The world is at the red line
For two years now, the Russian and European media have been informing us about the deployment of American ground forces, aviation parts, air defense and missile defense systems, etc. in the Baltic countries and Poland. It came to the nuclear weapons. Even 8 June 2015, the head of the British Foreign Office, Philip Hammond, said that against the background of worsening relations with Russia, the UK is ready to consider the issue of deploying US nuclear missiles on its territory. “We would consider this issue. If he were on the agenda, we would take a decision together with the United States. We need to send Russia a clear signal that we will not allow them to cross the red line, ”the minister said.
Earlier in the media leaked excerpts from the report of American General Martin Dempsey, which suggests that Washington is considering the possibility of deploying ground-based cruise and ballistic missiles in Europe or Asia aimed at the Russian nuclear potential. Allegedly, this is being done in response to "violations by the Russian side of the treaty on the reduction of medium and short range missiles." But no one writes why these events really take place.
I will begin with the deployment of American ground forces near the borders with Russia. According to Washington, they supposedly should intimidate the Kremlin so that it would not dare to attack the Baltic border countries and Poland. But after all, the Russian Federation and was not going to do it!
... Suppose that in the Pentagon, the Minister of Defense slightly went to the roof. Periodically, this happens to them. So, 22 May 1949, US Secretary of Defense James Forrestal, with a shout of "Russians are coming!", Sighed from the window of the 16-th floor. But after all, American troops in Eastern Europe should have some plans, instructions on the conduct of hostilities.
We will not go into details, but simply ask the American generals: “What war are you preparing for?”
According to the plans of the Pentagon, from 1945 to 1950's, the only option of war with the USSR was “massive nuclear retribution”. At the very beginning of the 1950-s, in addition to it, the US military developed a doctrine of local nuclear war. Sometimes in the USA they used another terminology - “limited nuclear war in a theater of military operations”. According to the views of the military-political leadership of the United States, a nuclear war in the theater of operations reduced the likelihood of the United States being involved in a general nuclear war while fulfilling its obligations to the allies. At the same time, it was believed in the Pentagon, it could be a means of achieving certain regional political goals, therefore in these conditions it was considered preferable to a strategic nuclear war. Moreover, the use of nuclear weapons was considered the most important condition for preventing the outbreak of a nuclear war into a general nuclear war only in a combat zone and only at military sites.
Who was hit by a nuclear strike? According to the US military doctrine, the emergence of a nuclear war was considered the most likely in Europe. At the same time, the leadership of the United States and NATO never officially specified which European countries would fall into a zone of local nuclear war, but it was understood that they would be Germany, the GDR, Czechoslovakia, Poland, perhaps Italy, etc. The possibility of using even tactical nuclear weapons in a local nuclear war on the territory of the USSR and the USA was not even considered. It is noteworthy that in the period from 1945 to 1991, almost all American generals and politicians believed that a war between the USSR and the USA in Europe with conventional (non-nuclear) weapons was impossible. It inevitably had to escalate into a total thermonuclear war using ICBMs and strategic bombers, or, at best, into a local nuclear war.
Is it possible now to conduct a local nuclear war in Eastern Europe according to plans developed at the Pentagon in 50 – 70-s of the XX century? In my opinion, yes. Theoretically, the United States and the Russian Federation may agree to conduct combat operations within Poland, Ukraine and the Baltic border countries. But even one nuclear strike on the territory of the Russian Federation will automatically transfer the war from local to total. But do they understand in Warsaw that regardless of the outcome of a local nuclear war, Poland will turn into a radioactive desert, while the radiation background in New York, Paris and even Moscow will not exceed the usual sanitary indicators at the Sokol metro station?
As is known, after the 1991 year in the United States, a doctrine was developed for delivering a “disarming” strike on Russia by non-nuclear means. Thousands of Tomahawk-type high-precision cruise missiles launched from ships, submarines and airplanes should hit the Russian ICBM launchers, strategic aviation aerodromes, communications centers, command posts. Well, the ships and submarines of the United States and NATO countries are ordered to suddenly attack and destroy Russian nuclear submarines that carry ICBMs.
At the time of Yeltsin, such a plan had a good chance of success. However, quite a lot of newest long-range anti-aircraft complexes, C-300 and C-400, have been deployed in the Russian Federation, and the C-2016 is expected to arrive in 500 in the year. In addition, they are armed with the Pantsir short-range air defense system and a number of other systems. The capabilities of the Russian radio countermeasure facilities have increased. So now, in the event of a preemptive strike on the Russian Federation, the Americans still risk getting a few hundred thermonuclear warheads in response.
The appearance of medium-range American missiles in England automatically terminates the agreement on the elimination of medium-range and short-range missiles signed by the USA and the USSR 8 December 1987, according to which the Americans abandoned plans to deploy Pershing-2 ballistic missiles with a range of 2500 km in Europe, and The USSR was subject to the elimination of 405 15 and 45Ж15 53 deployed missiles with 5000 km (!) And launchers, as well as 245 non-deployed missiles and 118 launchers to them.
A reasonable question arises: how should the Russian Federation react to such military preparations by the United States and its European allies? You can ruin a country by trying to catch up with the US and NATO in the number of attack aircraft, tanks and artillery systems. Can surrender to the United States. And you can answer with asymmetric measures.
For example, to make 2 – 3 thousand thousand medium-range ballistic missiles. In 1962, Nikita Khrushchev, scaring the West, lied that we were doing an ICBM with the same ease and at the same pace as sausages on the conveyor. In fact, the first Soviet ICBM P-7 (GRAU index 8K71) had a range 8 thousand km, starting weight 283 t and length 31,4 m. But later the weight and dimensional characteristics of the ICBM, as well as their cost, significantly decreased, and the USSR began to produce hundreds of them .
In 1983, the Moscow Institute of Thermal Engineering (MIT) began the development of the mobile courier ICBM (GRAU index 15Ж59). Its weight was 15 t, and length - 11,2 m, that is, compared to P-7, the length decreased by 2,8 times, and weight - by 19 times! In the 1989, flight tests of the Courier began, and on October 6, under pressure from the USA, Gorbachev and Yeltsin stopped all work on this product.
I note that at the end of the 1990-x - the beginning of the 2000-s in the Russian Federation, new mixed fuels were created, which could double the 20 to 40 km to increase the firing range of the Grad missile system while maintaining weight and dimensional characteristics. Moreover, using new sorts of mixed fuel and advanced technologies in the field of control systems, engine designs, etc., it is possible to increase the weight of a ballistic missile with a range of 3 – 4 thousand km to 6 – 9 tons. Two or even four such missiles in transport and launch containers (TPK) will fit in the back of a conventional KamAZ, truck, passenger or commercial 60-ton railcar. Back in the middle of the 1960-ies in the USSR, a project was created for the installation of an ICBM UR-100, and then P-29 in the vertical mines of ordinary civilian ships of projects 550, 1111, etc.
At the beginning of 1964 of the year in TsKB-18 under the leadership of S.P. The queen made an interesting project of a plunging launch vehicle (CSP), called the “Scat 602 project”. The CSP was designed as a vertical cylinder with eight TPCs located around it. The length of the TPC was 20,7 m, the diameter was 2,8 m. Each TPC contained one UR-100М rocket. CCPs were to be used in inland water basins and coastal areas. The CCP could have anchored or lay down on the ground. The immersion depth was 100 m.
This project has been rejected. But let's not forget that the weight of the UR-100 is 43,2 t, and the new rocket weighing 6 – 9 t can be placed not only on the river barge, but also in tow or a pleasure ship of the Moskvich type.
Now the most important thing is to ensure the secret deployment of both ICBMs and medium-range missiles. It would be nice to place plausible models of such missiles all over the country. Recall how the Yugoslavs successfully used the disguise of their military equipment and models in Kosovo in the 1999 year. Thanks to this, during the 75 days of NATO bombing by aircraft, they managed to keep 90 – 95% of their tanks, guns and rocket launchers.
Well, what about the missile defense systems that the Americans installed on their cruisers and destroyers, and now they are trying to deploy on the border of the Russian Federation in Poland and the Baltic states? After all, they are in the exercises successfully hit all classes of ballistic missiles.
And why, strictly speaking, should the rocket necessarily fly along a ballistic curve, that is, along the most energetically favorable trajectory? And if miniature thrusters with variable thrust vectoring and aerodynamic rudders are installed on the rocket or its warhead, then the rocket can fly along the most intricate path. For example, in the USSR in the 1980-ies a whole regiment of P-36-O (orbital) missiles was on combat duty. They could make one or several revolutions around the Earth, and then hit any target. Yes, the same Iskander-N rocket is not a ballistic at all, and the parameters of its trajectory are kept secret ...
A little example. In Israel, the “Iron Dome” missile defense system has been deployed for five years, created on the basis of the highest technology. The cost of one battery is 170 million dollars. The official cost of one rocket is 20 thousand dollars (in fact, significantly higher). In 2011, the Palestinians launched 386 rockets around Israel, of which 34 was shot down by the Iron Dome. The cost of an unguided Palestinian rocket with a range of 70 – 100 km is about $ 100.
So, Russia, having begun mass production of cheap maneuvering missiles with a range of 500 – 3000 km, will elementarily destroy the USA and NATO for tens of times more expensive missile defense systems.
However, the Russian Federation is not going to attack NATO. But in Brussels, NATO strategists are still developing plans for a preemptive strike on Russia. So medium-range missiles (up to 5 thousand km) should become weapons of massive nuclear retaliation. Thus, in some ways, Russia should copy the strategy of the US 1940 – 1970-s.
I repeat once again: rockets must be extremely cheap. For this, you can sacrifice the circular deviation, simplifying the control system. The main objective of such missiles should be areal targets - to put it simply, cities and factories, which in Western Europe often adjoin each other for many tens or even hundreds of kilometers.
As a result, the shopkeepers and the “office plankton” in Warsaw or Marseilles will think for a long time whether it is worth fighting with Russia because of the ambitions of Poroshenko, Yatsenyuk and Co.
Few people know that Mr. Yeltsin tightly hammered a window to Europe, broken by Peter the Great, and left a small crack. No, I'm not exaggerating a bit. Now our ships and airplanes should travel with jewelry accuracy in the Gulf of Finland and in the airspace above it along a narrow corridor of a length exceeding 150 km and a width from 4 to 10 km.
Before the arrival of the Americans, the Estonians were limited to notes: “Ah, your plane went deep into 100 meters deep into the territory of Estonia over the Gulf of Finland for a full minute”. And with the arrival of Americans, they may have enough intelligence and audacity to shoot. As you know, our “best German”, Mikhail Sergeyevich Gorbachev, granted Lithuania independence without even stipulating the conditions for safe transit to the Kaliningrad region. And there is no guarantee that the Lithuanian government, having gained arrogance from the type of American tanks, does not want to interrupt our transit to the Kaliningrad region in one way or another.
So, what did the United States achieve by deploying its ground and air forces in Poland and the Baltic states? Just that the fingers of politically engaged Balts and Poles will join the finger of the President of the United States on the button of the “nuclear briefcase”. And the American troops arriving in Eastern Europe now automatically become hostages of irresponsible politicians. The border conflict with the Russians will inevitably lead to the involvement of Americans in the fighting. God grant that Washington and Moscow have enough sense to not use nuclear weapons. Alas, this will be extremely difficult.
Information