheet.
    I do not really believe all these numbers.
  7. von_Richten
    von_Richten 29 September 2011 12: 19 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    It is necessary to build the Strategic Missile Forces bases in the Arctic under the ice. It is only a pity that no one will deal with this in the current state of affairs.
    1. Varnaga 29 September 2011 12: 44 New
      • -3
      • 0
      -3
      The Strategic Missile Forces bases in the Arctic under the ice, it's five! Isn't the author of the article a comment?
      1. von_Richten
        von_Richten 29 September 2011 15: 15 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        Dear, if you normally build and design, then this is not from the field of NF.
        1. Varnaga 29 September 2011 18: 56 New
          • -3
          • 0
          -3
          Hmm ... it's probably a clinic ...
          1. von_Richten
            von_Richten 29 September 2011 20: 48 New
            • 0
            • 0
            0
            facepalm.gif
        2. APASUS 29 September 2011 19: 09 New
          • -1
          • 0
          -1
          Quote: von_Richten
          Dear, if you normally build and design, then this is not from the field of NF.

          What is the price of this object? Build a base on the moon will be comparable in value!
          1. von_Richten
            von_Richten 29 September 2011 20: 53 New
            • 0
            • 0
            0
            The Arctic or satellites (as in one American film: with 6-8 vigorous warheads over the UWB territory) are MUCH cheaper than building a full-fledged base on the Moon.
            1. APASUS 30 September 2011 17: 47 New
              • 0
              • 0
              0
              Do not be mistaken dear!
              People in space were an order of magnitude larger than at the bottom of the Mariana Trench! The tragedy with the Kursk boat showed that we can’t save people from 100 meters depth, and building a strategic missile base under the ice of the Arctic is a bluff! On like the "Star Wars" under Reagan!
  8. forma2 29 September 2011 12: 36 New
    • -1
    • 0
    -1
    the point is not in the scientific and technological achievements of individual states, but in their actions at the world theater of events (military economic political ...)
    In this sense, the Yankees conduct a totalitarian-imperialist poitika using all the means and tools that they own.
    Their past = their presence, their absence = their defeat.
    Like glosty in a dupe !!!
  9. zczczc
    zczczc 29 September 2011 13: 04 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    Duc achieved a long time ago, what are we talking about? We snapped, we now have one way - to persuade everyone to abandon the dollar. But for this you need to become a power that exports ideas. And the main idea among all is that we should be a model of justice and truth within the country.
  10. ars_pro 29 September 2011 15: 07 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    the United States will not get away from us anywhere, and missile defense will not help them =)
  11. Motherland
    Motherland 29 September 2011 19: 14 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    Of course it won’t help. How many tried to defeat Russia? I think if there is a war then the United States will simply repeat the fate of Germany
  12. Kyrgyz 29 September 2011 20: 16 New
    • -2
    • 0
    -2
    The article of paranoid, technical characteristics of weapons of course plays an important but not the only and not always decisive role, missile defense is a good thing, but what about submarines that are more and more agile? our missiles are also smaller and faster, and do not forget about the biological weapons that will go into play in such a total scenario, the US arms program is a system that cut their budget according to the type of our current is more serious.
  13. raf
    raf 30 September 2011 14: 39 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    And I even like that Pindos are developing their missile defense! This is such an expensive thing, moreover, it is not so effective! Let them invest money in it, but more! You look and tear yourself! So their budget is bursting!