Loading the interceptor missile into the mine. Positional area in Fort Greely, Alaska.
Recently, like 10 – 15 years ago, the issue of anti-missile defense (PRO) is among the top-priority problems of world politics and future international security discussed by politicians, political scientists and the media.
The immediate reason for such attention to missile defense is the 12 announced this May by Washington. the commissioning of the American strategic missile defense system in Romania and the construction plans (from 13 May) of a similar complex in Poland. All this is in addition to the US strategic missile defense complexes on the Aleutian Islands and naval warships
TAKE ALL FOR FOOLS
Washington politicians and strategists, and after them some of his henchmen in European capitals, continue, speaking not quite in parliamentary language, to “sculpt a hunchbacked man”, apparently taking the world community for foolishness, as if the US missile defense complexes deployed in Europe are designed to protect it from mythical Iranian ballistic missiles. This American missile defense system does not pose any threat to Russia. Strangely enough, in Russia itself, among the pseudoliberals are the advocates of the Washington strategic missile defense planners.
However, one wonders: not being ashamed to carry a Russian passport in your pocket and being protected by the Constitution of the Russian Federation, these people do not hesitate to openly express their burning, fierce, pathological hatred of Russia, its past, present and future, the Russian people, everything Russian being.
However, you can simply forget about them, as something of little significance. But this cannot be said about missile defense, since the creation of a modern strategic missile defense system, and that is what the US is building, can lead to a fundamental change in the whole picture of the world, to the destruction of the current, albeit fragile international security system. As a consequence, it will threaten the very existence of life on Earth.
EXCURS V HISTORY
The idea of creating an antimissile defense originated in the USA and the USSR at the turn of the 60s of the last century, immediately after the creation and deployment by both countries of long-range ballistic missiles, primarily intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBM).
The eternal confrontation of defenses (defense) and means of attack (offensive) - for example, armor - bullet, shell; air defense (air defense) - aircraft, aviation; anti-tank defense (PTO) - Tanks, armored combat vehicles - in the nuclear missile age was expressed in the development of missile defense systems as counteraction to ballistic missiles. In all cases, it was a question of the maximum possible, but always only a partial decrease in the effectiveness of the use of attack means.
At the very beginning of work on missile defense systems both in the USA and in the USSR they came to the conclusion that anti-missiles, even the most effective, cannot completely neutralize the means of attack - ballistic missiles of the other side. The missile defense equipment was only able to limit the damage from a nuclear strike by the other side on a limited area. At that time, the United States was developing the Safeguard system for the defense of only one (out of six) positional areas (missile bases) of the Minitman ICBM, and the USSR - a missile defense system around Moscow. Both sides - both the USSR and the USA - understood that providing complete protection against a missile strike is an impossible task: any, even the most effective missile defense system can be overcome by further deploying attack weapons and / or improving their missile defense systems.
Realizing this, the USSR and the United States conducted intensive negotiations throughout the entire 2,5 years (November 1969 - May 1972), developed and signed two documents - the Interim Agreement on certain measures in the field of limiting strategic offensive arms (limiting the number of strategic parties land-based and sea-based ballistic missiles) and the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, to which the missile defense systems of the parties were limited to the positional areas available to the parties (one each from the US and the USSR). Subsequently, an additional protocol from 1974 of the year supplemented this contract with new obligations.
The main thing in the ABM Treaty is the prohibition of the development and creation of anti-missile systems and radar stations providing missile defense throughout the country. In other words, the ABM Treaty prohibited the creation of a strategic missile defense system. At the same time, security was ensured by deterring each other with the threat of guaranteed retaliation against the aggressor.
At the same time, as the strategic nuclear potential grows, the Pentagon in 1970 – 1980 develops, and the US administration adopts various plans for the combat use of strategic offensive forces (SIOP plans) with the inclusion of so-called limited, selective, first disarming forces in addition to a massive nuclear missile strike. (on the enemy’s strategic means), blinding (on the centers and objects of the highest state and military leadership) nuclear strikes.
The development and advance inclusion of such options into the SIOP plan significantly expanded the possibilities of the multivariate use of US strategic offensive forces, depending on the current situation. But they did not guarantee the United States from retaliation if they resorted to delivering the first, for example, “disarming” nuclear attack on the USSR’s strategic nuclear forces. During the Cold War, both the United States and the Soviet Union had such arsenals of strategic means of delivering nuclear weapons. weaponsthat even in retaliation with preserved ground-based and sea-based ballistic missiles, the aggressor could have suffered a crushing blow, irreparable damage.
In search of ways to transform strategic nuclear potential from a means of exclusively deterrence to a “battlefield” weapon that could simultaneously completely neutralize the adversary’s appropriate means and eliminate the possibility of a retaliatory nuclear retaliation, the American strategists at the turn of 80 set themselves up to complement their strategic offensive forces strategic defensive system (strategic missile defense), which would ensure the achievement of victory in a nuclear war of any scale. Washington decided that in principle this is possible: a well-organized first “disarming” and “blinding” strike at the enemy leads to a sharp weakening of its nuclear arsenal and a significant disruption of the entire system of higher state and military control. And, as a result, if the enemy is able to organize a retaliatory strike with his remaining insignificant strategic means, then they will be intercepted by a previously deployed, fairly effective strategic missile defense system.
In such a “bundle” with the means of attack, a seemingly purely defensive system — antimissile defense — becomes, as it were, a trigger for strategic offensive forces and for the aggressor to deliver the first nuclear strike. In other words, the missile defense system provokes its owner to directly use at its discretion strategic nuclear forces in the hope of gratuitous, unpunished provision of narrow-minded "vital interests of the United States."
On March 1, 1983, at the end of the second year at the White House, President Ronald Reagan announces the so-called strategic defense initiative (SOI). The "Initiative" envisaged a broad program of research in the interests of searching for and developing technologies for creating an effective missile defense system throughout the United States. The 1972 ABM Treaty did not ban scientific research, but the very fact of announcing the SDI program spoke of the possibility that the United States could withdraw from this treaty in the future if the US military-industrial complex achieved technological breakthroughs in missile defense and other favorable ones ( ) conditions for undermining the ABM Treaty. This conclusion is also confirmed by the analysis of the US National Security Strategy that had been formed by that time and the practical activities of Washington to implement it.
In summary, the main content of this strategy, the most important provisions of which are still being preserved, is in the ways and means for the United States to achieve Washington’s openly aggressive foreign policy, ensuring the so-called vital, vital, vital interests of the United States, which the White House spreads to the entire globe.
For this purpose, the whole set of means of influence on other countries - the subjects of the world community: political, diplomatic, economic, propaganda (in recent years in the form of information war) tools are used. They are also complemented by non-advertised blackmail (through their foreign agents), subversive (even sabotage) actions, bribing high-ranking officials, initiating and even organizing color revolutions, etc.
But as the main factor, the most powerful weapon of influence on the chosen “victim”, on which all of the above are based, to ensure their “interests”, wherever and in respect of anyone, Washington always uses and uses “unsurpassed military power” - regardless of which party administration is the White House - democratic or republican. “Our influence (in the world. - F.L.) will be maximized, - is directly emphasized in“ National Security Strategy - 2015 ”, - when we combine all our strategic advantages. Our armed forces will remain ready to protect our national interests, providing effective levers for diplomacy. ”
The military force of the United States on the independent state they chose to ensure there the “national interests of the United States” is carried out, as a rule, by escalating the conflict from relatively “low intensity”, followed by frank demonstration of force with its amplification to a direct threat, culminating in the direct use of the sun. USA to commit aggression.
The “lowest” level of tension is maintained by the United States due to the maintenance of armed forces, constantly on high alert, as part of the so-called main commands (GC) of the US armed forces in the zone of the Pacific, Atlantic and Indian oceans, in the European zone, Central America. The sphere of their “responsibility” is the future theaters of war (TV) and / or military operations (theaters), previously “sliced” on all continents and sea areas. In particular, the theater of war for the US Armed Forces in the Pacific is defined from the west coast of the United States to the Urals, and the US Armed Forces in Europe from the Atlantic to the Urals. “Our first foreign policy tool is principled and open diplomacy combined with the advanced bases of the armed forces, which protects and promotes America’s interests,” the US National Security Strategy as amended for 2015 year does not hide.
The next level of conflict is open blackmail by military force by strengthening advanced troop groupings or by transferring military contingents to new areas near the borders of an elected potential enemy (a fresh example is the transfer of ground forces and heavy military equipment to the Baltic countries in May of this year) or by conducting military exercises involving different types of forces - ground forces, combat aviation and ship groups. Anaconda exercises of the US, Poland and Baltic countries in June of this year can serve as an example of such actions. in close proximity to the land and sea borders of Russia with a noose, the Kaliningrad region. Earlier, during the years of the Cold War and even in the post-Soviet period, the United States and NATO avoided carrying out such threatening actions directly against our country.
Further escalation of tension, “intensity of the conflict” is a demonstration of political determination and readiness to use military force, including NATO allies, accompanied by the transfer to the area of potential aggression of a sufficient number of new combat units and naval and air forces, and then also the US Army combat and logistic support structures. The most recent example is the decision of the NATO Summit in Warsaw on 8 – 9 in July of this year. on the deployment of four battalions of NATO countries in Poland, Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia (and this is only the beginning!).
In the event that none of the options for formally “peaceful” methods of military force can achieve the goals set, the United States resorts to direct involvement of the forces and means created by them to commit aggression, as a rule, by massive air strikes by aircraft and ship groups with the subsequent escalation of hostilities up to forcing the enemy to surrender, physically eliminate, remove the regime or completely defeat his armed forces and destroy I am of the military-industrial complex (for example, the US aggression against Iraq in 2003).
As the practice of Washington’s implementation of its “national security strategy” shows, the higher the level of “peaceful” military-force impact conflicts, the higher the likelihood of low-intensity conflicts organized by the White House that the United States initiates destructive military actions with decisive goals. US aggression against Grenada (1983), Panama (1989), Yugoslavia (1999), Iraq (2003), Libya (air strike in 1986 year, as well as operation in 2011 year) - not a complete list of unprovoked wars and military actions US only for the last 30 years. It is important to note here that during the period of the Cold War and the confrontation with the Soviet Union, the United States still showed, if not restraint in its aggressive actions, then a certain caution - at least with respect to the USSR-friendly states, now they have rejected this “shyness” its behavior in relation to other countries of the world, excluding Russia and China as major nuclear powers.
BETTING ON SYNERGY AND SUBKOP UNDER "CONTRACT"
In an effort to “project” the full extent of the National Security Strategy primarily on the USSR, and now on Russia and China, political hawks and strategists in Washington initially theoretically, and in the course of real strategic planning they rely on the implementation of the idea of synergistic combining of the shock potentials of strategic offensive forces and defensive capabilities of missile defense systems in the hope of creating sufficiently effective, victorious strategic means of warfare.
Already at the end of the last century, the Americans, who had begun as part of the research conducted under the aforementioned Reagan SOI program, achieved certain technological results that they considered “encouraging” to develop and create in the future means of strategic ground-based and ship-based missile defense.
Signing the 1972 ABM Treaty.
Then it seemed to many that a peaceful future for the planet was guaranteed.
However, the creation and even the development of strategic missile defense systems was prohibited by the Soviet-American ABM Treaty 1972. The Americans began the “digging” under it at the very beginning of the 90s of the last century. In the course of the Soviet-American negotiations on the elaboration of the Treaty on the Limitation and Reduction of Strategic Offensive Arms (START-1), the American side opposed the inclusion in the treaty of a provision on the inviolability of keeping the ABM Treaty in force as an obligatory condition. At the same time, they proposed to allow the development of missile defense systems and its limited deployment (200 – 300 antimissiles). Even then, our negotiating partners justified this by the need to protect against possible missile threats from "third" countries - Iran, Iraq, North Korea and even Brazil.
The Soviet side struggled to achieve the inclusion in the START-1 Treaty of the provisions on the inviolability of the ABM Treaty only in the form of a unilateral statement. The attempt by the Americans to impose an agreement on a "limited" missile defense system was also rejected.
The appetite of the United States for the creation of missile defense flared up especially after reaching 1992 in the year (last year when George Bush Sr. was in office as US President and in the first year of Boris Yeltsin’s presidency in post-Soviet Russia) agreement to replace START-1 with START-2. This agreement provided for the elimination by the parties of all ICBMs with separable warheads of individual targeting (MILP), which in the USSR formed the basis of the strategic nuclear potential, and the subsequent total ban on the creation, production and deployment of such missiles. Shortly concluded by the START-2 Treaty, the total number of nuclear warheads on all strategic carriers of both sides was threefold lower than in the START-1 Treaty - from 6000 to 1700 – 2200 units.
With such reductions in the strategic nuclear capabilities of the parties, Washington saw the possibility of realizing in the future the concept of real use of a strategic weapon system, which, as already noted, provides for a symbiosis of interconnected strategic offensive weapons and strategic missile defense systems used according to a single plan and plan.
To remove the last obstacle (the Soviet-American treaty 1972 of the year) on the path of far-reaching aspirations, the new US President George W. Bush announced the forthcoming (after six months) withdrawal from the ABM Treaty in February 2001. Russian President Vladimir Putin immediately sharply condemned these intentions of the United States, assessing them as an extremely dangerous step leading to the undermining of the entire security system in the world, since the ABM Treaty is the pivot that holds together the entire range of international treaties and agreements on limiting and reducing various types of weapons, reducing the risk of military activities. Washington did not heed these warnings, including considering it advantageous for itself that by that time the arsenal of strategic nuclear weapons of Russia was significantly reduced due to the natural loss, primarily of ICBMs with an RCGH IN and already operating under the START-2 Treaty (although , ratified, has not yet entered into force) a ban on the deployment of new ICBMs with separable warheads.
In June 2002, the United States withdrew from the ABM Treaty. Unfortunately, the leadership of our country regarded this extremely dangerous step of Washington with far-reaching, unpredictable consequences for all mankind only as a “serious mistake of the United States”. And one of the high-ranking Russian statesmen, apparently to reassure the citizens of his own country, even spoke in the sense that there was no serious danger for Russia in this Washington decision.
READY TO HIT FIRST
In 2010, Russia and the United States concluded the Prague Treaty on START (START-3). This agreement, which came into force in February 2011 of the year with a validity of 10 years, the total number of nuclear weapons on strategic carriers of each of the parties is limited to the level of 1550 units. Completing his second term as President of the United States, Barack Obama, eight years ago a priori “appointed” Nobel Peace Prize laureate, proposes to extend for five years, that is, up to 2026, the START-3 agreement. This is another additional, but convincing confirmation of far-reaching strategic plans related to the deployment of a missile defense system. The goal is to limit in advance the possibilities of Russia for neutralizing the threat created for our country with the deployment of the American missile defense system. As for Obama’s stated possibility of the United States refusing to be the first to use nuclear weapons, this is an official recognition by the White House of the fact that the Kremlin was the first to use atomic weapons against Japan in August 1945, the United States never refused from the next 70 years plans to be the first against the USSR, and now against Russia nuclear strikes, from the so-called limited to massed.
Soon after the breakdown of the ABM Treaty, Washington, with the consent of its NATO allies, announced plans to deploy a European missile defense, continuing to shamelessly, if not brazenly, to assure us that all this does not pose any threat to Russia, but only provides Europe with protection missile attacks of Iran. It was even announced plans to build positional areas of radio-electronic means of detection, guidance, control, and missile launchers in a number of countries in Eastern Europe. With the US 2016, these plans are already being implemented.
The combination of a European missile defense system, the reality of which creation is beyond doubt, with the strategic missile defense system deployed in Alaska and deployed on board warships (Aegis), can be perceived by the American ruling elite in not such a long-term perspective - about ten years - in such a way that they managed to create such a set of interrelated strategic nuclear forces and strategic missile defense, which they Udut can and will be used against another nuclear power based on the total neutralization of its strategic potential and depriving them of the possibility to carry out an act of retaliation retaliatory nuclear strike.
Despite the seemingly speculative use of such a strategic weapon systems (nuclear strike systems in conjunction with defensive missile defense), he not only captured the minds of American politician hawks and military strategists, but also included them in strategic wartime plans. Among other things, in fact, why are expensive missile defense facilities being created, why are expensive shipboard anti-missile systems being implemented and positional areas are being created not only in the US, but also in European territory? Is it only to meet the ever-growing needs of the US military-industrial complex at the expense of the American taxpayers and / or more precisely tie its European allies to Washington and its hegemonic policy? The US military-industrial complex is not in trouble, and as for the Allies in the North Atlantic alliance, they are so tied to the US without it that Washington treats European capitals as if they were their vassals.
There is no doubt that Russia and, of course, China will not continue to allow the United States to ever have a real opportunity to completely neutralize their deterrence potential by retaining, even under the most adverse conditions, sufficient potential to guarantee deterrence by inflicting crushing retaliation on the aggressor in retaliation and even in retaliatory strikes. And for this, as Russian President Vladimir Putin has repeatedly stressed, Russia will not be drawn into a reckless, costly arms race, which, among other things, is expected in Washington in the hope of economically exhausting our country. Russia has enough other ways and possibilities to keep the enemy, the United States and NATO, in any situation from a reckless step.
Nevertheless, Washington’s illusory hope of politicians and strategists to turn a strategic weapon, complemented by a missile defense system, from deterrence into a destructive “battlefield weapon” to achieve victory over a nuclear power (Russia, China) exposes the whole world, human civilization if not real danger of destruction, the threat of dropping it in a primitive state.
No less, and probably more dangerous, is that the calculations of the Washington hawks on the mythical opportunity to hide under the antimissile shield sharply reduce the threshold for the United States to launch a war of varying intensity (up to large-scale) using only conventional non-nuclear weapons, including against the nuclear powers, in the expectation of capitulation from them even before the transition to the use of nuclear weapons. The natural consequence of lowering the threshold of an ordinary war is the lowering of the threshold for an ordinary war to develop into a nuclear war, “with zero result” for life itself on our planet.
In this regard, the official Washington, the White House (whatever party the president is there) is relevant to the question: “Do you at least understand what you are up to?” No, they probably do not understand. They do not understand: believing in their impunity to act in accordance with their national security strategy in relation to non-nuclear states, Washington set out to materialize the possibilities of its realization in full with respect to the nuclear powers - Russia and China. A deadly delusion.
They do not understand what danger, not only their own population, but also the people of the whole "united" Europe, the rulers of Romania and Poland, are endangered, providing the territory of their countries for the positional areas of the American missile defense system. In Washington’s plans, European missile defense is not a means of protecting European NATO countries from the "Russian threat" being forced from overseas, but just a trigger for the United States strategic nuclear forces. Official Bucharest and Warsaw should have thought about the role that they assign to their countries and peoples, substituting them as a service to North American nuclear adventurers.
It is clear (and this is an axiom of modern military affairs) - in any case, no matter what the scale of nuclear attack by the United States is Russia, it is always on the list of priority targets to be destroyed in a reciprocal nuclear strike the aggressor, wherever its missile defense systems are located.
As for our country, no matter how sophisticated plans of forceful influence on us, including blackmail and military threat (even nuclear), overseas lovers of the sole management of the world, plantations of “democracy in American style” are not developed, they, any plans and intentions aggressor, doomed to failure. The lessons of national humiliation, "presented" in the 90-s of the last century to the Russian people, to the entire Russian people, by American advisers and managers, who opened our doors to Russia with our homegrown nineteenth-century pseudoliberals to rule the country from across the ocean, played, strangely enough , the role of beneficial "serum". The immunity developed by our people for the recovery of Russian society will last for dozens, if not hundreds of years, in order not only to resist, but also to give, when necessary, sufficient resistance to any attempts to threaten us with force. Russian history gives many examples of this.
Russia has always been, is and will be great! Russia is the seventh part of the land, and its natural wealth, and a long history, and Russian culture, without which world culture is inconceivable. And, most importantly, Russia is a peace-loving, talented, hardworking, unique people. The people of inflexible will, courage and resilience, ready and able not only to skillfully defend themselves, but also smash the aggressor right up to hoisting the Banner of Victory over his capital.
We have and will have the necessary arsenal of the most modern means of warfare, our army and navy are sufficiently well prepared to guarantee reliable protection of our country, its independence, integrity and security. No one should forget this!