Illustration copyright Vitaly Nevar/TASS Image caption The most modern Russian missile defense system is the S-400, it is unlikely to be able to stop hypersonic missiles, but Russia expects that the next generation system will be able to withstand them
The Russian Ministry of Defense said that the Pentagon has begun creating a strategic system of “instant global strike”, which will make it possible to hit targets more effectively than nuclear weapons.
Concerns were expressed last week by Defense Ministry spokesman Alexander Yemelyanov at a Russian-Chinese briefing on missile defense at the UN. According to him, "the unrestricted deployment of the American missile defense system is a serious challenge to global security, a stimulus for the arms race and a threat to all humanity."
But it is possible that the Russian military department is exaggerating the degree of readiness of the states to implement this program, says James Acton, co-director of the Nuclear Policy Program at the Carnegie Endowment. In an interview with the BBC Russian Service, he said that the United States has not yet decided whether it wants to adopt the program. Since testing is proceeding very slowly, a solution will only be a few years away.
Acton told the BBC Russian Service that since the book was published, the “instant global strike” program in the United States has developed extremely slowly.
“During this time, only one test was carried out,” he says. And it failed because the accelerator exploded, he adds.
Everything went so slowly because the Americans were faced with both technical difficulties and budget cuts.
What is being developed in the USA?
A "prompt global strike" system could be used during a nuclear conflict, replacing nuclear weapons. This homing weapon will be able to hit a target anywhere in the world within an hour, which is comparable to a nuclear ballistic missile. These can be ballistic or cruise missiles and systems that will combine the properties of both.
Due to its high speed, it should be extremely difficult to intercept by missile defense systems.
In the United States, work within the framework of the “Instant Global Impact” concept has been going on for many years. The idea is to create a munition that will fly at hypersonic speed and be able to hit a target anywhere in the world in the shortest possible time.
Now the American program includes hypersonic strike weapons, including the X-47, X-37 aerospace vehicles and the combination of missile defense systems with strike systems.
The purpose of the system is to react quickly, it was developed as an instant response to the actions of terrorist groups, as well as smuggled nuclear or chemical weapon.
The United States is creating only conventional weapons, Russia is working on creating nuclear weapons, with the possibility of use in non-nuclear weapons James Acton, Carnegie Endowment
Acton previously called one of the main concerns regarding a “quick global strike” the possibility of a preventive nuclear strike on the side at which this weapon will be aimed. That is, the country will be so afraid of the “speed” of the strike that it will strike first.
Is this system perfect?
This system has disadvantages. The strike relies on satellite guidance, which is vulnerable to man-made jamming in wartime environments.
In addition, in order to hit a target, ammunition flying at enormous speed will have to slow it down before colliding with the surface - otherwise it will not be able to hit an underground target. And decreasing speed means increasing vulnerability.
James Acton wrote about this in Silver Bullet.
Illustration copyright Nevar Vitaly/TASS Image caption Russia claims the next generation of S-500 missiles will be effective against an “instant global strike”, but the expert is not so sureHow Russia can respond to an “instant global strike”
“The bar set by the Americans, which has been repeatedly voiced by their ministers of defense, is the ability to strike anywhere in the world in less than an hour. We are opposing this, firstly, with a missile attack warning system,” RIA Novosti said Chief Editor magazine "Arsenal of the Fatherland" Colonel Viktor Murakhovsky.
It is almost impossible to protect a large area such as the country from supersonic glide munitions James Acton, Carnegie Endowment
According to him, the missile attack warning system “has now been deployed to such an extent and covers so many missile-hazardous directions that it exceeds even the capabilities of the Soviet Union.”
Neutralize "quick" global strike“The S-500 complex together with a missile attack warning system can,” Murakhovsky believes.
To this, Acton replies that the S-500 is intended for the defense of strategic targets. "I believe the S-500 will be capable of intercepting hypersonic glide bombs," he says.
He calls the S-500's effectiveness "not zero", but says that in any case it will only be able to protect a small area. This will not help in protecting the territory of an entire country from supersonic glide munitions, Acton says.
The budget crisis is in full swing in Moscow. Not only the prospects for defense spending are being decided - a rearmament program until 2025 should soon be approved. The situation is fateful: all summer, at various meetings, Vladimir Putin promised to significantly reduce defense spending within the framework of an ultra-tight budget. It seriously seemed to many that the “war party” had been defeated, but that was not the case. The General Staff has the right remedy: repeatedly inflate external (American) threats or invent non-existent ones.
For 35 years now, the most violent military-state tantrums have been associated with the promising American missile defense system, with SDI or Ronald Reagan’s “star wars.” Also, along the perimeter of the borders, enemies secretly form strike groups. In 2017, the Ministry of Defense conducts military exercises in Taimyr, builds a base on Wrangel Island, where previously only polar bears lived, and is also deploying a coastal defense division in Chukotka. And all this happiness is due to cuts in education, medicine, real pensions and social benefits.
Wrangel Island. Photo: Georgy Nadezhdin / TASS
The General Staff assembled a powerful delegation of generals to tell the UN on October 12 about the harmfulness of the Pentagon, but the Americans, since the consular department in Moscow does not actually work due to the mass dismissal of employees as a result of Russian sanctions or “retaliatory measures.” The General Staff was represented in New York by a certain Alexander Emelyanov, who was urgently appointed as a “representative of the Defense Ministry,” who spoke about the growing deployment of the American missile defense system and about a new threat - Prompt Global Strike.
The correct translation of PGS is “prompt global strike,” but Russian propaganda and officials they repeat “instant blow” because it sounds more terrible.
The idea of PGS was born about 15 years ago at the height of global war initially had nothing to do with terror after 9/11 and the Russian Federation. It was assumed that if it was suddenly possible to find out that terrorist leaders had gathered somewhere for a meeting, then it would be possible to launch a high-precision non-nuclear strike on them anywhere in the world within an hour (until they dispersed).
Of course, PGS weapons could potentially be used to destroy Russian targets, but American weapons capable of reaching any target on Russian territory in less than an hour have already existed for about 50 years - these are sea- and land-based missiles (ICBMs) and all sorts of cruise missiles . The General Staff claims that by 2020 the United States will begin to deploy PGS systems, which will “destroy the existing balance of power,” but this seems extremely doubtful. The idea of PGS turned out to be of little demand. In many ways, this is an empty horror story like Reagan’s SDI.
It is cheaper and more effective to exterminate terrorist leaders with the help of slow-moving but stealthy drones, rather than with fancy hypersonic projectiles.
So far, hypersonic “gliders” launched by ICBMs have been successfully tested in the Russian Federation and the United States. However, the launch of ICBMs is easy to detect, and their number is also limited by the United States and the Russian Federation under the START-3 treaty. If you replace a nuclear warhead with a non-nuclear one on an authorized ICBM, then this cannot “destroy” the balance. In the United States and the Russian Federation, all sorts of hypersonic drones and orbital “bombers” are being developed, but the work is difficult, there are no combat-ready products, and it is unknown when they will appear.
America, of course, is much richer, stronger and technologically (together with its allies) superior to the Russian Federation in almost everything, but nothing seriously threatens the regime of mutual nuclear deterrence in the foreseeable future. Emelyanov outlined the well-known General Staff story about how the Americans are deploying hundreds of THAAD and Standart-3 interceptor missiles and that by 2022 there will be up to a thousand, and then their number “will exceed the number of warheads on Russian ICBMs.” But all American anti-missile missiles, except for 30 GBI in Alaska and California, can only shoot down medium- and shorter-range missiles, and Russia does not have them or should not have them under the 1987 INF Treaty. Outdated GBIs can try to shoot down a primitive single North Korean ICBM, and they are essentially useless against Russian nuclear capabilities. The architecture of the American missile defense system is now being built almost exclusively against the DPRK and a little against Iran.
Someday, maybe in 20 years, there will be a practical opportunity to build a defense against ICBMs with MIRVs and “gliding” warheads. Or maybe it won't appear
but the military department is now demanding trillions to counter non-existent or deliberately exaggerated threats in an impoverished country with collapsing infrastructure, healthcare, science and education. Well, just like it was in the eighties,
when the country's resources were ineptly wasted on all sorts of weapons, countering the fictitious SDI and local wars(Afghan).
Amendments to the budget and the expansion of “closed” items have already canceled the promised reductions in defense and security spending. But it’s clear - the enemy is at the gate. The Ministry of Defense managed to see in Poland the ghost of an entire American mechanized division and the preparation of “aggression”, when there is only one US brigade there, which is now undergoing rotation.
Colonel O. Oberstov
Since the end of the Cold War, Pentagon leadership has paid close attention to finding ways to provide the US military with the ability to strike with conventional weapons at strategic ranges. After the reorganization of the system of forward presence of national armed forces in the 90s of the last century, experts of the American military department came to the conclusion that new approaches to the deployment of troops in remote theaters of operations do not effectively neutralize by conventional means suddenly emerging threats to the global interests of the United States, the sources of which are located out of reach of advanced groups.
In this regard, in the 2001 Pentagon Review current state and prospects for the development of US nuclear forces" was the first to document the need for the national armed forces to plan the integrated use of high-precision strike weapons in conventional equipment and strategic nuclear forces. In addition, the US military department in the same year began to justify the need to create a "new class of long-range weapons ", which would reduce the dependence of the United States on the nuclear arsenal in solving the problems of deterring a potential enemy.
Subsequently this question was periodically raised in various doctrinal documents, including the Comprehensive Review of the State and Prospects of the US Armed Forces, developed by the Department of Defense every four years.
In particular, in 2003, in a special report by the country's Ministry of Defense on improving the doctrine of the national air force, it was noted that “the rapid projection of force (through the use of weapons) from the continental United States has acquired a dominant importance in the national military strategy. In May of the same year, the Ministry of the Air Force initiated target program for the development of promising non-nuclear weapons for delivering instant global strikes (MGU). In accordance with the requirements, these weapon systems must ensure the destruction of targets located anywhere in the world within 1 hour from the moment the decision is made by the President or Minister of Defense without the involvement of troop groups forward-based The presence of such weapon systems will contribute to the solution of deterrence tasks, and, if necessary, will ensure the destruction of particularly important objects, as well as targets, the elimination of which is time-critical 1 at all stages of the armed conflict.
Initially, it was assumed that the first promising strike systems would enter the US Armed Forces within several years after the start of their development and would be in demand both at the stage of a sharp escalation of the situation and during the escalation of the armed conflict. At the same time, the strict time parameters of an “instant global strike” were determined by the need to preempt the enemy’s use of the latest means of camouflage, as well as by the mobility of a number of important targets.
In 2006, the Pentagon, in its next “Comprehensive Review of the State and Prospects for the Development of the US Armed Forces,” expanded the interpretation of MSU. The document emphasized that “the US military needs to have the ability to engage fixed, hardened, buried and mobile targets with increased accuracy anywhere in the world and in as soon as possible after receiving an order from the President of the United States." In addition, the review declared the intention to use ballistic missiles from Trident 2 submarines equipped with non-nuclear warheads to carry out instant global strikes 2 .
The 2010 “Comprehensive Review of the State and Prospects of the US Armed Forces” noted that “the Pentagon’s expanded MGU capabilities will increase the effectiveness of countering growing threats to the forward presence of US military forces, as well as meet the need for national armed forces to project power globally.” In addition, this document emphasized the urgent need to continue to develop prototype strategic-range strike weapons that meet the requirements of "instant global strike."
Currently in the United States there is no separate legislative act regulating the creation and use of MSU funds. The implementation of the program is regulated by decisions of Congress as part of the annual National Defense Authorization Acts.
In accordance with the current doctrinal documents of the Pentagon, the single target program “Instant Global Strike” is an integral element and one of the most promising areas for the implementation of the operational-strategic concept “Global Strike”. This concept is a system of views on improving the capabilities of national armed forces to carry out precision strikes on critical targets in the shortest possible time (within 72 hours from the receipt of an order) and at long range using a limited number of nuclear and conventional weapons, and also through space, information and special operations.
As part of the Moscow State University program in the United States, technologies for strategic high-precision weapons with fundamentally new combat capabilities are being developed. The highest priority is given to developments in the field of hypersonic (flight speed exceeding the speed of sound by five times or more) guided weapons, which has a number of the following advantages: short flight time; high efficiency of use against protected stationary objects; expanded capabilities for destroying moving targets; low vulnerability due to the lack of capabilities to intercept hypersonic weapons with modern and promising air defense and missile defense systems.
In addition, the Pentagon especially emphasizes that promising hypersonic systems are not the subject of consideration under the current arms limitation treaty regime.
High-ranking representatives of the US military department have repeatedly stated that, if necessary, instant global strikes can be carried out against the military-political leadership, the most important bodies of state and military command, production and storage facilities, as well as means of delivering weapons of mass destruction to the enemy.
According to American experts, if the MSU program is successfully completed, up to 30% of enemy targets, the destruction of which is currently planned, could become targets of promising hypersonic weapons nuclear weapons. At the same time, Pentagon representatives believe that the hypersonic systems being developed will not replace nuclear weapons, but will serve as an additional tool for deterring and defeating the enemy in remote theaters of operations without the deployment of forward-based groups of American troops.
Along with loud statements from senior Pentagon officials that hypersonic strike systems will become the “ideal weapon,” a number of influential American research centers believe that the implementation of the program is fraught with significant risks, limitations and problems.
In particular, the US Congressional Research Service noted in one of its reports that the use of hypersonic strike weapons in a conflict with an enemy possessing nuclear weapons could lead to an escalation of military actions uncontrolled by Washington.
American experts are particularly concerned about the fact that an enemy could regard an instantaneous global strike as a nuclear attack. In addition, the use of gliding hypersonic strike weapons with a flight trajectory different from the ballistic one may cause a third party to incorrectly assess the possible area of their impact and serve as a reason for involving states that were not initially involved in the conflict.
The Pentagon does not yet have any specific plans to deploy MSU assets. However, in the future, if technological problems are overcome and new strike hypersonic weapons are adopted, it is planned to adjust the operational plans of the United Strategic Command (USC) of the US Armed Forces, which is responsible for planning, organizing and carrying out global strikes.
At the same time, the task of developing forms and methods of combat use of promising MSU weapons has already been assigned to the center for analyzing methods of conducting combat operations USC (Dahlgren, Virginia). This structure is equipped with modern systems for simulating a combat situation, which make it possible to explore personal options for delivering instant global strikes and develop optimal solutions for the use of promising hypersonic weapons.
Research, experiments, technological developments and tests within the framework of the MSU program cover the most various aspects creating hypersonic weapons. A significant number of projects were closed after achieving certain results or being considered unsuccessful.
Thus, since the late 1990s, the US Navy has been studying the possibility of equipping Trident 2 missiles with high-precision warheads in conventional equipment. Despite the satisfactory results of flight tests of experimental samples of such warheads in the 2000s (they were developed with funds from Lockheed Martin), this project did not receive support in Congress. Attempts have also been made to develop non-nuclear strategic weapons for hitting strategic targets and for use in local conflicts. Thus, in 2005-2006, R&D was carried out on a sea-based ballistic missile with a firing range of up to 5,500 km.
In 2010-2011, the US Department of Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, within the framework of the Ark-Light project, studied the possibility of creating a high-precision non-nuclear strike weapon system based on Standard-3 anti-missiles for hitting ground targets at a range of up to 3,500 km. Currently, this work is not funded.
Until 2011, considerable attention was paid to the CSM (Conventional Strike Missile) project, which envisaged the creation of a non-nuclear ICBM (based on the decommissioned MX missile). As part of this project, the HTV-2 (Hypersonic Test Vehicle) delivery vehicle was tested. In 2010 and 2011, two of its flight tests were carried out using the Minotaur-4 launch vehicle, as a result of which it was revealed serious problems related to ensuring the controllability of the device and the durability of its heat-protective coating. Because of this, funding for this work has been significantly reduced and further tests of the HTV-2 device are not yet planned.
Currently, priority is given to testing the technologies of the hypersonic glide vehicle for delivering the AHW (Advanced Hypersonic Weapon) payload, launched using a multi-stage launch vehicle. Two tests were carried out - successful in 2011 at a range of about 3,800 km and unsuccessful in 2014. The next flight experiment under the AHW project is planned for 2017, the fourth - for 2019.
In addition, since 2014, the TBG (Tactical Boost Glide) project has been implemented, within the framework of which the possibility of creating a hypersonic weapon system for use as part of air- and sea-based missile systems is being studied.
In the field of hypersonic guided missiles, the X-51A technological project has now been completed as having completed its task. The results achieved during it are expected to be used in the HAWC (Hypersonic Air-breathing Weapon Concept) program, aimed at developing hypersonic aircraft guided missile technologies.
The S-400 complexes are capable of creating a reliable “security umbrella” for domestic nuclear forces. Photo by Reuters
The correct answer to the question posed in the title of the article is of decisive importance for the very existence Russian state. Currently, the main military task of the United States is the destruction of the Russian nuclear missile potential, which prevents Washington from becoming a world hegemon and disposing of the world's resources (human, material, natural, etc.) at its discretion. The elimination of Russian strategic nuclear forces (SNF) will allow the United States to solve all its main problems, including paying off the huge US public debt, which has reached almost $20 billion, with war.
As a result there will be real opportunity to fulfill the long-standing dream of the West about the “golden billion”, which will live forever on Earth in harmony with nature, while the remaining 6 billion inhabitants of the Earth become redundant, and the hegemon will control their fate at his own discretion. Thus, for the United States, the elimination of Russian strategic nuclear forces is a pressing task. In order to implement it, they are ready to violate both international agreements and many moral prohibitions, and commit any atrocities against Russia, Europe and all humanity.
In the current situation, how can we protect Russia from such an aggressor as the United States? Experts express different points of view on this issue.
The main watershed is the assessment of the likelihood of implementing a rapid global strike (GSU) against Russia. Let's look at the differences in attitude towards the BGU problem using the example of two articles published in the weekly "Independent Military Review" this year: Alexander Kalyadin "Strategy of rapid global deception" (No. 18, 2017) and Leonid Orlenko "How to protect yourself from a rapid global strike" ( No. 9, 2017).
THE CONCLUSIONS ARE WRONG
Alexander Kalyadin believes that a quick global strike is a myth, the main purpose of which is to serve as a “horror story.” The main function of the “horror story” is to intimidate Russians, cause panic in the Russian leadership, and force it to spend ruinously. Since BGU is just a myth, money should not be spent on protection against BGU, but it is better to use it to increase the competitiveness of the Russian economy, healthcare, science, education, social sphere.
In his article, Kalyadin tries to prove that the United States is not interested in launching BGU on Russia, even if it manages to destroy Russian strategic nuclear forces. Indeed, in this case, the Russian and European economies will be destroyed, their entire territory will be contaminated with radiation, tens, and maybe hundreds of millions of people will die. As a result, the United States will lose its European allies and NATO will cease to exist. The United States will suffer colossal political losses, economic and diplomatic ties throughout the world will be severed, and the United States, instead of a world hegemon, will turn into a global outcast, hated by all peoples living on Earth.
We can agree with these predictions of the devastating consequences of BSU. But the death of Europe in nuclear war will cause little grief to the United States, since it is a competitor in the field of high-tech products and also consumes a large amount of resources needed by the United States. Currently, Europe serves as a valuable tool for America to combat the sovereignty of the Russian state. After the “successful” BSU in Russia, this function disappears.
According to Kalyadin, China will benefit from BSU in Russia, which will increase its chances of becoming the main country in the world instead of the United States. Such a result of BSU also cannot be beneficial to the United States.
Kalyadin substantiates his understanding of the BSU problem as a myth. He writes that between the Russian Federation and the United States there are no such antagonistic contradictions that could not be resolved by political and diplomatic means. There are no ideological contradictions: both countries live within the capitalist system. There are also no territorial border disputes. Russia is not a competitor to the United States in the field of high-tech industry, since Russia accounts for only less than 2% of world GDP, and the United States - more than 24%, Russia's share in world exports of high-tech products is only 0.7%, and in the United States - 36%. Exports of high-tech products in Thailand are 6 times higher than in Russia, where there is a lot of talk about innovation at all levels, but no real action. At the same time, the growth rate of the Russian economy is less than 2%, which is lower than global growth rates. In such conditions, the creation of a high-tech economy is impossible, so the United States has nothing to worry about in this regard.
However, Alexander Kalyadin’s conclusion that there are no deep-seated disagreements between the United States and Russia is erroneous. As practice over many years has shown, contradictions that cannot be overcome through negotiations do exist. As long as the desire to become a world hegemon is the basis of US foreign policy, aimed at subordinating all countries of the world, including Russia, to its interests, antagonistic contradictions will remain. But on the path to US global hegemony, Russia’s strategic nuclear forces stand. Without them, Russia's independent foreign policy would be impossible. This leads to the conclusion: reliable protection of Russian strategic nuclear forces is a necessary condition for preserving Russia as sovereign state(see the mentioned article by L. Orlenko in NVO No. 9, 2017).
TECHNOLOGY OF DEPRIVATION OF SOVEREIGNTY
Alexander Kalyadin, considering the BGU problem, argues that currently there is a strategic nuclear missile balance between the United States and Russia, therefore, in the event of a rapid global strike by the United States, Russia will launch a retaliatory or retaliatory strike nuclear missile weapons, which is unacceptable to America. In this case, the military-political leadership of Russia should be advised to restrain the military-political leadership of the United States from the BSU in Russia.
Since, according to Kalyadin, there are no antagonistic contradictions between Russia and the United States, all existing differences can be resolved through negotiations: on Syria, on Ukraine, on sanctions, etc. In addition, one must hope that the common sense of the US President will not allow him to dare to a deliberately failed, insane and criminal adventure - delivering a quick global strike on Russia. But can one hope for the common sense of the American president if there is a fierce struggle between him and the political establishment?
Donald Trump, in his election speeches, proposed to intensify work in the United States to create a sixth technological order (bio-, nano-, information and cognitive technologies) and become an example for other countries. However, those political structures that are fighting Trump continue a policy aimed at establishing a unipolar world and world domination by force, including using the concepts of a quick global strike and missile defense (BMD).
The works of Leonid Orlenko (“NVO” No. 9, 2017) and a number of other authors (Leonid Ivashov, Konstantin Sivkov, Sergei Brezkun, etc.) present a different point of view on the probability of BSU in Russia.
Firstly, Washington has now broken the strategic nuclear missile parity between the United States and Russia. Secondly, antagonistic contradictions between the United States and Russia that cannot be overcome through negotiations persist. The main direction of United States foreign policy remains the idea of building a unipolar world. America wants to have sovereignty, while other countries, including Russia, China, and European states, cannot have state sovereignty and must carry out the will of the hegemon. Currently, Russia is most actively opposed to such a policy, whose main goal, unlike the United States, is peace, which is necessary for carrying out reforms, creating an innovative economy in the country, improving the level and quality of life of the population, and developing every citizen in the intellectual, spiritual and moral fields, but also to ensure the internal and external security of the country.
To date, the United States has developed a technology for depriving countries of state sovereignty. Soft power is used first, and if it does not give desired result, then the “hybrid war” begins. If in this case it is not possible to destroy the sovereignty of the unwanted state, then military force is activated, which the author of this article outlined in detail in the material “Classification of Modern Wars”, published in Izvestia RARAN No. 3 for 2016.
In order to suppress Russia’s independence, the United States is currently waging a hybrid war against it: sanctions, information war, drawing Russia into military conflicts, using “agents of influence” to destroy the Russian economy, etc. If the ongoing “hybrid war” does not suppress Russia’s state sovereignty, then a BSU may be inflicted, for which Russia is not sufficiently prepared. Hence the conclusion: protecting strategic nuclear forces is the number one priority in the field of defense.
IS THERE PARITY?
Currently, about 500 intercontinental missiles are deployed in Russia. ballistic missiles(ICBR). Of these, about 400 are located approximately equally in silos and on mobile ground-based missile systems (GGRK). The remaining ICBMs are located on submarines (submarines). The coordinates of the mines and PGRK are known to American intelligence, and the US anti-submarine system has the ability to track submarines on combat duty in the seas and oceans.
As a result, the most likely attack is on the Strategic Missile Forces (about 400 ICBMs) and submarines stationed at the piers. For this, most likely, the United States will use its Ohio-class missile submarines armed with Trident 2-D5 missiles, each of which carries 14 nuclear units (NU) with a yield of 100 kt or eight units with a yield of 475 kt. There are 14 such submarines in the American fleet; they each carry 24 missiles, that is, 1,728 nuclear units, of which 384 have a capacity of 475 kilotons. The flight time of such missiles to Russian targets is only 10–15 minutes.
By and large, three Ohio-class submarines, armed with about 1000 nuclear weapons of 100 kt each, are capable of destroying up to 90% of Russian ICBMs in silos and PGRK, as well as submarines with ICBMs stationed at the piers.
The commander of the Strategic Missile Forces, Colonel General Sergei Karakaev, believes that the use of camouflage makes the PGRK invisible to space reconnaissance. But this does not take into account the fact that to destroy the PGRK you do not need to see them, it is enough to know the route, since the radius of destruction when a nuclear charge with a power of 100 kt explodes on the surface of the Earth is 3 km. For example, if the route of a PGRK is 120 km, then to destroy all PGRKs located on the route, only 20 nuclear weapons are required. Therefore, we cannot assume that they are protected reliably enough.
ASYMMETRICAL RESPONSE
To destroy a nuclear unit flying towards a target (mine or other), Russia does not yet have the appropriate means, so it is necessary to use non-standard methods of protection that can be implemented relatively quickly and inexpensively within the existing defense budget.
Firstly, it is necessary to create in the north and east of the country, with the help of the Northern and Pacific fleets, water areas protected from aircraft, helicopters, drones, submarines and ships, and place in such water areas two or three submarines with ICBMs, the coordinates of which are not known to the United States, which will protect them from BGU. In the future, instead of strategic submarines, it is quite possible to place ICBMs in a hull that is towed in the specified water area by any submarine.
Secondly, since Russia’s defense budget is 15 times smaller than the NATO budget, it is necessary to use asymmetric methods of defense to protect the country. To do this, the geophysical vulnerability of the US territory should be used. During the time of the USSR, academician Andrei Sakharov proposed to mine certain areas of the Pacific and Atlantic oceans near the US coast with several dozen unrecoverable nuclear mines. When mines explode, they create waves that can cause unacceptable damage to the United States. The signal to detonate mines will be given only if the United States launches a quick global strike on Russia. After mining, conditions are created for equal negotiations with the United States on mutual disarmament. For example, Russia is demining coastal areas, and the United States is removing all military bases around Russia, as well as missile defense in Europe, submarines and ships with missile defense systems located near Russian borders. Mining precedent nuclear mines has already taken place. During the existence of the USSR, the border between the countries of the Warsaw Pact Organization and NATO in Europe was mined by the United States with nuclear mines.
Reliable protection from BSU is necessary for Russia to carry out reforms in order to create an innovative economy. A condition for the successful implementation of reforms is the replacement of the liberal-monetarist model of economic management, which is destructive for Russia, with a planned market model, economically and socio-politically more effective than the Chinese economic model.
In the final part of the material, it is necessary to point out such a serious mistake made by Alexander Kalyadin in his article. Thus, he believes that the American project “Strategic Defense Initiative” (SDI), announced by President Reagan in 1983, served only as a deception launched to ruin the USSR.
However, Kalyadin apparently does not know what happened next. American firms secretly continued to work on SDI, and currently this program is the number one priority in US defense plans (see material by Vladimir Ivanov in NVO No. 18, 2017). To implement these plans, an unmanned reusable aircraft was launched two years ago. spacecraft X-37B, which is capable of shooting down satellites in space, as well as launching missiles with nuclear warheads at ground targets. Such a rocket flies to any target on the surface of the Earth in only two to three minutes. Currently unavailable technical means combat such missiles. The X-37B's mission is to provide the United States with complete control over the globe.
Mining of the American coast is blocking this new project USA.
Follow us