Description: War Thunder is a next generation military MMO game dedicated to...
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 Military 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 in quantity, composition, quality, combat readiness, combat readiness in solving strategic, operational and tactical tasks in various conditions of 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 capabilities of strategic nuclear strike forces. Since at the same time the superpowers also had the largest armed forces(basic ... ... Wikipedia
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 nuclear missile weapons. And this principle is basic when conducting negotiations on the reduction and limitation of weapons, as well as preventing the creation of new types (again, primarily nuclear weapons).
It's about 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 the balance that can be disturbed at any moment with the help of the creation of weapons mass destruction which 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 the 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.
MILITARY THOUGHT No. 12/1986, pp. 3-13
Decisions of the XXVII Congress of the CPSU - in life!
Preservation of military-strategic parity - serious factor ensuring peace and international security*
Army GeneralM. M. KOZLOV ,
The DOCUMENTS of the 27th CPSU Congress contain a comprehensive and scientifically substantiated program for the socio-economic development of the USSR, the strengthening of the community of socialist countries, and the struggle for peace and international security. They reveal the nature, alignment and relationships of the main opposing social and political forces. Taking into account the significant changes that have taken place in the world over a quarter of a century, the documents formulate a number of new, fundamentally important conclusions and provisions. They relate primarily to the characteristics of the main content of the era, the main driving forces of social development, the world of capitalism, military-strategic parity between the USSR and the USA, the Warsaw Pact and NATO as an important factor in ensuring peace and international security in modern conditions, the reactionary inhuman essence of the policy and ideology of imperialism .
“The historical achievement of socialism,” says the Program of the CPSU, “was the establishment of military-strategic parity between the USSR and the USA, the Warsaw Treaty Organization and NATO. It strengthened the positions of the USSR, the socialist countries and all progressive forces, upset the calculations of the aggressive circles of imperialism for victory in a world nuclear war. Maintaining this balance is a serious factor in ensuring peace and international security.”
However American programs nuclear missile weapons, space militarization and new strategic concepts leave no doubt that the main goal of world imperialism is to break the existing military-strategic parity and achieve nuclear superiority. Imperialism puts the achievements of human genius at the service of creating weapons of monstrous destructive power. The policy of imperialist circles, which are ready to sacrifice the fate of entire peoples, increases the danger that such weapons may be used. That is why, in the current conditions, the decisive factors determining relations between the socialist and capitalist countries, the USSR and the USA, will be the balance of forces in the world arena, the growth and activity of the potential of the world, its ability to effectively counter the threat nuclear war.
The human mind urgently demands that everything necessary be done to preserve civilization and eliminate the formidable danger hanging over it. The 27th Congress of the CPSU substantiated the conclusion, which is of historical significance for the fate of mankind: “... no matter how great the threat to peace posed by the policy of the aggressive circles of imperialism, there is no fatal inevitability of a world war. It is possible to prevent war, save humanity from catastrophe. This is the historical vocation of socialism, of all the progressive, peace-loving forces of our planet.” That is how the progressive people of the whole Earth evaluate the proposals of the USSR at the Soviet-American summit in Reykjavik. Approving the activities of Comrade Gorbachev MS at this meeting, the Politburo of the Central Committee of the CPSU noted that the position of the Soviet side was honest and open. It was based on the principles of equality and equal security, took into account the interests of both countries, their allies, the peoples of all states, and was a concrete expression of a new approach, new thinking, the need for which is dictated by the realities of the nuclear missile age. The Soviet side made new compromise proposals that fully took into account the concerns of the American side and made it possible to agree on such important issues, as a reduction, and in the future, the complete elimination of strategic offensive weapons and the destruction of missiles medium range in Europe.
Unfortunately, the practically reached agreement on these issues could not be translated into binding agreements between the parties. Ultimately, the only reason for this was the US administration's stubborn unwillingness to create conditions for the implementation of these agreements by strengthening the missile defense regime and accepting corresponding obligations that are the same for both sides.
The socialist states, with their growing economic and defensive might, are the main force in the struggle for peace. Therefore, the Armed Forces of the USSR, the armies of other fraternal countries of socialism today face the task of protecting not only the socialist Fatherland and the community of socialist states, but also the preservation of universal peace, the existence human civilization.
A significant role in curbing the aggressive forces of imperialism and creating an international security system is played by military-strategic parity (an approximate balance of power) between the USSR and the USA, between the Warsaw Treaty Organization and NATO. Its core is exemplary equality in the field of nuclear and other types of weapons. The achievement and consolidation of military-strategic parity are the most tangible and impressive indicators of the possibilities and abilities of socialism to successfully resist modern imperialism in the military sphere. They strengthened the positions of our country, the socialist countries and all progressive forces, and refuted the calculations of the aggressive circles of imperialism for victory in a world nuclear war.
The need to achieve and maintain such parity with the United States and NATO was dictated and is being dictated to the USSR and the Warsaw Treaty member states by the realities of the class struggle in the international arena. “Marxism demands from us,” wrote V. I. Lenin, “the most accurate, objectively verifiable account of the correlation of classes and the specific features of each historical moment. We Bolsheviks have always tried to be faithful to this demand, which is absolutely obligatory from the point of view of any scientific substantiation of politics” (Pol. sobr. soch., vol. 31, p. 132).
The entire history of international relations after 1917 convincingly confirms that anti-Sovietism and anti-communism were and remain the basis of the entire policy of imperialism. For almost seventy years, the ruling circles of imperialism, led by the United States, have been making the most diverse efforts to substantially squeeze the positions of socialism. Military means play a key role in this policy. Imperialism has primarily used and continues to use each new achievement of scientific and technological progress for military purposes, for the struggle against socialism.
Already at the very beginning of the appearance of nuclear weapons, the desire to arrange the world according to the American model, to destroy world socialism led by the USSR, with the help of military force, primarily nuclear, became the main policy and strategy of the US ruling circles. Thus, in May 1945, at a meeting with American atomic scientists, US Secretary of State J. Byrnes stated that "the atomic bomb is needed not to defeat Japan, but to put pressure on the Russians." The Long Range Strategy document, drafted by the U.S. Chiefs of Staff in the early days of peace in 1945, stated: “... our policy must be based on the following premise: we cannot allow a political system contrary to ours to survive.” Ignoring the proposals of the Soviet Union to ban nuclear weapons, the United States decided to stake on achieving military-strategic superiority in this type of weapons. They intensively began to improve and develop delivery vehicles, primarily strategic bombers, and then strategic missiles. Already by the end of 1945, the Committee of Chiefs of Staff in a secret report spoke in favor of delivering atomic strikes in the form of "retaliation" (despite the fact that the USSR was not going and is not going to attack anyone) or preventive strikes. As the US nuclear arsenal increased, so did the plans of their ruling circles to attack the USSR. Pincher, Chariotir, Cogwill, Troyan, Gunpowder, Fleetwood - all these are the names of plans of aggression against the USSR, based on the concept of massive bombing of military and civilian targets "to suppress the strength and spirit of resistance adversary." Plans for a nuclear attack on the USSR assumed an increasingly sinister and large-scale character. According to the Dropshot plan (1949), the bombing of the Soviet Union was planned for 300 atomic bombs and millions of tons of conventional explosives. The calculation was made for the transformation into ruins of Soviet cities, for the destruction of up to 85 percent. Soviet industry.
The Soviet Union was forced to respond to this challenge and, in the face of the impending atomic threat, set about creating nuclear weapons. At the same time, our country proposed to impose a ban on the use of it and other means mass destruction establish, within the framework of the UN, strict international control over such a ban.
However, the US ruling circles continued to build up their potential and did not for a moment refuse to prepare for a nuclear war against our state. A so-called strategic "triad" was created, consisting of intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs), submarine-launched ballistic missiles (SLBMs) and strategic bombers. Around the borders of the USSR, they deployed a system of advanced basing of offensive weapons. Nuclear weapons appeared in some Western European countries. By December 1960, a "single comprehensive operational plan" for the US attack on our country (SIOP-1) was developed, which provided for a strike by all the forces of the "triad" of the United States and British nuclear weapons in order to completely destroy the Soviet Union. This setting was also the basis of the SIOP-5D plan (early 80s), which provided for a strike on 40,000 targets in the USSR and other socialist countries, including Vietnam and Cuba.
American imperialism throughout the entire post-war period was the initiator of each new round of the arms race, the creation of new, more advanced weapons systems (Fig. 1, Table 1). The United States was the first in the mid-50s to implement a program for the construction of intercontinental strategic bombers and nuclear submarines, and in the late 60s began to equip ballistic missiles strategic purpose multiply charged multiple warheads of individual targeting. Then they rapidly began to develop a new type of strategic weapons - nuclear weapons. cruise missiles long range air, land and sea based. In the late 70s, the United States created neutron munitions. Since 1983, they began to deploy their new medium-range nuclear missiles in Western Europe. And yet, none of these actions strengthened their security, did not create military advantages for them. Washington's nuclear policy has stalled.
Unwilling to realize the reality of the nuclear-space age, the changed alignment of forces in the international arena, the United States is now betting on space. It is about creating and deploying a large-scale anti-missile system with space-based elements, the main components of which will be space strike weapons. They are weapons on new physical principles, designed to destroy objects in space and from space on earth. These are various kinds of lasers, neutron particle beam generators, homing interceptor missiles, electromagnetic guns based not only on earth, but also in space. Contrary to the assertions of the American administration about the defensive nature of the space weapons system, it is inherently offensive, and the plans for its creation embody another attempt to acquire the possibility of inflicting the first attack with impunity. nuclear strike. Understanding this well, the public in the United States and other countries immediately dubbed Reagan's "strategic defense initiative" the program " star wars". Its goal is to try to gain military superiority over the USSR, all the countries of socialism. After Reykjavik, Comrade M. S. Gorbachev emphasized in a speech on October 14, 1986 on Soviet television, the notorious SDI turned out to be even more visible to everyone as a symbol of obstruction to the cause of peace, as a concentrated expression of militaristic plans, unwillingness to remove the nuclear threat hanging over humanity.
From the first steps of space exploration, the Soviet Union proposed to ban the use of outer space for military purposes, to establish wide the international cooperation in its study and use exclusively in peaceful interests. “It is extremely necessary,” emphasized the 27th CPSU Congress, “before it is too late to find a real solution that would guarantee against transferring the arms race into space. The Star Wars program cannot be allowed to be used both as an incentive for a further arms race and as a blockage on the road to radical disarmament.
Without weakening its efforts to stop the arms race, the USSR, together with other fraternal socialist countries, in the name of ensuring the security of the socialist community and preserving peace, was forced to take retaliatory measures to eliminate the military superiority of the United States and other NATO member countries. “Over the past 40 years, the threat of a new world war has loomed over the world more than once,” stressed candidate member of the Politburo of the CPSU Central Committee, Minister of Defense of the USSR Marshal of the Soviet Union S. L. Sokolov at the XXVII Congress of the CPSU. - The United States of America has repeatedly hatched plans for a nuclear attack on our country. And if until now imperialism has not dared to realize them, it is primarily because it was held back by the military and economic might of our state, the inevitability of retaliatory strikes against the aggressor.
The elimination of the US nuclear monopoly, the invulnerability of their territory from retaliatory nuclear strikes, the well-known successes of the Soviet Union in the field of strategic nuclear weapons in the late 60s and early 70s - all these are the main stages in achieving military-strategic parity between the USSR and the USA, the Organization Warsaw Pact and NATO.
Military-strategic parity is the approximate equality of the military potentials of the opposing sides. Under such conditions, neither side can expect to win a nuclear war. The bottom line is that each of them, even if it becomes a victim of aggression, will retain enough forces and means to inflict irreparable damage to the enemy. Military equilibrium is not a mathematical equality of opposing armed forces and armaments. It can be correctly assessed by taking into account the totality of armaments, the historical structure of the armed forces, and a number of other factors that determine the strategic situation.
The basis of military-strategic parity is the social, economic, political, scientific and technical capabilities of the parties. They find their concentrated expression in the combat power of the armed forces, which is determined primarily by the quality and quantity of their weapons and military equipment, the strategic position of groupings in theaters of operations and in military geographical areas. When determining military-strategic parity, along with the quantitative indicators of the armed forces, it is necessary to take into account their structural and other characteristics.
In the early 1970s, the American administration (first R. Nixon, and then D. Ford) recognized the fact of military-strategic parity between the USSR and the USA. It was carefully calibrated during the preparation of the Soviet-American SALT-2 Treaty, signed at the highest level in June 1979 in Vienna. The treaty provided for certain restrictions on the quantitative growth and qualitative improvement of the strategic weapons of the parties.
Each contracting party was allowed to build, test and deploy only one type of light ICBM. It was forbidden to increase the number of existing and create new heavy ground-based and sea-based missiles. Qualitative restrictions were also placed on individual characteristics, modernization of existing and creation of new types of strategic offensive weapons. Within the indicated quantitative restrictions, the parties could and did have an unequal composition of armaments, which was due to the existing differences in the directions of development and the structure of their strategic nuclear forces. The SALT-2 treaty made it possible in the future to achieve lower levels of strategic weapons. But the US refused to ratify this treaty because it did not meet their imperial ambitions. In the early 1980s, they began to implement their new strategic programs in order to achieve military superiority over the USSR (Fig. 2, 3).
On May 27, 1986, President Reagan announced the actual refusal of the United States to continue to comply with the Soviet-American treaty-legal documents on the limitation of strategic offensive arms. He stated that, in future decisions regarding the buildup of US strategic forces, the US would not adhere to the restrictions stipulated by the SALT agreements.
As for other elements of the military-strategic parity between the Warsaw Pact and NATO, their combat potential ( ground forces, air force, navy, military branches (forces) and others constituent parts armed forces), then the main criterion here can be considered combat capabilities to fulfill the strategic and operational tasks in modern warfare with the use of nuclear and conventional weapons. It is they who have a decisive influence on the required number of formations, formations, weapons and military equipment, on the system and methods of command and control of the armed forces.
In a speech on Soviet television on October 22, 1986, Comrade Gorbachev M.S. emphasized that until now the common thesis in the West was the assertion of the "superiority" of the Soviet Union, the Warsaw Pact states in conventional weapons. It allegedly compels NATO to continuously build up its nuclear potential. Of course, there is no imbalance. After Reykjavik, this fact was first publicly acknowledged by Mr. Schultz and Mr. Regan. But the essence of the problem is not reduced to maintaining parity. We don't want to arm race 
war has moved from the realm of nuclear to the realm of conventional weapons. Let me remind you that our January proposal to eliminate nuclear weapons before the end of the century also included provisions for the destruction chemical weapons and deep cuts in conventional weapons.
We repeatedly returned to this issue after January. In the most detailed form, the proposals of the Warsaw Pact countries were formulated this summer in Budapest. We sent them to the other side - I mean NATO members.
A characteristic feature of modern armed struggle is the coalition composition of the opposing sides. Even local wars involving only two states affect the interests of not only neighboring countries, but also those far removed from the conflict area. The coalition nature of modern wars is due to the alignment of forces in the world, the presence of military-political groups, blocs and alliances pursuing opposite political goals. Already in Peaceful time they have large, highly combat-ready joint armed forces equipped with modern types of weapons. Therefore, the maintenance of military-strategic parity in modern conditions is possible only at the level of opposing coalitions, i.e., at the level of the member states of the Warsaw Pact and the NATO bloc, the balance of military forces of which the Soviet leadership has repeatedly proved by concrete calculations.
The material basis of the combat potential is not only peacetime and wartime troops and forces, but also the degree to which they are provided with material and technical means, all types of allowances and supplies.
The need to maintain military-strategic parity for the USSR and its allies is dictated by a number of objective factors. First of all, the aggressive, adventurist nature of imperialism compels the socialist countries to pursue a policy of maintaining an approximate military-strategic balance between the USSR and the USA, between the member states of the Warsaw Pact and the NATO bloc. The bloody US war against Vietnam, the blockade of Cuba for many years, the capture of defenseless Grenada, the piratical actions against Nicaragua, the undeclared war in Afghanistan, the attack on Libya - these are just some of the facts. recent years which speak of the aggressiveness of imperialism, its readiness to use military force against socialism, democracy, and national liberation.
This is also evidenced by the "doctrine of neo-globalism", which substantiates the imaginary right of the United States to carry out interventionist actions in Asia, Africa and Latin America under the pretext of defending "democracy" against "communist expansion". But the peoples have learned to recognize the true intentions of contemporary world reaction. They see that in reality this is still the same imperial policy aimed at subjugation and enslavement, at undermining and suppressing national liberation movements and regimes objectionable to the United States of America.
In a situation where the reactionary forces of imperialism, led by the United States, are striving to secure world domination, the quantitative and qualitative weakening of the military potential of the USSR and the Warsaw Pact states would create military superiority for the United States and its allies, with the help of which, in the opinion of the ruling circles of imperialism, it would be possible to put pressure on the Soviet Union in future crises. Moreover, it cannot be ruled out that the US leaders may have the illusion that it is possible to achieve a military victory over the socialist countries. The real facts of reality do not guarantee that they will not be tempted to inflict a "disarming" blow on the USSR and its allies.
Violation of military-strategic parity in favor of the USA and the NATO bloc would increase the "adventurism factor" in the policy of imperialism and towards developing states, the danger of counter-revolution being exported, and would intensify the military-political expansion of imperialism into the countries of Asia, Africa and Latin America. This would lead to the weakening of the entire potential of the world.
The current level of balance of nuclear potentials of the opposing sides is prohibitively high. As long as it provides each of them with equal danger. But only for now. The continuation of the nuclear arms race will inevitably increase this equal danger and may push it to such limits that even parity will cease to be a factor of military-political deterrence. Therefore, it is necessary first of all to significantly reduce the level of military confrontation. Genuine equal security in our age is guaranteed not by an extremely high, but by an extremely low level of strategic balance, from which it is necessary to completely exclude nuclear and other types of weapons of mass destruction. The meeting in Reykjavik with the President of the United States, Comrade MS Gorbachev emphasized in a conversation with a group of world cultural figures, showed that it is possible to reach agreements that would lay the foundation for the elimination of nuclear weapons. The program of new proposals put forward by the USSR provides a real opportunity to get out of the impasse. But the meeting at the same time showed that considerable difficulties must be overcome on the way to agreements.
One of the main lessons of Reykjavik is that new political thinking, consistent with the realities of the nuclear age, is an indispensable condition for overcoming the critical situation in which humanity found itself at the end of the twentieth century. We need profound changes in the political thinking of the entire human community.
done Central Committee The CPSU analysis of the nature and scale of the nuclear threat made it possible to formulate a conclusion of great theoretical and practical significance that objective conditions have developed in the international arena in which the confrontation between capitalism and socialism can proceed only and exclusively in the form of peaceful competition and peaceful rivalry. It should be like this international order, under which would dominate not military force but good neighborliness and cooperation, there would be a wide exchange of achievements in science and technology, cultural values for the benefit of all peoples. Our country is doing everything possible to get out of the situation of "mutually assured destruction". The goal of the USSR's policy is the exclusion of nuclear weapons from the arsenals of states and, ultimately, their complete destruction. “... Our proposals for the complete elimination of nuclear weapons, - said the General Secretary of the Central Committee of the CPSU M. S. Gorbachev on May 14, 1986, - the termination nuclear explosions the creation of a comprehensive system of international security meet the inexorably strict requirements that the nuclear age imposes on the political leadership of all countries.
Realizing the responsibility for the fate of all mankind, the USSR and other fraternal socialist countries consider military-strategic parity only as a certain milestone, moving from which it is necessary to achieve a reduction, and in the future, the complete elimination of the threat of nuclear war.
Realistically assessing the possibilities modern means armed struggle, the XXVII Congress of the CPSU made a new and fundamentally important conclusion that they, especially nuclear ones, do not leave any state hope to protect itself only by military-technical means, even by creating the most powerful defense. Political means play an increasingly important role in ensuring security. Speaking on Soviet television on October 22, 1986, Comrade Gorbachev M. S. noted that, according to the general opinion, the meeting in Reykjavik raised new level Soviet-American dialogue, as well as the East-West dialogue in general.
From this height one can see new perspectives in solving the problems that are so acute today - security, nuclear disarmament, the prevention of new rounds of the arms race, a new understanding of the possibilities that have opened up before mankind.
Military-strategic parity has created objective conditions for the elimination of useless and dangerous competition in the military sphere, since it clearly showed the futility of the attempts of imperialist circles to achieve military superiority over the USSR, the Warsaw Pact member states. Today, our country, together with its allies, is able to solve any scientific and technical problem and prevent military superiority over itself, either on earth or in space. Imperialism's attempts to achieve military superiority over the USSR and the socialist countries are not only useless, but also dangerous. They lead to an increase in the threat of destruction of human civilization. It is only reasonable to move along the path of reducing the level of military-strategic balance.
The determination of the Soviet Union to fight persistently and consistently for lowering the level of military-strategic parity finds expression in the foreign policy of our country. It was confirmed with full force by the General Secretary of the Central Committee of the CPSU, MS Gorbachev, at the Geneva meeting, in the Statement of January 15, 1986, by the XXVII Congress of the CPSU. “Our country is in favor,” emphasized in the Political Report of the Central Committee of the CPSU to the XXVII Party Congress, “to withdraw weapons of mass destruction from circulation, to limit the military potential to the limits of reasonable sufficiency. But the nature and level of this limit continues to be limited by the positions and actions of the US, its bloc partners.” The principled course of the USSR against the arms race and the militarization of outer space is backed up by real deeds: our country's refusal to be the first to use nuclear weapons; the introduction of a moratorium on any nuclear explosions and a unilateral moratorium on the deployment of medium-range missiles in the European zone of the USSR; a statement that we will not be the first to take weapons into space, etc. The holistic concept of a nuclear-free world, the creation of a comprehensive system of international security, put forward by the 27th CPSU Congress, is a solid basis for solving the problem of preserving peace.
But the United States and its NATO partners continue to ignore the goodwill of the USSR and the fraternal socialist countries. All military policy imperialism is aimed at achieving decisive superiority over Soviet Union and its allies in order to obtain the possibility of delivering a preemptive nuclear strike. “As evidenced by the facts,” notes the Minister of Defense of the USSR Marshal of the Soviet Union S. L. Sokolov, “the United States has not yet abandoned its long-standing and unrealizable goal of gaining an advantage over the USSR in military area... Influential circles in the West continue to hold views, the essence of which is precisely to achieve their political goals with the help of military pressure, to turn the arms race into a means of economic weakening of the Soviet Union and its allies. The United States is stubbornly implementing the Star Wars program... By militarizing outer space, they expect to break the established military-strategic parity.
That is why the CPSU at the 27th Congress paid close attention to the further strengthening of the Soviet Armed Forces, the need to maintain military-strategic parity between the USSR and the USA, the Warsaw Pact and NATO. “In the military sphere, we intend to continue to do so,” Comrade MS Gorbachev said at the 27th CPSU Congress. - so that no one has any reason to fear, even imaginary, for their safety. But we and our allies alike want to be spared the feeling of a threat looming over us. The USSR undertook an obligation not to be the first to use nuclear weapons and will strictly adhere to it. But it is no secret that scenarios for a nuclear attack on us exist. We have no right to ignore them. Under these conditions, we repeat again and again: the Soviet Union does not claim greater security, it will not accept less.
Thus, military-strategic parity is the most important historical achievement of socialism, which plays an important role in curbing the aggressiveness of imperialism. It acts as a factor in ensuring peace, international security and the defense of the socialist community, significantly restricting the aggressive plans and possibilities of imperialism to unleash a world nuclear war.
Materials of the XXVII Congress of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union. - M.: Politizdat, 1986, p. 127.
Materials of the XXVII Congress of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, p. 137.
Petrovsky VF Security in the nuclear space era. - M.: International relationships, 1985, p. 12.
Ibid, p. 16.
Petrovsky VF Security in the nuclear space age, pp. 17-18.
Materials of the XXVII Congress of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, p. 67.
Materials of the XXVII Congress of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, p. 67.
To comment, you must register on the site.
The turn from balancing on the brink of war to peaceful coexistence was connected not only with the death of I. V. Stalin. An equally important role was played by the acquisition of the United States, and then the USSR hydrogen weapons. The confrontation between the two military blocs for the first time became thermonuclear. Realizing its danger, the head of the Soviet government G. M. Malenkov in 1954 stated that in the conditions of the existence of such weapons, a new World War would mean the death of human civilization, and proposed to move to a policy of peaceful coexistence. It was assumed that the rivalry between the “world of capital” and “world socialism” would move from the military field to the sphere of economics, ideology, politics, culture, as a result of which the whole world would see the “advantages of socialism”, and capitalism would “finally compromise” itself. In addition, the continuous crises of world capitalism will lead to its weakening, while the possibilities of the Soviet economic system will increase from year to year.
In the 60s. this approach allowed the ideologists to develop these provisions with the conclusion about peaceful coexistence as a specific form of class struggle, during which the peaceful labor of the Soviet people is ensured and the “potential of the forces of peace and social progress” is built up.
Along with this, the Soviet leadership still believed that only a strong military machine could guarantee peace. Therefore, concern for the development of military production and re-equipment of the army with the latest types of weapons was one of the key tasks.
Military-strategic parity and the beginning of detente
Soviet propaganda explained that the Soviet Union lagged behind the United States in the development of fundamentally new types of weapons by the fact that "the arms race was imposed on us by the West", and we were only "forced to accept the challenge" in order to ensure a lasting peace. Only in the production of launch vehicles of the USSR in the late 50s - early 60s. for a while ahead of the United States, but the industrial capacity of our country did not allow then to provide a quantitative advantage in this main type of military equipment. Only in the late 60s - early 70s. military-strategic parity between East and West took shape and created favorable conditions for a policy of detente in international tension. Its beginning is considered to be the signing in 1972 of two key documents of a military-strategic nature between the USSR and the USA - on the limitation of strategic offensive weapons and on the creation of limited national missile defense systems.
Crisis and the end of détente
Both sides, proclaiming the policy of detente, had in mind the achievement of their own strategic goals with its help.
The leadership of the USSR, believing that the United States was forced to make agreements due to the unsuccessful war in Vietnam and the growing general crisis of capitalism, considered it possible to transfer military rivalry with the West to the regional plane, increasing assistance to national liberation movements in Asia, Africa and Latin America. As a result, this was supposed to lead to the expansion of the "forces of peace and democracy" and the weakening of the United States and its allies. In addition, the deployment of Soviet medium-range and short-range missiles near the borders of Western European countries changed the balance of power in Europe in favor of the Warsaw Pact, and thus strengthened its position in the dialogue with the United States.
Analysts and the US leadership, on the contrary, believed that the Soviet system was not capable of withstanding the test of openness that was inevitable in the process of détente. At the same time, measures were taken to strengthen the accents in foreign policy related to the observance of human rights, which would give rise to constant pressure on the Soviet leaders. One of the ideologues of American foreign policy
3. Brzezinski directly pointed out that détente is a temporary phenomenon, but "as a result of it, irreversible processes may occur in the Soviet system, and we must contribute to this in every possible way."
It remained only to wait for a reason to curtail the processes of detente. This was the introduction Soviet troops to Afghanistan in December 1979.
A new round of confrontation
The entire first half of the 80s. passed under the sign of a new aggravation of the international situation. R. Reagan's administration made the main emphasis on the involvement of the USSR in new round arms race to undermine its economic system. The main bet was placed on the Star Wars program: the deployment in space of early warning of a missile attack and its prevention. It was assumed that the USSR did not have sufficient material resources, nor the latest technologies in order to make a counter move. As it turned out later, the United States had no intention of actually deploying such a system. The goal was different - to involve the USSR in colossal costs. Considering that the war in Afghanistan cost the USSR $50 billion, the new grandiose expenditures for military purposes were beyond its strength.
At the same time, deployment began American missiles medium and short range in Western Europe. For the USSR they represented strategic threat, since, having the same destructive power as American strategic missiles, they flew to targets on the territory of the USSR not for 25-30 minutes, but only 3-5. The Soviet missile defense system had to take measures for defense during this time, and the political leadership - a decision on the advisability of a retaliatory strike. It also required urgent action to be taken to mitigate the new threat.
In response, Soviet nuclear submarines with strategic nuclear missiles came to the shores of the United States.
All these measures led to the risk of starting a new world war. The situation became so threatening that both sides recognized its danger and began to look for steps to get out of it.
"New Political Thinking": Intentions and Results
The reason for the start of negotiations was the change of political leadership in the USSR. M. S. Gorbachev, who became the leader of the country, laid the concept of new political thinking at the basis of the foreign policy of the USSR. It meant a revision of the main principles of Soviet foreign policy, previously based on ideological provisions, and provided for the rejection of the conclusion about dividing the world into two systems; recognition of the impossibility of using force to solve international problems; rejection of the principle of proletarian internationalism and recognition of the priority of universal human values over class and others.
Declaring these principles, the Soviet leadership sought to prove to the West every time that it follows them in its policy. Signed by the two countries by the beginning of the 90s. treaties on the elimination of medium-range and short-range missiles, the reduction of offensive weapons, and others have significantly reduced the threat of world nuclear war. This was the most important result of the "politics of new thinking".
However, the United States and its allies, while verbally recognizing the importance of the approaches to foreign policy listed above, at the same time were not going to refuse to achieve their strategic goals in practice. They sought to use the new international environment to radically change the global situation in their favor.
The reduction of the nuclear arsenals of the USSR and the USA was more beneficial to the West, since the nuclear missile forces of other NATO members - England and France - remained intact.
The unblocking of regional conflicts actually meant the loss of the positions of the USSR in a number of regions of the world and the strengthening of US influence.
The Soviet leadership's rejection of the "Brezhnev Doctrine" led to the disintegration of the "socialist camp" and the loss of the Soviet Union's traditional positions in Eastern Europe.
The democratic changes that began in the USSR strengthened the centrifugal tendencies in the union state, which ultimately led to its collapse.
As a result, on political map The only superpower left in the world is the United States.
Thus, the primacy of ideology in the foreign policy of the USSR remained until the start of perestroika, during which the geostrategic position of the country changed radically. Only one superpower emerged from the Cold War - the United States, which actively seeks to establish its dominance in the world.
FROM BOOK 3. BRZHEZINSKY "GREAT CHESSBOARD" (1997):
…America dominates four critical areas of world power: in the military realm, it has unparalleled global deployment capabilities; in the field of economics, it remains the main driving force of world development ... in terms of technology, it retains absolute leadership in the advanced fields of science and technology; in the field of culture, despite its somewhat primitive nature, America enjoys an unparalleled attraction, especially among the youth of the world. It is the combination of all these four factors that makes America the only world power in the full sense of the word.
CHAPTER 11
11.9. STRATEGIC NUCLEAR PARITY
STRATEGIC NUCLEAR PARITY- the possession by the opposing states (their coalitions) of strategic nuclear forces, as well as the means to ensure their operational use, protection, camouflage and operation with approximately equal combat strike forces ( offensive- in US terminology) and defensive capabilities. It is characterized by the ability to carry out a crushing nuclear attack or inflict unacceptable damage on the aggressor.
Provided by an approximate match:
Strategic nuclear parity does not mean the existence of a mirror match of all components of the "triad". A deficiency in some means may be compensated for by superiority in others. It is important to ensure approximately equal opportunities for the reaction of strategic nuclear forces to a preventive (sudden, disarming, preemptive) strike by the enemy, as well as for the introduction of strategic nuclear forces into retaliatory (retaliatory-oncoming) actions and an approximately equal level of their total damaging capabilities.
At the end of the 20th century, military experts began to use the concept of a “minimum level of strategic nuclear parity” more often. It denotes the lowest limit of the necessary approximate equality in the number and quality of strategic nuclear weapons.
