Description: War Thunder is a next generation military MMO game dedicated to...
The Pentagon has begun to create promising systems of instantaneous global strike. This was announced on Thursday, October 12 Representative of the Russian Ministry of Defense Alexander Yemelyanov. He noted that "in terms of non-nuclear equipment, these complexes should solve the same tasks that are currently assigned to strategic nuclear forces."
“The relationship between plans to deploy a missile defense system and the creation of instant global strike means is obvious. When inflicting a "disarming" strike on Russian and Chinese strategic nuclear forces efficiency increases significantly American system ABM,” said Yemelyanov on the sidelines of the first committee of the UN General Assembly.
He stressed that "the creation of instant global strike means is another factor that confirms Washington's desire to destroy the existing balance of power and ensure global strategic dominance."
Previously First Deputy Chief of the Main Operational Directorate of the General Staff of Russia, Lieutenant-General Viktor Poznikhir clarified that "the arrival of the first complexes in the US armed forces is planned in 2020." He also expressed the opinion that "the build-up of the American missile defense potential stimulates the arms race", thereby forcing other states "to take retaliatory military and military-technical measures."
As the representative of the General Staff noted at the time, Russia, China and the United States need to negotiate through negotiations to resolve the problems associated with the deployment of the American missile defense system, especially since there is experience in reaching agreements with the United States in a difficult political situation.
Recall: Prompt Global Strike (PGS) systems are non-nuclear high-precision systems that allow 60 minutes from the moment the decision is made to strike at any target on the globe.
The goals of such complexes are mobile and stationary launchers of ballistic missiles, command posts, and nuclear facilities. To date, three types of PGS tools are known.
The first type is conventional intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs) equipped with high-precision non-nuclear warheads, including individually targetable clusters. The second is strategic hypersonic cruise missiles.
Finally, the third type includes the so-called kinetic weapons - heavy refractory tungsten rods 5-10 meters long ("rods of God"), which are dropped from space orbit with high accuracy. Such a projectile fired from space, reaching the Earth's surface at the right point, gives at the point of impact a release of energy equivalent to an explosion of about 12 tons of TNT. So far, such an option is allegedly in the United States at the stage of preliminary design.
And the question arises: how can Russia respond to the emergence of instant global strike complexes in the Americans, in addition to diplomatic attempts to reason with the United States?
“The ultimate goal, which should be solved by PGS systems, is to strike at any point on the planet in no more than an hour,” says retired colonel, member of the Expert Council of the Board of the Military-Industrial Commission of the Russian Federation Viktor Murakhovsky. - At the same time, I would not consider conventional ICBMs in non-nuclear equipment as a means of PGS at all. Such missiles are subject to the restrictions of the START-3 treaty, in addition, it is impossible to distinguish between a missile in nuclear and conventional equipment with existing technical means.
Therefore, when the Pentagon talks about instant global strike systems, we are talking about hypersound. True, how far the Americans have advanced in this direction is not yet entirely clear.
Known, for example, is the American Boeing x-37b, an experimental orbital aircraft designed to test future technologies. Officially, the US Air Force says that the tasks of the x-37b are reusable spacecraft technologies. In fact, such a "space plane" just allows you to solve the problem of reaching any point on the planet within an hour.
Plus, by 2020, Lockheed Martin promises to create a working version of the SR-72, a promising hypersonic drone that will be able to fly at speeds up to six Mach numbers (up to 6.9 thousand kilometers per hour). Hypersonic aircraft armed with hypersonic missiles will also be able to reach their destination and strike the target in less than one hour.
Another element of PGS is missile defense systems, which, due to military strategy, are inextricably linked with instant global strike systems. The shock and defensive systems, I note, smoothly flow into each other, primarily in organizational and military terms.
"SP": - What place is given to kinetic weapons in PGS?
- At hypersonic speeds, explosives in the warhead are simply not needed. Since the mutual velocity of the collision with the target exceeds 10 km / s, the substance is almost instantly converted into pure energy.
American GBI (Ground-Based Interceptor) missile defense systems and the THAAD (Terminal High Altitude Area Defense) mobile system, which is a theater missile defense system, are already operating on this principle.
GBI, in theory, can intercept warheads of intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs) - targets moving along a ballistic trajectory at speeds up to 7 km / s. Moreover, to do this at the border of the atmosphere with space - at an altitude of 120-200 km.
THAAD works on ballistic targets that have a flight speed of 3-3.5 km / s (in the latest versions - up to 5 km / s). These are operational-tactical missiles, the so-called intermediate range.
So here it is warhead The missile defense of these missile defense systems is really a metal rod.
Impact systems can be equipped in exactly the same way - that is, hypersonic vehicles. They will be able to attack from lower space or the upper atmosphere, dropping not a bomb on the target, but, in fact, a metal bar. This blank at a speed of Mach 6-8 will crash into the target, and the effect will be the same as from the detonation of a large-caliber bomb.
"SP": - What can Russia oppose to these systems?
“We are already taking these threats into account today by deploying a complex of countermeasure systems. First of all, a missile attack warning system (SPRN), which includes both ground and space echelons.
Plus, we are improving weapons, and above all, the S-500 universal anti-aircraft and anti-missile system. He will be able to work on hypersonic targets, and on targets in near space, and on ballistic targets.
Finally, in Russia, work is underway to create a promising missile defense system on the Nudol theme. True, apart from the title of the topic and the fact that it refers to missile defense, nothing more can be said about it.
The S-400 complexes are capable of creating a reliable "security umbrella" for domestic nuclear forces. Reuters photo
The correct answer to the question posed in the title of the article is of decisive importance for the very existence of the Russian state. At present, the main military task of the United States is to destroy the Russian nuclear missile potential, which prevents Washington from becoming a world hegemon and disposing of world resources (human, material, natural, etc.) at its discretion. The elimination of the Russian strategic nuclear forces (SNF) will allow the United States to solve all its main problems, including paying off the huge US national debt, which has reached almost $ 20 billion, by war.
As a result, there will be a 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 superfluous, and the hegemon will manage their fate at its own discretion. Thus, for the United States, the elimination of Russian strategic nuclear forces is the most urgent task. To realize it, they are ready to break both international agreements, as well as many moral prohibitions, commit any atrocities against Russia, Europe and all mankind.
How in the current situation to 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 probability of implementing a rapid global strike (FSU) against Russia. Let's consider the differences in attitudes towards the problem of BSU on the example of two articles published in the weekly "Nezavisimoe military review” this year: Alexander Kalyadin “The strategy of a quick global deception” (No. 18, 2017) and Leonid Orlenko “How to protect yourself from a quick global strike” (No. 9, 2017).
THE CONCLUSIONS ARE WRONG
Alexander Kalyadin believes that the fast global impact- this 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 the Russians, cause panic in the Russian leadership, and force them to go to ruinous expenses. Since BSU is just a myth, money should not be spent on protection from BSU, but it is better to use it to increase the competitiveness of the Russian economy, healthcare, science, education, and the social sphere.
In his article, Kalyadin tries to prove that the United States is not interested in inflicting BGU on Russia, even if they manage 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, NATO will cease to exist. The United States will suffer enormous political losses, economic and diplomatic ties throughout the world will be severed, and the United States, instead of the world hegemon, will turn into a world outcast, hated by all the peoples living on Earth.
One can agree with these predictions of the devastating consequences of the Belarusian State University. But the death of Europe in a nuclear war will not grieve the United States, since it is a competitor in the field of high-tech products, and also consumes a large amount of the resources the US needs. At present, Europe serves as a valuable tool for America in the fight against the sovereignty of the Russian state. After the "successful" Belarusian State University in Russia, this function disappears.
According to Kalyadin, China will benefit from BSU in Russia, which will increase the chances of becoming the main country in the world instead of the United States. Such a result of the Belarusian State University also cannot be beneficial to the United States.
Kalyadin substantiates his understanding of the BSU problem as a myth. He writes that there are no such antagonistic contradictions between the Russian Federation and the United States that could not be resolved by political and diplomatic means. There are no ideological contradictions: both countries live within the framework of the capitalist system. There are also no territorial border disputes. Russia is not a competitor to the US in the field of science-intensive industry, since Russia accounts for only less than 2% of global GDP, and the US - more than 24%, Russia's share in world exports of science-intensive products is only 0.7%, and in the US - 36%. The export of science-intensive products in Thailand is 6 times greater 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 the world growth rates. Under such conditions, the creation of a high-tech economy is impossible, so the US has nothing to worry about in this regard.
However, Alexander Kalyadin's conclusion that there are no deep disagreements between the United States and Russia is erroneous. As the practice of many years shows, there are contradictions that cannot be overcome with the help of negotiations. As long as the desire to become a world hegemon will be the basis of US foreign policy aimed at subjugating all countries of the world, including Russia, to its interests, antagonistic contradictions will persist. But Russia's strategic nuclear forces stand in the way of US global hegemony. Without them, Russia's independent foreign policy would be impossible. Hence the conclusion follows: reliable protection of Russian strategic nuclear forces is a necessary condition for the preservation of Russia as a sovereign state (see the mentioned article by L. Orlenko in NVO No. 9, 2017).
TECHNOLOGY OF DESTROYING SOVEREIGNTY
Alexander Kalyadin, considering the problem of BGU, argues that at present 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 strikes back or counter-attack with 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 BSU in Russia.
Since, according to Kalyadin, there are no antagonistic contradictions between Russia and the United States, all existing disagreements can be resolved through negotiations: on Syria, on Ukraine, on sanctions, etc. In addition, it is to be hoped 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 against Russia. But can one hope for the common sense of the American president, if there is a fierce struggle going on between him and the political establishment.
Donald Trump in his election speeches suggested intensifying work in the United States on the creation of the sixth technological order (bio-, nano-, info- and cognitive technologies) and becoming an example for other countries. However, those political structures that are fighting Trump continue their policy aimed at establishing a unipolar world and world domination by force, including using the concepts of a rapid global strike and missile defense (ABM).
The works of Leonid Orlenko (“NVO” No. 9, 2017) and a number of other authors (Leonid Ivashov, Konstantin Sivkov, Sergey Brezkun, etc.) present a different point of view on the probability of BSU in Russia.
First, Washington has now broken the strategic nuclear-missile parity between the US and Russia. Secondly, the antagonistic contradictions between the US and Russia that cannot be overcome through negotiations remain. The main direction of the foreign policy of the United States remains the idea of building a unipolar world. America wants to have sovereignty, while the rest of the countries, including Russia, China, the states of Europe, cannot have state sovereignty and must comply with the will of the hegemon. At present, Russia is most actively opposed to such a policy, the main goal of which, unlike the United States, is peace, which is necessary for reforms, the creation of an innovative economy in the country, an increase in the level and quality of life of the population, the development of every citizen in the intellectual and 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. First, soft power is used, and if it does not give the desired result, then a “hybrid war” begins. If in this case it is not possible to destroy the sovereignty of the objectionable state, then military force is turned on, which the author of this article detailed in the material “Classification modern wars”, published in Izvestia RARAN No. 3 for 2016.
In order to suppress the independence of Russia, the United States is currently waging a hybrid war against it: sanctions, an 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 BSU, for which Russia is not sufficiently prepared, may be inflicted. Hence the conclusion: the protection of strategic nuclear forces is the number one priority in the field of defense.
IS THERE A PARITY
About 500 intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs) are currently deployed in Russia. Of these, about 400 are located approximately equally in mines and on mobile ground missile systems (PGRK). The rest of the ICBMs are deployed on submarines (submarines). The coordinates of mines and PGRKs 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 probable is the BGU for the Strategic Missile Forces (about 400 ICBMs) and submarines standing at the piers. For this, most likely, the United States uses its Ohio-class missile submarines armed with Trident 2-D5 missiles, each of which carries 14 nuclear units (NB) with a capacity of 100 kt, or eight units with a capacity of 475 kt. In total, there are 14 such submarines in the American fleet, they house 24 missiles, that is, 1728 nuclear units, of which 384 have a capacity of 475 kt. The flight time of such missiles to Russian targets is only 10-15 minutes.
By and large, three submarines of the Ohio type, armed with about 1000 nuclear warheads of 100 kt each, are capable of destroying up to 90% of Russian ICBMs in mines and PGRK, as well as submarines with ICBMs standing 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 in the explosion of a nuclear charge with a capacity of 100 kt on the Earth's surface is 3 km. For example, if the PGRK route is 120 km, then only 20 nuclear weapons are required to destroy all PGRKs located on the route. Therefore, it cannot be considered that they are protected sufficiently reliably.
ASYMMETRIC RESPONSE
Russia does not yet have the appropriate means to destroy a nuclear unit flying at a target (mine or other), so it is necessary to use non-standard methods of protection that can be implemented relatively quickly and inexpensively within the existing defense budget.
First, 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 to 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 BSU. In the future, instead of strategic submarines, it is quite possible to place ICBMs in a hull that any submarine tows in the specified water area.
Secondly, since Russia's defense budget is 15 times smaller than NATO's, it is necessary to use asymmetric defense methods to protect the country. To do this, use the geophysical vulnerability of the US territory. When he was in the USSR, Academician Andrei Sakharov proposed to mine certain areas of the Pacific and Atlantic Oceans near the coast of the United States with several dozen non-retrievable nuclear mines. When mines explode, waves are formed that can cause unacceptable damage to the United States. The signal to detonate mines will be given only in the event that the United States launches a rapid 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 systems in Europe, submarines and ships with missile defense systems located near Russian borders. The precedent of mining with nuclear mines has already taken place. During the existence of the USSR, the border between the countries of the Warsaw Pact 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. The 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 that is economically and socio-politically more efficient than the Chinese economic model.
In the final part of the material, one should also point out such a serious mistake made by Alexander Kalyadin in his article. So, he believes that the American project "Strategic Defense Initiative" (SDI), announced by President Reagan in 1983, served only as a decoy launched to ruin the USSR.
However, Kalyadin apparently does not know what happened next. American firms secretly continued to work on SDI, and this program is currently the number one priority in US defense plans (see Vladimir Ivanov's material in NVO No. 18, 2017). To implement these plans, two years ago, the X-37B unmanned reusable spacecraft was launched, which is capable of shooting down satellites in space, as well as launching missiles with nuclear charges at ground targets. Such a rocket flies to any target on the surface of the Earth in just two to three minutes. Currently missing technical means counter such missiles. The task of the X-37B is to ensure that the United States has complete control over the globe.
Mining the American coast is blocking this new project USA.
Subscribe to us
Foreword
The topic of a global attack on the Russian Federation will be covered by the author in a series of five parts over two weeks (each topic after 2-3 days). Instead of the word "quick", media articles also use the terms "instantaneous", "lightning fast" and "sudden".
In the messages, when expressing his opinion, the author will use the term “sudden global impact” (SGA) or mark “ MA:» (author's opinion). When quoting the text, the author took the liberty of slightly distorting certain terms (for example, “nuclear warhead” or “nuclear warhead” is changed to “nuclear ammunition”, etc.) in order to reduce the abbreviations used in the text. When discussing messages on the forum, the author reserves the right not to respond to any comments and questions. There are questions - ask in a personal. If more than 20 members of the forum support the same question in messages, I will answer. The opinion of the author may differ from the opinion of other people from the site. Therefore, I apologize in advance to them and undertake to read your comments, which will be posted within 7 days.
Plans for US nuclear strikes on the USSR and Russia. Unilateral initiatives to reduce stockpiles of nuclear
From the 80s until the collapse of the USSR at the end of 1991, there were many plans for US nuclear strikes on the territory of the USSR, which provided for the conduct of a nuclear war within 3-6 months.
September 27, 1991 of the year US President D. Bush(senior) announced that the US is unilaterally committed to:
- Eliminate ground-based short-range nuclear weapons (NW) (artillery shells, short-range ballistic missile (BR) warheads):
- remove tactical nuclear weapons (TNW) from surface ships, attack submarines (meaning multi-purpose submarines), naval aviation ground based. Most land- and sea-based nuclear weapons (NWs) will be dismantled and destroyed, while the rest will be stored at central storage facilities;
- strategic bombers (SB) are taken out of combat duty;
- the development of mobile-based MX ICBMs is terminated;
- the program to create a short-range nuclear missile for the Security Council is cancelled;
- streamline the control of strategic nuclear forces (SNF) (the operational commands of the nuclear forces of the Navy and Air Force are reduced to the US strategic command under the command of one commander with the participation of both types of armed forces).
October 5, 1991 year, a counter statement was made by the head USSR M.Gorbachev:
- all nuclear artillery munitions and nuclear warheads of tactical missiles are eliminated;
- withdrawn from the troops and concentrated on the central bases of nuclear warheads of anti-aircraft missiles, some of them are liquidated;
- all nuclear mines are eliminated;
- all tactical nuclear weapons are removed from surface ships and multi-purpose submarines. These weapons, as well as ground-based naval aviation nuclear weapons, are being stored in centralized storage areas, and part of them are being liquidated;
- Security forces are taken out of combat duty, and their nuclear weapons are placed in military depots;
- the development of a modified short-range nuclear missile for the Security Council is stopped;
- the development of small-sized ICBMs is being stopped;
- no increase in quantity launchers(PU) rail-based ICBMs in excess of the existing ones and will not be upgraded to these missiles. All rail-based ICBMs will be located in places of permanent deployment;
- removed from combat duty 503 ICBMs. Derived from combat strength 3 SSBNs with 48 launchers for SLBMs (in addition to the previously withdrawn 3 SSBNs with 44 launchers);
- a deeper reduction of strategic offensive weapons (START) is being carried out than is provided for by the Treaty (by the end of the seven-year period of reductions, the number of nuclear warheads in strategic offensive arms will not be 6,000 units, as established by the Treaty, but 5,000 units;
- in order to increase the reliability of control over nuclear weapons, all strategic nuclear forces are united under a single operational control. Strategic defense systems are included in single view Sun.
Since at the end of 1991 the USSR broke up into many independent states, then on January 29, 1992, a statement was made President of the Russian Federation B. Yeltsin:
- about 600 land-based and sea-based strategic ballistic missiles were taken off combat duty;
- 130 silo launchers of ICBMs have been liquidated or are being prepared for liquidation;
- prepared for the dismantling of launchers of 6 nuclear submarines;
- programs for the development or modernization of several types of strategic offensive weapons have been discontinued;
- the production of SB Tu-160 and Tu-95MS is stopped;
- the production of long-range air-launched cruise missiles (ALCMs) of existing types is stopped;
- the production of existing types of sea-launched nuclear cruise missiles (SLCMs) is being stopped. New types of such missiles will not be created;
- halved and will further reduce the number of SSBNs on combat patrols;
- the production of nuclear warheads for ground-based tactical missiles, as well as the production of nuclear artillery shells and nuclear mines, was stopped. Stocks of such nuclear warheads will be eliminated;
- a third of sea-based tactical nuclear weapons and half of nuclear warheads for anti-aircraft missiles will be eliminated;
- stocks of aviation tactical nuclear warheads will be reduced by half.
The last of the plans for US nuclear strikes on Russia (the successor of the USSR) was the "Unified Comprehensive Plan for the Conduct of Military Operations" SIOP-92 (the number of objects to destroy nuclear weapons up to 4000, which were mainly located on the territory of the Russian Federation) and SIOP-97 (the number of objects to destroy nuclear weapons up to 2500, mainly in the territory of the Russian Federation). It should be noted that several nuclear warheads can be assigned to hit one target.
In 1999, a new SIOP-00 plan was developed (the number of objects to destroy nuclear weapons is up to 3,000, of which 2,000 are on the territory of the Russian Federation). It can be seen from the above data that after the collapse of the USSR, Russia began to be considered the most dangerous potential adversary of the United States. At the same time, the number of targets on its territory by 1999 decreased by 2 times. The military-political leadership of the United States began to pay closer attention to other countries, in particular to the People's Republic of China.
The birth of the concept of a rapid global strike
The idea of a global strike (a fast, high-precision strike from the United States within 90 minutes) on especially important targets came up with Air Force specialists in 1996. They assumed that by 2025 the United States would have long-range conventional and non-nuclear guided ballistic missiles. In 1999, Air Force specialists also considered the option of a sudden massive nuclear strike (SNA) against the Russian Federation. According to their estimates, SB, mobile ICBM complexes, rail-based missile systems, SSBNs at naval bases, up to 90% of silo-based ICBMs and one of the two SSBNs on combat patrol were completely destroyed at the points of permanent deployment. In a retaliatory strike, less than 5% of the nuclear warheads that Russia had hit the US territory. Based on the results of the assessments, it was suggested that with the strengthening of missile defense, it is possible to reduce the number of nuclear warheads that hit targets in the United States to less than 1%.
During the inter-ethnic military conflict on the territory of Bosnia and Herzegovina, the UN Security Council imposed an embargo on the supply of weapons to the warring parties. European countries (including NATO members) were especially in favor of this - they did not need a conflict in Europe. The Americans announced the continuation of the supply of weapons and equipment unilaterally (on the Internet, the mention of these events was removed. Only the newspapers remained). European countries remained silent in response. Since that time, the process of "crushing Europe under the United States" began (or continued).
During air strikes on the territory of Serbia (Yugoslavia), the practice of destroying the country (and changing the regime) with air strikes and bringing NATO troops into Kosovo was tested. But this was possible only due to the international isolation of the country. Europe finally became a vassal of the United States.
By the end of 1999, the American military-political leadership recognized "... The existing SIOP-00 plan is unbalanced and does not meet the new military-political conditions." In the early 2000s The US Department of Defense, in accordance with the instructions of the President, has updated plans for nuclear strikes. After President George W. Bush (junior) came to power, the plans for building missile defense were revised. The project of creating a layered system began to be considered, the key requirement for which was the ability to intercept ballistic missiles of any range in all parts of the trajectory. The creation of such a system was contrary to the provisions of the ABM Treaty.
In 2001, under the global strike, Air Force specialists, when conducting command and staff exercises (KShU), still meant “breaking through corridors” in air defense zones to hit important targets on enemy territory. After the terrorist attacks on US soil in September 2001, the Defense Ministry announced its intention to create a new conglomerate of offensive strike systems: strategic nuclear forces, conventional strike forces, and information operations forces. In 2002, the task of global strike was included in the responsibility of the Joint Strategic Command (USC). In June 2002, the US unilaterally withdrew from the ABM Treaty.
The first updated national plan nuclear warfare became OPLAN-8044, which entered into force in 2004. It included many options suitable for use in a wide range of scenarios for the development of the military-political situation. In terms of OPLAN-8044, the strikes were smaller in scale, but the possibility of delivering MNWs remained.
MNW can be applied suddenly without additional deployment of strategic offensive weapons, the composition of which corresponds to START-3, which ensures stealth and prompt preparation of the strike. MNW can be applied after additional deployment using the "return potential" of nuclear warheads and backup carriers, which provides an increase in strike power. The choice between these options is determined by the conditions of the situation and depends on the time required for the direct preparation of a nuclear strike and the additional deployment of strategic offensive arms.
Below is an assessment of the need for US strategic offensive forces in nuclear warheads based on declassified plans for nuclear strikes against the Russian Federation. The objects of destruction of NNUs are silo launchers of ICBMs, permanent deployment points (RPD) of mobile-based ICBMs, basing points for fleet forces, air bases, storage points for nuclear warheads, enterprises of the nuclear weapons complex, control and communication points.
For each silo with ICBMs, two warheads are assigned for ground detonation Mk21 and one Mk5. It is believed that the shelling of one object by different types of nuclear warhead delivery vehicles provides a higher guarantee of hitting the target compared to other options. In the RFP for mobile-based ICBMs, targets are structures for self-propelled launchers and other fixed objects. Location of dispersed self-propelled units at the moment of impact is not known for certain, their defeat is considered almost impossible. For each RPM, two Mk4A warheads are assigned for ground detonation, which makes it possible to destroy non-dispersed launchers, as well as administrative and technical buildings and structures.
Several levels of destruction of the bases of the fleet forces are considered: from strikes against the infrastructure of the SSBNs to the destruction of objects that can be used by the fleets. Several nuclear warheads can be assigned to destroy each object. A similar approach is being implemented when planning strikes against military aviation targets. The minimum level is considered to be the defeat of SBA air bases. The build-up of defeat involves strikes against other airfields, as well as targets related to the functioning of aviation. From one to three nuclear warheads are assigned to an object.
The objects of the class "nuclear warhead storage facilities" include storage bases of the "national level". For each, given their high security, 8 nuclear warheads are assigned for ground detonation. This creates radioactive contamination of the area, excluding for a long time any activity on the territory of the facility, including rescue and evacuation work.
The number of enterprises of the nuclear weapons complex includes federal nuclear centers, plants for the production of nuclear warheads, their components, as well as plants for the production of nuclear materials. 1-5 nuclear warheads are assigned to an object.
The list of control and communication points includes points of the highest state and military command, elements of control systems for strategic nuclear forces and general-purpose forces, control and monitoring of space objects, as well as elements of the telecommunications system. Their main affected elements are considered to be radio transmitting, radio receiving and radar stations, antenna devices and other objects that have low resistance to damaging factors nuclear explosion. In this regard, one nuclear warhead is assigned to destroy each object.
As a result of a sudden MNW, it is expected:
- the defeat of about 93% of silos with ICBMs;
- destruction of mobile ICBMs located in the PPD;
- destruction of the SSBNs located in the bases and the fleet's basing infrastructure;
- destruction of carrier aircraft at airfields and aviation-based infrastructure;
- destruction of all storage points with stockpiles of nuclear warheads in them;
- destruction of the infrastructure for the development and production of nuclear warheads;
- disabling the system of higher state and military administration.
In 2005, the Space Operations and Global Strike Command appeared as part of the USC - a structure that clearly defined the regional focus of the strike and separated it from strategic nuclear operations, as well as from large-scale operations without the use of nuclear weapons.
The question of revising the existing military doctrine was on the agenda. The new concept implies the achievement by the United States of global military superiority by expanding the arsenal of its armed forces by creating super-efficient non-nuclear weapons capable of delivering lightning strikes against threat sources.
In November 2006, at the NATO summit, for the first time, a proposal was made to extend Article 5 of the Joint Defense Treaty to international energy policy. NATO in this case will have to provide assistance to any member of the alliance whose energy reserves are exposed to an external threat.
In 2007, a doctrine was adopted according to which, in the event of a threat of an attack on the United States, on American facilities or on its citizens abroad, the Armed Forces must be capable of delivering a high-powered and accurate strike anywhere in the world within 60 minutes in order to neutralize such actions.
In accordance with the doctrine, the Plan of Strategic Deterrence and Global Strike was developed in 2009. OPLAN-8010". Compared to OPLAN-8044, it contains "more flexible options for guaranteeing the security of US allies, deterring and, if necessary, defeating the enemy in a wide range of emergency circumstances."
The number of nuclear warheads used in various strike options ranges from a few so-called "adaptive nuclear strikes" to more than a thousand in nuclear weapons. OPLAN-8010 also includes non-nuclear strike options that do not overlap with nuclear strike plans. Thus, despite a certain increase in the role of conventional high-precision weapons in military policy United States, nuclear weapons continued to be regarded not only as a tool to deter opponents, but also as a means of decisively defeating them.
In 2009, a report to the US Congress Committee noted: “... the Russian Federation intends to modernize its basic platforms for the delivery of nuclear warheads, but does not have the technical resources and scientific potential for this. Currently, only 3 SB Tu-160s out of 15 are operational. By 2019, there will not be a single flying copy due to the lack of spare parts. After 2019, only about 50 SB Tu-95s will remain in service. Of the 8 SSBNs, 4 can go to sea. After 2019, it is possible to commission 2 more submarines, bringing the total number to 5-7 operational ones (when on combat duty, no more than 2-3). Most of the ICBMs will be withdrawn from service in 2017-2019 due to the excess of the warranty period by 2.5-3 times. It is possible that up to 40 ICBMs may be put into service until 2019.”
MA: In the eyes of the American military-financial-political elite, Russia has slowly degraded. True, she recovered a little after the collapse of the USSR and the 1998 crisis. In the conditions of that time (despite the crisis of 2008), degradation did not occur as quickly as the foreign elite would like.
In 2010, the US Air Force Global Strike Command was created with the inclusion of all ICBMs, B-52H and B-2A bombers (since 2015 and B-1B SB). The mission of Global Strike Command was reported to be "nuclear and conventional strike, a key component of strategic deterrence."
In April 2010, President B. Obama spoke about the revision of the US national security doctrine: "... The threat of nuclear war has decreased to a minimum ... The main threat is nuclear terrorism ...". They also spoke about the non-proliferation of nuclear weapons and missile technologies. Russia was not mentioned in the list of US national security threats.
In 2010, the new Strategic Concept “Active Engagement, Modern NATO Defense” emphasized the threats posed by energy and resource interruptions due to dependence on foreign energy suppliers (the previous NATO concept dates back to 1999).
MA: The Predator lay in wait (Russia's fears should be lulled by United States Doctrine, but there is a hook in NATO doctrine for the use of military force).
The START-3 Treaty entered into force (we will consider the provisions of the Treaty in the second communication).
A problem has appeared that makes the use of BR in conventional equipment during a fast global strike very problematic. The START-3 treaty limits the total number of deployed ballistic missiles and makes no distinction between nuclear or conventional ones. The United States can equip land-based and sea-based ballistic missiles with conventional warheads only through a corresponding reduction in the number of deployed nuclear-armed missiles. This approach did not suit the military-political leadership of the United States, and Russia did not go towards the United States.
In February 2011, US President Barack Obama informed the Senate that the administration's next goal would be to start negotiations with the Russian Federation on limiting TNW stockpiles.
At the end of 2012, information was disseminated in the media about the conduct by the US military of a computer game (CCG) to practice the skills of delivering massive strikes with high-precision conventional weapons on a fictional country in order to cause unacceptable damage to it and force it to accept political conditions dictated by the United States. The purpose of these exercises was to work out the concept of the so-called rapid global strike, according to which it is supposed to defeat the most important military, political and economic objects of the enemy using existing and promising models of precision weapons. It was assumed that as a result of such actions, the victim country would lose the opportunity to strike back at the aggressor, and the destruction of key objects of its economy would lead to the collapse of the entire state system. It was indicated that the goal set during the KShU was achieved. The analysis of the exercises showed that as a result of an attack on a fairly large and highly developed country with the consumption of 3,500-4,000 units of conventional high-precision weapons within six hours, it will suffer unacceptable destruction of infrastructure and lose the ability to resist. This "leakage" of information is not accidental and unauthorized. The United States has unequivocally shown the whole world that there is a qualitative the new kind strategic weapons, which allows us to solve tasks that were previously assigned exclusively to nuclear forces. In fact, the Americans made an attempt to implement the concept of "contactless war". At a qualitatively new technical level, they are striving to do what they failed to do in the 20th century: to achieve political goals in a major military conflict only by air strikes.
On May 3, 2012, the head of the General Staff of the Russian Federation, N. Makarov, noted: “Given the destabilizing nature of the American missile defense system, i.e. creating the illusion of the possibility of delivering a massive destructive strike with complete impunity, a decision can be made on the preemptive deployment of strike weapons by the Russian Federation if the situation becomes threatening.
In 2012, a report to the US Congress said: "... We are talking about the planned reforms in the RF Armed Forces and large-scale rearmament ... About plans for the development and supply of weapons until 2020, mainly in the interests of strategic nuclear forces." The experts concluded that after 2020, in the event of a war [with Russia], it will cause unacceptable damage to the United States even if the PRC does not enter the war.
The exercises of the RF Armed Forces in February 2013 became the largest in 20 years and demonstrated an increase in the level of combat readiness of strategic nuclear forces, units of the 12th Main Directorate of the Ministry of Defense (during transportation and work with nuclear weapons). The Americans did not expect this and were stunned by the scale of the transportation of nuclear warheads and the level of training of personnel. The commander of the Strategic Missile Forces, N. Solovtsev, noted: “The level of combat readiness of missiles is at least 96%. The launch is possible in a few tens of seconds ... ”The experts specified that the readiness of mobile ICBM complexes is somewhat lower.
On March 8, 2013, the US media again mentions the concept of a rapid global strike: “... With the end of the deployment of forces and the receipt of a report on the destruction of SSBNs and nuclear submarines of the Russian Federation at sea, aviation and surface ships are transferred to full readiness. The stage of launching a missile strike begins, in which 3,504 cruise missiles are launched at strategic targets on the territory of the Russian Federation from sea carriers alone. The expected success of launches is 90%.
MA: Probably, it means hitting targets, not a safe launch of missiles. According to the experience of a missile strike in Syria, this percentage is incommensurably lower))) Also, the Americans believe that they will be able to destroy up to 90% of China's nuclear potential at the VSU. Probably, the Americans are trying to intimidate the enemy, disorientate him, and force him to give up any action. Ideally, the United States tries to force the enemy to capitulate without even engaging in a real fight with him.
In June 2013, Directive No. 24 "Strategy for the use of US nuclear weapons" is issued. The document expresses serious concern in connection with the modernization of existing and the development of advanced strategic offensive arms being carried out in Russia. A group of American experts calculated the minimum number of nuclear warheads of ICBMs and SLBMs with which Russia can hit US territory in a retaliatory strike: if the Russian Federation strikes at American cities, then after a strike with 37 warheads up to 115 million people (the number of dead after some time was not estimated) . This is due to the fact that 80% of the American population lives on the east and west coasts. Therefore, Russian missiles can destroy all life on these densely populated coastal strips. Russia's population, on the other hand, is only half that of the US, but it is scattered over a vast territory, so that in many areas of residence people can survive both the first and the second nuclear strikes.
MA: Interest Ask: experts suggest we destroy more of the population, not to feed them or not?
On June 28, 2013, D. ROGOZIN noted: “... The United States can destroy up to 80-90% of our nuclear potential in a few hours ... Such a threat can only be countered by creating “autonomous weapons” that do not depend on modern telecommunications technologies.”
MA: Over the past year and a half, a lot of information has appeared on drones for various purposes, which are being tested for the needs of the RF Armed Forces.
March 2014. The USC's first task is to "keep ready and put into action the country's strategic (nuclear) deterrence war plan. Strategic deterrence by deterrence includes not only the combat duty of strategic nuclear forces, the performance of demonstrative operations for strategic deterrence by deterrence, the development and maintenance of plans for nuclear operations, but also the commissioning of these plans using strategic nuclear forces for selective, main attack or emergency response options in nuclear war.
In June 2014, the US DoD conducted a CSA on a military conflict between Russia and NATO using conventional weapons. The results were depressing. Even if all available NATO troops (including the US) stationed in Europe are transferred to the Baltic (including the 82nd Airborne Division, which should be ready to act within 24 hours), NATO will lose in the conflict. “We simply do not have such forces in Europe. Then it’s also the fact that the Russians have the best surface-to-air missiles in the world, and they are not afraid to use heavy artillery, ”explained one of the US Army generals. Russia's victory was not the only one. The Americans conducted the exercises several times, with various scenarios favorable to NATO. But always with the same conclusion. The Russians were invincible.
MA: Perhaps it was a "horror story" deliberately dropped in the media in order to increase the number of NATO troops in Europe (including the Baltics).
In November 2014, a new KShU "Bear Spear" ("Rogatin on a bear") is held, the legend of which was the testing of the concept of a Rapid Global Strike. According to US military estimates, these exercises were among the largest in the 2000s. Let's consider them in more detail.
According to the scenario of the exercises, the events developed as follows. There is a certain Eurasian state called "Usira", which is located on the territory of Russia. This state refuses to supply energy carriers to the European Union, using them for political blackmail. The Usira Navy blocked the NATO fleet, which went out to provide military assistance to a "third state" in the disputed area.
MA: Where was the NATO fleet blocked? If desired, NATO can find such an area in the Black or Baltic Sea, or in the waters of the Northern Sea Route.
Massive anti-Usyrian protests take place in the Northern State (MA: this is probably the Baltics with massive, maximally tough measures against the Russian-speaking population).
Usira threatens to use military force to protect these citizens. NATO troops are forced to move to more action. The United States is inflicting a massive strike on Usira with high-precision missile launchers at the enemy’s stationary missile silos, partly at the locations of mobile missile launchers and at military command and control centers, including classified and deep-seated command posts of strategic and conventional aircraft. Penetrating warheads of the KR (in conventional equipment), B61-11 anti-bunker bombs and a minimum number of other low-yield nuclear warheads are used.
However, during the simulation of the attack with the most realistic conditions, the US received unacceptable damage due to three main reasons.
The first of these was the undercover work of the enemy in the United States, during which he became aware of the possibility of such an operation. However, the agents (MA: it was considered so according to the scenario) did not know either the reasons that prompted its start, or the exact number and type of weapons involved. The enemy, despite the lack of information, was able to prepare missile defense and air defense systems, mobilization and evacuation resources, protective structures and strategic nuclear forces.
The second reason was the existence of a system inaccessible to destruction by anti-bunker weapons (including carriers of nuclear warheads) and special forces. After a high-precision strike, the system launched command missiles (the so-called "Dead Hand" system), which transmitted commands for use to the remaining strategic nuclear forces (about 30% of the initial composition). The use by the enemy of nuclear missile weapons with current characteristics, according to US analysts, made it possible to break through the missile defense system and destroy infrastructure and military installations, as well as about 100 million US civilians. As a centralized state, the United States would cease to exist, losing 4/5 of all civilian and industrial infrastructure. It was worse only in Europe, where the level of destruction reached 90% (MA: After some time, people in Europe may remain only in parts of Spain and Portugal).
Played the main role submarine fleet Russia, despite the destruction of its significant part in the open ocean (about 1/3). The most destructive were the volleys of the enemy SSBNs, incl. produced from the North Pole and near US territories. The damage to the mobile complexes of the Strategic Missile Forces amounted to about 10%.
The third reason was the use by the enemy of special groups and means, which made it possible, ten minutes after the start of the operation, to attack and disrupt the work of public, state and special computer systems that control the transport, financial and energy activities of the United States.
The review notes that the analyzed tactics and strategy of the attack eventually led to a massive nuclear-missile exchange between Usira and the United States, as a result of which both states received unacceptable damage. The total number of deaths during the year as a result of the operation and the retaliatory strike exceeded 400 million people. According to unofficial data, China was involved in a nuclear war, against which the United States launched a debilitating preventive nuclear strike. The number of people who died in China has not been estimated.
In a rapid global strike, the United States plans to use advanced Kh-51A hypersonic missiles. Tests of this rocket are not finished. Therefore, the appearance of hypersonic missiles in service can not be expected soon. Thus, in the medium term, the US Army will not receive in sufficient quantities any fundamentally new weapon systems to achieve an operationally significant effect within the framework of the VGU concept. Therefore, in the near future, the United States, when planning a VSU, can rely on SLCMs, ALCMs, and strategic, tactical, and carrier-based aviation.
US National Military Strategy 2015: “Some countries are trying to violate key provisions international law… which poses a threat to US national security.” In the list of "some countries" there is our country - the Russian Federation. At the same time, the document notes that the probability of unleashing a large-scale war with the use of nuclear weapons and the participation of the United States is insignificant. Russia and the US are no longer adversaries.
On June 16, 2015, Supreme Commander-in-Chief Vladimir Putin, in a report on the volume of military equipment supplied to the RF Armed Forces, said: "... So, this year more than 40 new ICBMs will replenish the nuclear forces ...".
(MA: We are talking about the planned replacement of ICBMs whose warranty period was expiring. Previously, about 20-30 ICBMs were produced per year.)
In response to these words, the Commander-in-Chief of NATO Forces in Europe, F. Breedlove, stated: “... Russia behaves like an irresponsible nuclear power. Rhetoric fueling nuclear tensions is not responsible behavior, and we call on nuclear powers to handle this type of weapon more responsibly.”
(MA: And these words were said after the “Rogatin to the Bear” exercise, which showed that Russia’s powerful strategic nuclear forces can deter an aggressor. They would very much like us to produce tanks, aircraft and other conventional weapons instead of missiles).
On September 20, 2015, the US DoD report stated: “The new plan for the war with Russia is divided into two parts. One provides for a scenario of actions in the event of an attack by the Russian Federation on one of the NATO member countries. The second involves the attack of the Russian army outside the countries of the alliance. Both versions focus on the possibility of a Russian invasion of the Baltic states as the most likely front of a potential armed conflict.
(MA: The Americans identified sacrificial small horned animals to start a military conflict).
November 18, 2016 Vladimir Putin: “Our task is to effectively neutralize any military threats to Russia's security. Including those related to the creation of a strategic missile defense system, the implementation of the concept of a global strike and the conduct of information wars. From February 7 to February 17, the US Strategic Command conducted the Global Lightning 17 KShU, which became the largest in recent years. During the exercises, the military worked out a scenario with the development of a local conflict on European territory into a global war. A mock adversary is an unnamed nuclear power against which the United States deployed its strategic forces.
(MA: Only one country meets these conditions - the Russian Federation). The Pentagon had a goal to work out the actions of its forces and their interaction with allies in the event of a conflict with a nuclear power in the European theater of operations. In parallel, the Austere Challenge 17 KShU was held, according to the scenario of which the Europeans defended themselves from external aggression with the help of conventional weapons.
The exercises "Global Lightning 17" worked out the scenario when conventional weapons failed to stop the enemy and nuclear weapons were launched. The US military, together with colleagues from Australia, Canada, Denmark and the UK, used different options for events: they launched a retaliatory nuclear strike and disarmed the aggressor with a preventive nuclear strike. The essence did not change - the conflict in Europe grew into a global war of nuclear powers. Three countries were drawn into the Global Nuclear War against the United States: Russia, China and Iran. According to the announced results of the exercises, the US won the war. At the same time, the command of space operations was trained, which worked out the repulsion of attacks on the space systems of the United States and allies.
MA: Winning a nuclear war against Russia, China and Iran at the same time is an interesting question... There is something in it... Perhaps they found some solution to play off Russia and China? There are currently three great powers: the United States, China and the Russian Federation. A nuclear war of any two among themselves (without the participation of a third country) should lead to a significant strengthening of the third country, which will win in the third World War. Therefore, the Russian Federation and the PRC, realizing this, will NEVER fight each other as long as the United States exists (unless the Americans carry out some large-scale provocation through third circles. I think that the leadership of the Russian Federation and the PRC will have enough wisdom in any development of events not to succumb to it). It is possible that the United States will simultaneously start a sudden nuclear war (including VSU) with both the Russian Federation and the PRC.
US Air Force Chief of Staff D. Goldfin said at a meeting with journalists: “I expect that we will have a revision of the nuclear doctrine ... I really believe that we will have a discussion on nuclear warfare in all components nuclear triad, their power and the required number, and not only by means of delivery.
MA: Probably, there were few carriers and nuclear warheads for the war against the Russian Federation, China and Iran.
On April 27, 2017, a representative of the General Staff of the Russian Federation announced that the United States was preparing for a sudden nuclear strike on Russia. American missile defense bases in Europe and anti-missile ships near Russian territory "create a powerful hidden component" for a possible nuclear missile strike. Today, such developments are underway, systems are being created that, according to the Pentagon, will make it possible to launch an instant global strike with high accuracy from orbit, destroying our control centers. Therefore, Russia will take measures to protect itself from the impact of both instant global strike and missile defense systems ... The enemy intends to disable a significant part of Russian strategic nuclear forces. And if Russia, with the remnants of its nuclear potential, decides to retaliate, then the Americans hope to intercept the missiles at the launch and in orbit, thereby neutralizing the attack on America.”
Let our opponents not forget that in accordance with the military doctrine of the Russian Federation reserves the right apply nuclear weapons… in case of aggression against the Russian Federation using conventional weapons when the very existence of the state is threatened.
When asked by a journalist about the time required to destroy the United States, Vladimir Putin replied: “... If desired, Russia is capable of destroying the United States in thirty minutes. And even less."
MA: The United States, on numerous scenarios of rapid global strikes and MNUs, is carefully working out the plans of the VSU for the territory of the Russian Federation, China and Iran. The main task: to destroy the potential of these countries. In a retaliatory strike, the destruction of the infrastructure and population of Europe (including the UK) is possible. It is strange that neither the military-political circles of the United States, nor the EU, nor the governments are worried about this. European countries, nor the international community)))
Videoconferencing of Russia
The developed US plans for global strikes of the Kyrgyz Republic on strategic objects of the Russian Federation (not excluding the transition to MNU) and their regular refinement based on the results of the CSA should set certain tasks for the Russian Aerospace Forces.
The Russian Aerospace Forces includes the Air Force troops, the Air Defense and Missile Defense troops, and the Space Forces.
The number of fighters and interceptors in the Air Force at the beginning of 2017 was: 60 Su-27/UB, 61 Su-27SM2/SM3, over 84 Su-30SM/SM2, over 60 Su-35S, 154 MiG-29S/SMT/M2 /UBT, up to 150 MiG-31/B/BS/BM/BSM.
The most effective aviation systems in the fight against SB and KR are MiG-31 operational-tactical aviation aircraft. Modernization of MiG-31 aircraft is carried out by NAZ Sokol. Under the agreements with the Defense Ministry, 113 aircraft are to be upgraded by 2019 (by the beginning of 2017, 97 were upgraded, of which one was lost).
The VKS consists of the following structural associations:
- 4 Red Banner Army of the Air Force and Air Defense of the Southern Military District (51 air defense divisions (Rostov-on-Don), 31 air defense divisions (Sevastopol), 1 guards mixed air division (Krymsk), 4 mixed air division (Marinovka), 27 mixed air division (Marinovka) and other parts)
- 6th Leningrad Red Banner Air Force and Air Defense Army (2nd Red Banner Air Defense Division (St. Petersburg), 32nd Air Defense Division (Rzhev), 105th Guards Mixed Air Division (31 MiG-31 aircraft) and other units);
- 11th Red Banner Air Force and Air Defense Army (25th Air Defense Division (Komsomolsk-on-Amur), 26th Air Defense Division (Chita), 93rd Air Defense Division (Vladivostok, Nakhodka), 303rd Guards Mixed Air Division (20 MiG-31B / BS aircraft) and others parts);
- 14th Red Banner Army of the Air Force and Air Defense (76th Air Defense Division (Samara), 41st Air Defense Division (Novosibirsk), and other units (56 MiG-31B/BS/BM/BSM);
- 45 Air Force and Air Defense Army (1 Air Defense Division (Kola Peninsula), 100 separate naval aviation regiment, 98 mixed aviation regiment (20 MiG-31BM aircraft) and other units).
Air defense systems are also part of the coastal defense division of the Russian Navy (Kamchatsky Peninsula). It should be noted that, as of 2016, the naval aviation had 32 MiG-31B/BS/BM aircraft. In 2016, the air defense of the Russian Federation had 125 divisions of the S-300 type (1500 launchers). For 2017, the air defense of the Russian Federation included 38 S-400 divisions (304 launchers). Another 8 divisions are expected to be delivered this year.
As part of the 45th Air Force and Air Defense Army, a new air defense division will be formed in 2018. The new connection will cover the border from Novaya Zemlya to Chukotka. The anti-aircraft missile and radio regiments of the division will be able to detect (MA: to a greater extent - to detect the enemy and cover only certain areas) and destroy aircraft, missiles and unmanned aerial vehicles. After the regiments of the new division take up combat duty, a continuous radar field will be created around the border of our country. (MA: The aviation component will probably be strengthened in this area).
The grouping of Russian troops and air defense systems in the zone of the Kuril Islands is being strengthened. According to the commander of the Eastern Military District S. Surovikin: “The task is to deploy a group on the islands of the Kuril chain. It is connected with the need to ensure the security of the air, surface and underwater spheres. The troops of the district must create a fire shield to cover the Eastern strategic direction. The group is located on the islands ground forces, the complexes "Bal" and "Bastion" are located, there are electronic warfare systems, air defense "Buk" and "Tor-M2U". We cannot exclude the possibility of the appearance of S-300 systems in the near future (MA: someday, maybe S-400?). In accordance with the statement of the Defense Ministry S. Shoigu - Pacific Fleet, it is necessary to study the possibility of a promising basing of ships on the islands. Earlier it was said about the intention to place a submarine base (of course, diesel) on the islands.
Certain tasks of detecting enemy aircraft can also be solved by long-range radar detection stations from the Russian missile attack warning system. The following early warning radar stations are currently in operation:
- "Voronezh-M" - Lekhtusi (Leningrad region) - covers the range from Morocco to Svalbard;
- "Voronezh-DM" - Armavir - covers the range from Southern Europe to the North coast of Africa;
- "Voronezh-DM" - Pioneer (Kaliningrad region) - covers the whole of Europe (including the UK);
- "Voronezh-M" - Usolye-Sibirskoye (Irkutsk region) - covers the territory from the West Bank of the USA to India;
- "Voronezh-DM" - Yeniseysk - covers the northeast direction;
- "Voronezh-DM" - Barnaul - covers the southeast direction.
(MA: Deployed air defense systems (ABM) on the territory of the Russian Federation, combat patrols of Air Force aircraft (during a threatened period) solve the main tasks, but, among others, provide protection for these stations. Until the stations are hit, it will be problematic for aircraft of a potential enemy to take part in the VSU. )
The joint air defense system of the CIS member states includes: Armenia, Belarus, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Russia, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan.
The Air Force and Air Defense Forces of the Republic of Belarus are armed with two divisions: S-400 and 16 S-300 divisions. There are complexes "Buk" and "Tor-M2E". Fighter aviation represented by 20 modern MiG-29 aircraft. The possibility of purchasing new fighters of the Su-30 type is being considered.
The Air Defense Forces of the Republic of Kazakhstan are based on 25 S-300 divisions. There are S-200 and S-125 divisions, several dozen MiG-29 and Su-27 fighters of various modifications, 6 Su-30SM and 25 MiG-31/BM.
The sky of Tajikistan is covered by the S-125 and S-75 systems.
Kyrgyzstan is armed with the S-125 and S-75 systems. The Air Force has 20 MiG-21 fighters. On the territory of Kyrgyzstan, the Russian 999 Kant airbase is deployed, on which Su-25 attack aircraft are based. As part of the exercises, Su-24 aircraft were deployed to the base (if necessary, fighter jets can also be deployed).
The Uzbek Air Force is armed with MiG-29 and Su-27 fighters.
The Armenian Air Force is armed with five battalions of S-300PS and Buk-M2 air defense systems. The 102nd Russian military base (Gyumri) is located on the territory of Armenia. It houses the 988th anti-aircraft missile regiment, equipped with the S-300V complex. MiG-29 type fighters are based at the base.
The 7th Russian military base is located on the territory of Abkhazia, which is covered by the S-300 anti-aircraft missile system.
The Syrian Arab Republic hosts a Russian airbase (Khmeinim) and a logistics center (Tartus). Both objects are covered by air defense systems (S-400 and S-300) of the Russian Aerospace Forces. To strengthen the air defense, the number of air defense systems of the Russian Aerospace Forces can be increased and 6 S-300 divisions can be delivered under the 2010 Treaty. A joint air defense system of the SAR, parts of the Russian Aerospace Forces and surface ships of the Russian Navy (if any) has been created.
US NORAD system
The NORAD system includes ground surveillance systems, a warning system, balloon posts, over-the-horizon radars, AWACS aircraft. There are missile defense areas in Alaska and California (possibly, a new missile defense area will be created on the US East Coast). For 2016, 7 batteries (3 launchers each) of the THAAD system were deployed. Air defense is provided by the US F-15, F-16, F-22 and Canadian CF-18 aircraft.
The continental United States has:
- the National Guard has 21 anti-aircraft missile divisions (about 480 Patriot launchers, 700 Avenger launchers);
- the army has two THAAD air defense regiments;
- in the Washington area - one NASAMS division (3 launchers).
Covering the continental part of the United States is also planned to be carried out using surface ships equipped with a missile defense system.
It should be noted that the feature of the missile defense interceptor guidance and control system has, shall we say, a design defect. But we will talk about this in one of the following articles.
The United States needs to develop measures to counter new means of aerospace attack today. The concept of "Instant global strike" (MGU) has been developed in the United States for several years now. The military-political leadership of the Russian Federation sees in these works a direct threat to our country. Russian President Vladimir Putin spoke directly about this in his Address to the Federal Assembly back in 2013, when the crisis in relations between the Russian Federation and the United States was just brewing:
« We are closely following the so-called "disarming instantaneous global strike" concept, which can have negative consequences ... No one should have any illusions about the possibility of achieving military superiority over Russia. We will never allow this».
Today, when the confrontation between Russia and the West has reached the most serious level in the post-Soviet period, these words of the president are no less relevant. In this regard, it is necessary to analyze the goals, tasks, composition and combat capabilities of the MGU strike assets, as well as prepare proposals for measures to counter this threat.
According to foreign information materials, the main purpose of applying MGU is to give the US Armed Forces the ability to carry out high-precision and global non-nuclear destruction of critical targets anywhere in the world within one hour from the moment an object is detected and a decision is made by the US military-political leadership.
Efficiency of application of MGU and the range of destruction of objects is envisaged to be ensured by the use of hypersonic weapons systems (HZSV), capable of reaching speeds of up to 18 thousand km / h with a firing range of up to 15 thousand kilometers.
It should be emphasized that the practical implementation of the concept of "Global Strike" is carried out within the framework of the comprehensive technical program "Instant Global Strike", which is aimed at the creation and formation of GZV groupings with their inclusion in the new US strategic triad.
ONCE AGAIN ABOUT THE PROMISING STRATEGIC TRIAD
In accordance with the provisions of the US nuclear strategy The basis of a promising strategic triad will be the following three components:
- deployed strike assets consisting of: strategic and non-strategic nuclear weapons; GZSV; high-precision long-range weapons (VTO BD) of various types based; weapons based on new physical principles;
- strategic defensive forces as part of the global missile defense system that protects US territory and its regional segments (EuroPRO, missile defense in the Middle East, Japanese missile defense in the Asia-Pacific region);
- the infrastructure of an industrial and research base designed to maintain, modernize and create new types of strategic offensive weapons, as well as to confirm the reliability and safety of the operation of nuclear weapons under the moratorium on nuclear testing.
Hypersonic glider HTV-2.
The US nuclear strategy notes that in the context of the implementation of the START Treaty, it seems appropriate to entrust some of the tasks of hitting important enemy targets to the WTO database from the US Air Force and Navy, GZSV and other strike weapons in conventional equipment. Washington believes that the security of the state can be ensured by a smaller number of strategic offensive forces, which will significantly reduce the cost of maintaining them.
The document emphasizes that "the Pentagon's expanded capabilities to deliver non-nuclear instantaneous global strikes are one of the means to counter the growing threats to the forward presence of the US Armed Forces and meet the needs of US troops (forces) in global force projection." The position of US Vice President Joe Biden, expressed in February 2010 at the National Defense University, is also characteristic: “Conventional weapons with a strategic range that we are developing allow us to reduce the role of nuclear weapons. With such modern weapons our power will remain undeniable, even in the event of far-reaching nuclear cuts.”
It is important to emphasize that these provisions of the nuclear strategy were clarified in the new "US Nuclear Strategy Report" of June 2013.
Meanwhile, the Americans are not dismantling strategic offensive weapons, which are being reduced in accordance with the START Treaty, but are directing them to the formation of a “returnable” potential for carriers and warheads, which can be used in the event of force majeure affecting the interests of the United States and its allies. Moreover, part of the tasks for nuclear destruction of targets of potential adversaries is redistributed between the nuclear forces of the United States, Great Britain and France in the course of the annual refinement of NATO nuclear planning.
It is appropriate to recall that all components of the new strategic triad are organizationally and staffing integrated into the United States Strategic Command (USSTRATCOM) of the US Armed Forces (Offut Air Force Base, Nebraska). Work has been launched to build up the capabilities of the combat control and communications system, reconnaissance and operational planning. At the same time, the leadership of USSTRATCOM was entrusted with new tasks of organizing adaptive planning and delivering global strikes, which required clarification of the structure, content and procedure for the development (clarification) of operational plan No. 8010 for the use of US nuclear forces.
According to the views of the US military-political leadership, the created strike-defense complex provides a significant reduction in the time for the adoption and implementation of the decision by the US president to respond to a sudden aerospace attack by potential adversaries and in the event of terrorist attacks.
GOALS AND OBJECTIVES OF INSTANT GLOBAL IMPACT
The US guidance documents note that the main goal of the Moscow State University and the created GZSV is to search for and destroy the leaders of terrorist organizations, usually located in highly protected bunkers, to eliminate caravans with weapons, drugs and radioactive materials, to destroy objects for the production of weapons of mass destruction, etc.
Later it turned out that the real goal of the development of the GZSV is the high-precision global non-nuclear destruction of critical targets of potential adversaries anywhere in the world within one hour from the moment the object was identified and the decision was made to eliminate it.
Experimental hypersonic cruise missile X-51A
Russian and foreign experts believe that GZV have the following advantages:
- hypersonic speed of approach to the target, making it difficult to detect and destroy them;
- the ability of strike weapons to hit highly protected and buried control points;
- the ability of some types of GZSV to carry out loitering, search and operational destruction of mobile missile systems;
— implementation of ground, air, sea and space methods of basing platforms;
- the difficulty of intercepting hypersonic strike weapons due to the imperfection of the performance characteristics of anti-missiles.
In the governing documents of the US Armed Forces within the framework of peacetime and the immediate threat of aggression, the following the main tasks assigned to hypersonic weapons:
— demonstrative actions for the use of GZV;
- destruction of highly protected and buried facilities for the leaders of terrorist organizations and leaders of international criminal groups in countries with limited access;
- identification and elimination of caravans of terrorist organizations with weapons, drugs, fissile radioactive materials necessary for the creation of "dirty" nuclear bombs;
— liquidation of terrorist bases, warehouses for storage of weapons of mass destruction and means of transportation of weapons and drugs;
- providing direct military assistance to friendly regimes or opposition movements in their armed confrontation during an internal conflict;
- suppression of violations of embargo regimes or economic blockade of rogue countries or sponsors of international terrorism.
In wartime conditions, the GZV will be involved in solving such tasks as:
- inflicting preventive strikes and defeating the bodies and points of state and military administration and objects of the counterforce group of strategic nuclear forces of potential adversaries;
- destruction of objects of early warning systems, SKKP, missile defense, air defense, orbital grouping of enemy spacecraft;
- disabling objects of the combat control and communications system of opponents before the start of hostilities;
- infliction of specified damage to economic infrastructure facilities without significant losses among the population;
- destruction of energy facilities and other infrastructure to ensure the life of the state, as well as used by the enemy in the interests of the logistics of troops (forces);
- destruction of objects, the destruction of which by other strike means is not possible, etc.
MAJOR PROJECTS OF WWTP, POSSIBLE FORMS AND WAYS OF THEIR APPLICATION
For the development of GZSV for various purposes, the United States is implementing a comprehensive technical program "Instant Global Strike" (Program Element: Prompt Global Strike Capability Development), which is an integral part of the concept of "Global Strike".
Thus, the US Air Force is creating a missile system with non-nuclear ICBMs as part of the Minotaur strategic launch vehicle of various modifications and the HTV-2 hypersonic glider. For the assembly of missiles of the Minotaur type, modernized stages of the Minuteman II and MX ICBMs are used, which were not previously eliminated in violation of the START-1 Treaty. The deployment of a group of these missile systems is planned at Vandenberg Air Force Base (US West Coast) and at Cape Canaveral (East Coast), i.e. at points sufficiently remote from existing ICBM missile bases.
The United States has already conducted four test launches of the X-51A
Satisfactory results were obtained during flight and design tests of the Kh-51A hypersonic airborne guided missile and the Kh-37V reusable spacecraft. The deadline for putting into service and putting into orbit the X-37V spacecraft is possible by 2016.
The US Army Space and Missile Command is developing a GZV based on a two-stage ballistic missile and an AHW hypersonic guided glide vehicle, the test results of which are unknown. At the same time, the ballistic missile was created in violation of the existing INF and START Treaties: the tactical and technical characteristics were not presented to the Russian side, there was no preliminary demonstration of the missile, the necessary notifications were not presented, the place of deployment of the missile system was not announced, etc.
The US Navy plans to upgrade two of the 24 Trident II SLBMs on all twelve SSBNs to deliver four tunable non-nuclear warheads. However, work on this project was suspended by the US Congress, and the necessary financial resources were not assigned, since the Pentagon cannot provide convincing evidence of the identification of launches of nuclear and non-nuclear SLBMs. However, work in this direction is being carried out at the expense of the US DoD's own resources.
In addition, a variant of the two-stage Trident II SLBM is being developed. medium range with a planning warhead in non-nuclear equipment, having a flight time of about 13 minutes. One of the multi-purpose nuclear submarines is being tested as the main carrier of this type of SLBM.
For the first test launch by the HTV-2 on April 22, 2010, the Minotaur IV launch vehicle was used.
According to Russian and foreign experts, the adoption of some strike weapons close in terms of performance characteristics to hypersonic systems is possible by 2025. Presumably, a certain number of them will be deployed as part of the existing groupings of the Air Force, Navy, NATO tactical aviation in Europe and other theaters of operations.
With the successful completion of the "Instant Global Strike" program, hypersonic weapons with real capabilities to defeat critical targets of potential adversaries within an hour can be deployed after 2025. Their locations will be chosen on the continental United States and military theaters remote from the United States actions at American air bases located on the territories of other states. All suitable navigable zones of ocean theaters are considered as combat patrol areas for sea-based carriers of the GZVD.
The US military leadership, simultaneously with the creation of the GZSV, is developing the basics of the combat use of hypersonic weapons, paying special attention to the search for effective forms and methods of their combat use in various conditions environment.
Presumably, the GZV formations, together with other strike assets, will participate in military operations in the form of a strategic aerospace offensive, air campaigns, offensive aerospace operations, being in the first echelons of strike groups to destroy early warning systems, missile defense, air defense, systems objects combat control and communications. The goal is to “knock down the doors” in the enemy’s layered defense and provide access to his combat space. At the same time, a global strike will be accompanied by information operations, electronic and psychological actions and actions.
As possible methods of using the GZSV, simultaneous, sequential, combined or selective infliction of global strikes on all or part of the important objects of potential adversaries in one or several strategic aerospace directions is envisaged.
It should be emphasized that the choice of forms and methods of delivering global strikes will depend on the timing of the tasks, remoteness of objects, physical and geographical and climatic conditions and other factors. Therefore, stringent requirements will be imposed on the functioning of the combat control and communications system; organization of adaptive strike planning; target distribution and target designation; targeting strike weapons and evaluating the results of their combat use.
It will be necessary to deploy a constellation of space-based hypersonic weapons during a period of imminent threat of aggression and when conditions arise for unleashing hostilities against the United States and its allies.
At the same time, it seems unlikely that the US military-political leadership will make decisions on the use of GZSV at strategic nuclear forces, early warning systems, missile defense, air defense, state and military command posts, groupings of troops (forces) and other strategic and critical objects of the Russian Federation.
US DEVELOPMENT OF HYPERSONIC WEAPONS AS A DESTABILIZING FACTOR
The preamble of the START Treaty emphasizes that the Russian Federation and the United States of America, when concluding the START Treaty, "take into account the impact of conventionally equipped ICBMs and SLBMs on strategic stability." However, the destabilizing effect of ICBMs and SLBMs of this type has already been identified, which is confirmed by the following arguments.
As already noted, the non-nuclear ground-based missile system is based on the Minotaur-type ICBMs of various modifications, developed using the sustainer stages of the Minuteman II and MX ICBMs, which, in violation of the START-1 Treaty, were not eliminated. In addition, Minotaur-type ICBMs have not been declared as new-type missiles, the inspection of these missiles by Russian experts is not regulated, there was no preliminary display of missiles, features not presented, etc.
In the US Navy, as already noted, two Trident II SLBMs on each boat are planned to be equipped with non-nuclear warheads. The high accuracy of warhead guidance in the final part of the flight path will be ensured by correction according to the NAVSTAR space radio navigation system (GPS) data.
To counter a possible instantaneous global strike, it is necessary to improve the forms and methods of action of the strategic nuclear forces of the Russian Federation
The destabilizing nature of the use of non-nuclear missiles lies in real opportunity nuclear incidents between the US, Russia and China. Thus, mutual notifications on combat training, test, unauthorized and accidental launches of ICBMs and SLBMs are carried out only between Russia and the United States. It is doubtful that the Americans will inform the military leadership of Russia and other states in advance about preparations for launching preventive strikes with non-nuclear ICBMs and SLBMs for the operational destruction of time-critical targets anywhere in the world, for example, against North Korea, Iran or Syria.
There are no methods for identifying launches of ICBMs and SLBMs with non-nuclear warheads, and no research is being carried out in this direction. Direct communication channels are organized only between the leaders of Russia and the United States, and their use in the interests of informing other states has not been worked out. Due to the lack of an international treaty base, there is a problem of prompt notification of heads of state about unannounced launches of US ICBMs and SLBMs, coordination of missile flight routes through their territory, clarification of the areas where the first and second stages of missiles fall into the ocean, and the third stage into the territory of other countries, which will inevitably complicate relations between states.
Quite real is the hidden re-equipment of ICBMs and SLBMs for nuclear weapons. Moreover, the START Treaty does not define control and inspection procedures and does not provide for the submission of notifications and telemetric information. Under the pretext of conducting test launches of non-nuclear missiles, the uncontrolled improvement of the characteristics of ICBMs, SLBMs and testing of new nuclear warheads is quite real.
According to experts, launches of non-nuclear ballistic missiles from SSBNs will unmask submarine combat patrol areas. At the same time, there are concerns that the use of conventional SLBMs may hinder the performance of SSBN combat missions related to the preparation and delivery of nuclear missile strikes against enemy strategic targets.
Quite possible are the preconditions for accidental or unauthorized launches of SLBMs equipped with nuclear warheads, which requires the implementation of a set of operational and organizational measures to ensure their prevention and a high level of training of SSBN missile crews.
It should be noted that even the Congressional Research Service, which put forward a number of primitive proposals to mitigate the risks, tried to solve the problem of “misinterpretation” by other nuclear powers of launches of re-equipped missiles. Thus, the problem of identifying launches of ICBMs and SLBMs is recommended to be resolved through operational consultations with foreign partners at the military and diplomatic expert levels.
To develop measures of mutual trust, it was proposed to introduce a system of guaranteed notification of planned launches. To exclude possible attempts to re-equip conventional warheads with nuclear warheads, it was proposed to develop technical control procedures at the expense of permanent inspectors of the parties.
Thus, the actions of the Americans to develop non-nuclear ICBMs and SLBMs destabilize the situation in the world and violate the START Treaty.
MAIN CONCLUSIONS AND SUGGESTIONS
According to Russian and foreign politicians, by 2030 the United States will be able to develop, adopt and deploy a GZSV group capable of hitting state and military command posts and the main part of the counterforce group of Russian strategic nuclear forces in a massive strike. In addition, the US global missile defense system and its regional segments can significantly reduce combat capabilities Strategic nuclear forces of the RF Armed Forces for retaliatory strikes.
V. Putin in his Address to the Federal Assembly emphasized: “ Such actions can nullify all previously reached agreements in the field of limiting and reducing strategic nuclear weapons, lead to a violation of the so-called strategic balance of power».
Deputy Prime Minister Dmitry Rogozin assured that "the American concept of "Instant Global Strike" as the main strategic idea of the United States will not go unanswered."
Concerning the following directions and measures to counter an instantaneous global strike can be proposed.
First direction. Improving the forms and methods of action of the strategic nuclear forces of the RF Armed Forces in terms of emergency dispersal, maneuvering actions, redeployment over long distances with the occupation of hidden positional areas. The use of non-standard methods of operational camouflage and misleading the enemy about the locations, states and movements of PGRK, groupings of aviation and naval components of the strategic nuclear forces.
Completion of the preliminary design of a combat railway missile system within the established timeframe, taking into account the countermeasures of Moscow State University and overcoming the layered US missile defense system. Continued implementation of optimal deployment options for Iskander missile systems.
It seems appropriate to revisit the concept of creating a new PGRK based on the Kurier missile system. Consider the possibility of patrolling submarines equipped with long-range high-precision weapons in the waters of the Pacific and Atlantic Oceans, taking into account the shortcomings of the geographical position of the United States and the concentration of key infrastructure facilities on the coast of the state.
Equipping existing and prospective ICBMs and SLBMs with effective means of overcoming layered missile defense. Constantly informing the leadership and the public of the states on whose territory the objects of the US global missile defense system and its regional segments, as well as tactical nuclear weapons are located, that these objects are the primary targets for Russian high-precision strike weapons.
Completion of the creation of the appearance of the Russian Aerospace Defense system, ensuring timely notification of command and control centers and strategic nuclear forces about launches of Trident II ICBM and SLBM cruise missiles with non-nuclear warheads, corrected using the NAVSTAR system. Implementation of effective ways to suppress this system. Improvement of anti-aircraft missile systems capable of intercepting warheads of ICBMs, SLBMs, supersonic and hypersonic cruise missiles. Reducing the time for the readiness of air defense / missile defense systems to repel an aerospace attack by the enemy.
Ensuring reliable and complete cover and defense of the Russian strategic nuclear forces and other important objects from the means of an aerospace attack of a potential enemy. Improving methods of combating the HTO DB in order to protect silo launchers and command posts of stationary missile regiments in conditions when their coordinates were transferred to the United States in accordance with the START Treaty.
Second direction. Improving the system of combat command and control of troops and weapons in order to promptly communicate orders (signals) to response actions and their combat use to the executive bodies and command posts of the strategic nuclear forces, the aerospace defense system and the GZSV groupings. Particular attention should be paid to the modernization of existing and commissioning of promising control points.
third direction. Accelerating the development and adoption of our own GZV with the simultaneous creation (improvement) of systems for navigation, topographic and geodetic support and means of preparing flight missions in the required strategic aerospace directions.
Fourth direction. The implementation of asymmetric and indirect actions that will level the superiority of the United States in technologies and means of armed struggle. These include:
- actions of special operations forces and foreign intelligence;
- various forms of information impact;
- political, economic and other non-military types of action;
— threats of delivering high-precision strikes against missile defense facilities and tactical nuclear weapons located on the territory of a number of NATO member states with informing the population about the consequences of such strikes, and others.
This is by no means a complete list of adequately asymmetric measures to counter the threats of an instantaneous global strike, which ensure the implementation of the functions of a strategic (nuclear) deterrence of potential adversaries. For obvious reasons, most of the countermeasures of Moscow State University cannot be published in the open press.
In conclusion, it seems necessary to quote the words of Deputy Prime Minister Dmitry Rogozin during his speech in the State Duma: “ Any aggressor should remember that nuclear weapons are considered by Russia as the main means of deterrence. We have never downplayed the role of nuclear weapons, weapons of retaliation, as the great equalizer of chances ».
/A.V. SERZHANTOV, Deputy Head of the Department of Military Strategy of the General Staff of the RF Armed Forces,
major general, doctor of military sciences, professor;
M.P. VILDANOV, Professor of the Academy of Military Sciences, Major General,
Candidate of Military Sciences, Associate Professor, oborona.ru/
Image copyright Vitaly Nevar/TASS Image caption The most modern Russian complex PRO - S-400, it is unlikely to be able to stop hypersonic missiles, but Russia expects that the next generation system will already be able to withstand them
The Russian Defense Ministry said the Pentagon has begun creating a strategic "instant global strike" system that will 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 unlimited deployment of the American missile defense system is a serious challenge. global security, an incentive for an arms race and a threat to all mankind."
But it is possible that the Russian military department is exaggerating the degree of readiness of the states to implement this program, said James Acton, co-director of the Carnegie Endowment's Nuclear Policy Program. In an interview with the BBC Russian Service, he said that the US has not yet made a decision on whether they want to adopt the program. Since the trials are going very slowly, the decision will be only in a few years.
Acton told the BBC Russian Service that since the publication of the book, 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 faced both technical difficulties and budget cuts.
What is being developed in the USA?
The "instant global strike" system can 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 concept of "Instant global strike" has been going on for many years. The idea is to create a munition that will fly at hypersonic speeds and be able to hit a target anywhere in the world in the shortest possible time.
Now American program includes hypersonic attack weapons, including Kh-47, Kh-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 creates only conventional weapons, Russia is working on the creation of nuclear weapons, with the possibility of use in non-nuclear equipment James Acton, Carnegie Endowment
One of the main fears about a "rapid global strike" Acton previously called the possibility of a preventive nuclear strike from the side on which the weapon would 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 its downsides. The strike depends on satellite guidance, which is vulnerable to artificial interference in a war.
In addition, in order to hit a target, ammunition flying at high speed will have to lower it before colliding with the surface - otherwise it will not be able to hit an underground target. And slower speed means increased vulnerability.
James Acton wrote about this in The Silver Pool.
Image 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 sureHow Russia can respond to an "instant global strike"
"The bar set by the Americans, which was repeatedly voiced by their defense ministers, is the ability to strike anywhere in the world in less than an hour. We are already opposed to this, firstly, with a missile attack warning system," RIA Novosti said. Chief Editor magazine "Arsenal of the Fatherland" Colonel Viktor Murakhovsky.
Protecting a large area, such as a country, from supersonic glide munitions is almost impossible James Acton, Carnegie Endowment
According to him, the missile attack warning system "is now deployed to such an extent and covers so many missile-hazardous directions that it exceeds even the capabilities of the Soviet Union."
The S-500 complex, together with a missile attack warning system, can neutralize a “rapid global strike,” Murakhovsky believes.
To this, Acton replies that the S-500 is designed to defend strategic targets. "I believe the S-500 will be capable of intercepting hypersonic glide bombs," he says.
He calls the S-500's "non-zero" effectiveness, but says it will only be capable of protecting a small area anyway. It won't help to protect an entire country's territory from supersonic glide munitions, says Acton.
