Russia and the United States. Continuing the cold war?

Russia and the United States. Continuing the cold war?

The problem of protection against a missile strike arose after the attacks of German FAA missiles on London in 1944.

After considering possible methods of defense against a missile attack, the use of anti-missile systems was recognized as a real method of protection.

It was generally recognized that the creation of an effective missile defense system by any nuclear power gave it the opportunity to carry out plans for the destruction of the enemy with impunity. Therefore, simultaneously with the deployment of anti-missile defense weapons, negotiations were held to limit the area of ​​cover, which would be a deterrent against a nuclear attack by any of the parties.

And although developments in the field of defense served as a catalyst in the development of the scientific and technical potential of countries, but at the same time they placed a heavy burden on the economies of states.

At all stages of negotiations between US leaders and first Soviet and then Russian leaders on reducing the missile defense system, distrust prevented the development of a mutually acceptable position.

Distrust was caused by the following considerations:

- The Russian side was constantly in the role of catching up in the field of developing missile defense hardware (recall President Reagan’s proposal to develop a program of "star wars");

- the constant combat readiness of the missile arsenal of the two countries in the counter-retaliatory strike mode - this leads to the need to maintain a balance between the defense system and the strategic nuclear forces of each of the parties;

- The United States believes that Russia is the only country that has an arsenal capable of destroying America;

- When discussing the joint creation of anti-missile defense systems, the US side demands that the management of this single system be transferred to it, which does not suit Russia.

Plans to deploy missile defense systems on the territory of Poland, Romania, Bulgaria, Israel, Turkey and the Czech Republic are part of a new US strategy to form the missile defense layer closest to the Russian borders, which violates the existing strategic balance of forces.

In order to fulfill this US strategy, the North Atlantic Alliance’s defense ministers decided to deploy four warships at a military base in Spain, which will be part of the US missile defense system in Europe. This means that Madrid also joins the missile defense system. Cruisers are equipped not only with radars, but also with CM-3 antimissiles, controlled by Aegis systems. This system not only manages anti-aircraft fire, but also anti-submarine and attack missiles. Modernization of this system will allow the interception of ballistic missile warheads. This confirms the fact that any of these cruisers can be easily refitted as an anti-missile defense object. These floating missile defense facilities will operate in the waters of the Mediterranean, Greenland, Barents, Norwegian Seas and the North Atlantic. From all this we can conclude that the goal of deploying a missile defense system in Spain is to cover the Russian territory with military-technical missile defense equipment of the United States.

And although American President B. Obama claims that the deployment of additional anti-missile defense equipment in European countries is associated with the threat of attacks from countries such as Iran, the Russian side claims that the layout of anti-missile defense facilities around Russian borders is a threat to the security of Russia.

The buildup of the antimissile potential in Europe and the lack of guarantees of the non-directionality of the missile defense system being formed against Russia's strategic forces causes Moscow’s well-founded concern. When deploying an antimissile defense system in Europe, the United States uses the so-called “fait accompli” strategy when actions are taken without taking into account the views of interested parties. This practice violates the stability and security of all European countries.

If US missile defense continues to be strengthened on the territory of third countries, the opportunity to move from confrontation to cooperation will be lost, and Russia will be forced to take retaliatory measures to protect its strategic nuclear forces.

US actions confirm the continuation of the Cold War against Russia.

And in this regard, the purchase of weapons to equip the Russian army from NATO countries is the same as buying weapon at enemies, fighting with them.

The action of the Ministry of Defense on the purchase of foreign weapons is surprising, whereas it is necessary to invest in the development of its defense industry to protect the country from external threats.

In response, Russia needs to increase the combat potential of the naval grouping in the Mediterranean and Black Seas, whose strike components are capable of destroying foreign missile defense system ships stationed near the coast of Russia.

To this end, it is necessary to modernize the cruising structure and increase the combat readiness of the boat structure, especially small rocket ships, to repair and retool destroyers. Refuse to purchase French Mistral type ships. According to military experts, Mistral-type ships are used only for capturing foreign territories, and they are not needed for defense.

It is required to increase the efficiency of using the military budget due to the support of the Russian military-industrial complex and the rejection of the purchase of foreign military equipment, including the purchase of four Mistral-type ships.

And although, according to the agreements, two Mistral-type ships will be built at Russian shipyards, all the “stuffing” of these ships will be supplied from France. If any node fails during the period of operation (possibly in combat conditions) of this complex equipment, no Russian specialist will be able to return it to work.

A successful attempt to create an effective missile defense system by the United States of America can create the illusion of invulnerability and, under certain conditions, push for a human tragedy - the use of nuclear weapons.
Ctrl Enter

Noticed a mistake Highlight text and press. Ctrl + Enter

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

I have an account? Sign in

  1. lightforcer
    lightforcer 15 October 2011 10: 25 New
    • 4
    • 0
    During Operation Desert Storm, Iraq launched many SCAD missiles in Israel. The vaunted American Patriot shot down about 20% of the missiles, despite the fact that there was an excessive cost of missile defense. Then how are they going to fight strategic ICBMs that can change the flight path and issue false targets?
  2. Motherland
    Motherland 15 October 2011 14: 27 New
    • 5
    • 0
    After reading the headline, the answer to the question was asked for: Is the cold war against Russia over?
  3. Owl
    Owl 15 October 2011 17: 01 New
    • 6
    • 0
    Enemies have always surrounded Russia, the "leaders" of the country speak of "partners", but the main task of these "partners" is the final destruction of the Country and the State, obtaining a raw materials appendage with the necessary number of "trained" slaves.
    1. zczczc
      zczczc 16 October 2011 03: 52 New
      • 0
      • 0
      OwlBy the way, the word "our partners" in the lips of Putin and later Medvedev sounds no less than a mockery. This is a politically correct synonym for the word "rival" or even "enemy."
    CARTRIDGE 16 October 2011 11: 55 New
    • 4
    • 0
    Let's also create missile defense in Cuba, under the pretext of protecting South America from Iran winked
    1. Ion coaelung
      Ion coaelung 17 October 2011 10: 03 New
      • 0
      • 0
      Cuba is our Afghanistan. There probably have long been standing and waiting for all sorts of openers and nail guns :) What can I say if ordinary drug dealers themselves build home-made submarines to transport powder?
  5. Denis 16 October 2011 17: 19 New
    • 0
    • 0
    did it end?
    just think that these unconventional practiced in Yugoslavia, Iraq .... the list goes on
  6. SIA
    SIA 17 October 2011 10: 09 New
    • 0
    • 0
    Quote: CARTRIDGE
    Let's also create missile defense in Cuba, under the pretext of protecting South America from Iran

    Well, yes, where is Iran, and where is South America. Will they defend across the Atlantic?
  7. sancho 17 October 2011 13: 14 New
    • 0
    • 0
    The Cold War unfortunately ended only on paper. Many people, and correspondents of various TVs, repeatedly showed and talked about ordinary Americans who still consider Russia to be enemy No. 1. And this means that inside the United States no one has convinced them of this.
    What for?
    If there is no external enemy, then weapons are not needed. No need for weapons, respectively, huge money is not spent there. So one of the bourgeois does not earn. And, this is already bad ... Small enemy countries, they are not interested. We need a big enemy monster, so that a lot of weapons were needed! Again, geopolitically, if you fight, then the war should be justified by something. Previously, it was the overthrow of the socialist system, which poses a threat to capitalism. And now? And now, under the veiled concern about world terrorism coming from Iran, Afghanistan, Iraq, Egypt, Libya, Syria, etc. missile defense systems are being built up around BIG, TASTED PIE - Russia.
    Before Russia, as before a bull, Pindos wave a red rag - Georgia, Iraq, Egypt, Libya, etc. and the moment is waiting for us to get into some sort of mess to "punish" the bad Russians. In parallel, destabilizing work is being carried out everywhere in explosive regions — Dagestan, Chechnya. In the near abroad they pump Ukraine, the Baltic states, and away from Pshekov.
    So, with such "partners" you can not relax. And you can not give them a descent. We must constantly let them know what we can and give them a good ass .... We must not allow them to the Middle East. Otherwise, they will rock a big war ...