Description: War Thunder is a next generation military MMO game dedicated to...
The second half of the 1960s was characterized by the aggravation of the Cold War in international relations. But by the end of the decade, new trends are emerging. After the Caribbean crisis, when the world was on the brink nuclear war, the understanding of the impossibility of using atomic weapons in decision international conflicts. It became clear to everyone that there could be no winners in such a war. Therefore, the inconsistency international position consisted, on the one hand, in the consistent leveling of the level of nuclear potentials between NATO and the Warsaw Pact and the folding of the strategic parity of the USSR and the USA, and on the other hand, in warming international relations, which was called "discharge". A fierce struggle for the countries of the "third world" continued between East and West. Often this rivalry led to local military conflicts (Vietnam, 1965, the Arab-Israeli war of 1967). Big influence China began to influence the balance of power in the international arena. The former unity was also broken in the countries of the socialist camp.
In terms of build-up in the world nuclear capability One of the main directions of Soviet foreign policy was the struggle to achieve military-strategic parity between East and West. And although it was achieved in 1969, the Soviet leadership still considered the build-up of armaments and their improvement as constituent part struggle for peace.
The change in the foreign policy of the Soviet state had a positive effect on relations with the West. Expanded contacts with France. Its president, Charles de Gaulle, visited Moscow in the summer of 1966. In 1966-1970. visits by French and Soviet foreign ministers and heads of government continued. Since that time, Soviet-French economic ties began to develop rapidly, cooperation began in the field of studying and developing outer space. New president France J. Pompidou and L.I. Brezhnev signed in October 1971 the document "Principles of cooperation between the USSR and France."
After the signing of the Helsinki final act Soviet Union feeling like the owner Eastern Europe, began to deploy new medium-range missiles (SS-20) in the GDR and Czechoslovakia, the limitation of which was not provided for by the existing agreements. This provoked a US backlash.
Has begun new round arms race. The end of the "discharge" has come. In the United States, work was underway on the "strategic defense initiative" (SDI) program, which provided for the launching of nuclear weapons into space. The crisis of the Soviet economy did not allow to maintain the military balance, there is a trend of technological lag in the production of weapons. The positions of the USSR in the world begin to weaken.
PARITET (military-strategic)
Military-strategic PARITY, equality of countries or groups of countries in the field of armed forces and armaments.
encyclopedic Dictionary . 2009 .
See what "PARITY (military-strategic)" is in other dictionaries:
Military strategic equality of countries or groups of countries in the field of armed forces and armaments ... Big Encyclopedic Dictionary
See also: Balance of power (geopolitics) Strategic parity is a state of international relations that provides an equal probability of victory in the event of an armed conflict for potentially conflicting parties, a war between which inevitably causes ... ... Wikipedia
BUT; m. [from lat. paritas (paritatis) equality] 1. The principle of equality and equal rights of the parties in what l. P. parties in a labor dispute. 2. Economy The ratio of currencies of different countries in gold. Coin item (the ratio between the currencies of different countries in the era of circulation ... ... encyclopedic Dictionary
- (USSR Air Force) Flag of the Soviet Air Force Years of existence ... Wikipedia
Military air force Russia ... Wikipedia
- 中国人民解放軍海軍 Navy People's Liberation Army of China Emblem of the PLA Navy Years of existence since April 23, 1949 Country ... Wikipedia
PARITY STRATEGIC (BALANCE OF POWER)- - the balance of the troops (navy forces) and conventional weapons of the opposing states (their coalitions) in terms of the integral characteristics of their combat power and combat capabilities in a certain region of the world. Under strategic parity (“equality in… …
PARITY STRATEGIC IN GENERAL PURPOSE FORCES- approximate equality of quantity, composition, qualitative state, combat readiness, combat readiness in solving strategic, operational and tactical tasks in various conditions armed struggle with the use of conventional forces and means. Determined... ... War and peace in terms and definitions
MILITARY-STRATEGIC BALANCE - (strategic parity, “equality in muscles”) approximate quantitative and qualitative equality (parity, symmetry) of the opposing sides in the forces and means for conducting armed struggle, primarily in nuclear and conventional high-precision types ... ... War and peace in terms and definitions
Nuclear parity is a situation where opposing superpower states (and their allies) have comparable strategic strike capabilities nuclear forces. Since at the same time the superpowers also had the largest armed forces(basic ... ... Wikipedia
Beginning in 1973, there was an independent negotiation process between representatives of NATO and the Warsaw Pact on the reduction of armaments. However, the desired success was not achieved here because of the tough position of the Warsaw Pact countries, which surpassed NATO in conventional weapons and did not want to reduce them.
After the signing of the Helsinki Final Act, the Soviet Union felt like a master in Eastern Europe and began to install new SS-20 medium-range missiles in the GDR and Czechoslovakia, the restriction on which was not provided for by the SALT agreements. In the context of the human rights campaign in
The USSR, which sharply intensified in the West after Helsinki, the position of the USSR became extremely tough. This provoked retaliation from the United States, which, after Congress refused to ratify SALT-2 in the early 1980s, deployed "cruise missiles" and Pershing missiles in Western Europe capable of reaching the territory of the Soviet Union. Thus, between the blocs on the territory of Europe, amilitary-strategic balance .
The arms race had an extremely negative impact on the country's economy, the military-industrial orientation of which did not decrease. The general extensive development increasingly affected the defense industry. The parity with the United States achieved in the early 1970s primarily concerned intercontinental ballistic missiles. Already since the late 1970s, the general crisis of the Soviet economy began to negative impact to the defense industries. The Soviet Union began to lag behind certain types weapons. This was discovered after the emergence of the US " cruise missiles"and it became even more obvious after the start of the US work on the "strategic defense initiative" (SDI) program. Since the mid-1980s, the leadership of the USSR began to clearly realize this lag.
The depletion of the economic possibilities of the regime is revealed more and more fully.
Aid to "developing countries"
The second, no less significant, source of the country's ruin is constant assistance to "developing countries." In essence, this assistance covered all areas: the Soviet military and civilian specialists, huge soft long-term loans were given, cheap weapons and raw materials were supplied. A huge number of foreign students studied in the USSR. Large-scale capital construction in the "third world" has also been developed. Only in the years of the ninth five-year plan (1971-1975), with the help of the USSR, about 900 industrial facilities were built in the "liberated countries". With rare exceptions, so far no one is going to return these Soviet loans, but to thank for the "help".
The international situation and the internal situation in the USSR
The international situation had a direct impact on internal situation in the country. The policy of detente had a beneficial effect on the development of East-West cooperation. During these years, the total trade turnover increased 5 times, and the Soviet-American 8 times. The strategy of cooperation during this period was reduced to the conclusion of large contracts with Western firms for the construction of factories or the purchase of technology. So, the most famous example of such cooperation was the construction at the end of 1960
Early 1970s Volzhsky car factory under a joint agreement with the Italian company "Fiat". However, this was more of an exception than the rule. Mostly international programs were limited to fruitless business trips of delegations
During a period of tension on the world stage between different countries and / or ideological camps, many people are concerned about one question: what will happen if the war does start? It is now 2018 and the whole world, in particular Russia, is now going through such a period once again. At such moments, the only deterrent that prevents the start of a real war becomes military parity between countries and blocs, and the phrase “if you want peace, prepare for war” takes on special relevance and meaning.
What is it - theory
Military-strategic parity (MSP) is an approximate equality between countries and / or groups of countries in the qualitative and quantitative availability of nuclear missile and other weapons, in their ability to develop and produce new types of strategic offensive and defensive weapons, which provides an equivalent opportunity to apply retaliatory (reciprocal) strike with infliction of damage unacceptable for the aggressor side.
To comply with the GSP, it is necessary to take into account not only strategic weapons, but also production capacities in order to prevent an arms race.
What is it in practice
In practice, military-strategic parity is the basis international security, which was established at the end of the Cold War with the adoption of the Soviet-American agreement on the limitation of anti-missile defense systems (ABM) in 1972.
The GSP is based on the principle of equal opportunities, rights and the same ratio of sides precisely in the military-political sphere. First of all today we are talking about rocket nuclear weapons. And this principle is basic when conducting negotiations on the reduction and limitation of weapons, as well as preventing the creation of newest species(again, primarily nuclear weapons).
This is not about absolute mirror equality, but about the possibility of causing irreparable and unacceptable damage to the aggressor country, up to its complete destruction. However, this is not about constantly increasing your military power, thereby violating the balance of power, namely, equality in military-strategic potentials, since this parity can also be violated by an intense arms race of one of the opposing sides. Military-strategic parity is precisely a balance that can be upset at any moment by creating weapons of mass destruction that other countries do not have or against which they have no protection.
As mentioned above, the GSP relies mainly on weapons of mass destruction and primarily on nuclear-missile parity. At the same time, they are the basis, the material basis of the VSP and balancedly express the combination of the quantity and quality of weapons of each of the parties. This leads both to a balance of combat capabilities and to the possibility of guaranteed use of weapons to solve the military-strategic tasks of the state under the most pessimistic scenarios for it.
Military-strategic parity of the USSR and the USA
About two decades after the end of World War II, the USSR was strategically behind the United States of America in terms of nuclear weapons. By the 1970s, it was reduced, and a relative balance in military potential was achieved. This period is known in history as cold war. On the verge of armed confrontation, the peace-loving and good-neighborly policy of the USSR and other countries of the socialist camp played a very important role in preventing the outbreak of a hot war, as well as the fact that the leaders of the capitalist world showed common sense and did not continue to escalate the situation, which threatened to get out of control.
It was the significant successes of the Soviet Union in the design and production of strategic weapons that helped the USSR achieve military-strategic parity with the United States. This led both sides to the negotiation process, as they realized that none of the countries in the future will be able to achieve any significant superiority without causing serious damage to themselves and their allies in the form of a retaliatory military strike.
By 1970, the available forces of the USSR consisted of 1600 launchers of ICBMs, 316 launchers of SLBMs for 20 RPK SNs and approximately 200 strategic bombers. The United States outnumbered the Soviet Union, but military experts from both countries agreed that there was no significant asymmetry in terms of quality.
One of the tasks that military-strategic parity solves is an obstacle for countries and groups of countries to solve their geopolitical issues with the help of nuclear missile weapons. At that time, parity was called the balance of fear. At its core, it remains so now, and it seems that it is the fear of the unknown that stops some countries from rash actions.
The documents
The guarantors of parity were the documents, which were subject to lengthy and very complex negotiations:
- OSV-1 - 1972 strategic arms limitation treaty;
- OSV-2 - 1979 strategic arms limitation treaty;
- ABM - the 1972 anti-missile defense treaty - limiting the deployment of anti-missile defense systems - was in effect until 2002, when the Americans unilaterally withdrew from the treaty;
- Additional Protocol to the ABM Treaty on the reduction of deployment areas.
By 1980, the military-strategic parity of the USSR with the United States was 2.5 thousand carriers, 7 thousand nuclear charges, while the United States has 2.3 thousand carriers and 10 thousand charges.
All treaties were restrictive in terms of the number of nuclear weapons and fixed the principle of security in the field of offensive weapons.
Conclusion
Such a solution to an acute issue led to a warming of relations between countries: many treaties and agreements were concluded in the areas of trade, shipping, agriculture, transport and many others.
Undoubtedly, the signing of treaties and agreements on arms limitation has become a positive development for the whole world. But the deterioration of relations between the US and Iran, the Afghan issue, the policy of the United States in different parts of the world (in Africa and the Middle East), the Ukrainian, Crimean and Syrian issues dealt a very serious blow to the process of further peaceful existence and put the world on the brink of another cold war. .
And today, such a shaky balance is maintained with the help of a relative equality of forces in the event of a possible global conflict. Therefore, military-strategic parity is a very serious deterrent for those countries that believe that they alone dictate their interests to the whole world and try to subordinate everyone to their will.
