Putin’s Nuclear surprise

For anyone who does not understand the peace rhetoric President of Russia.

Washington’s strategic blunder led to a radical change in the military balance of power. Today in Europe, Russia is much stronger NATO. From now on Russian military dominance in the continent has an undeniable factor.

The triumph of Russian technology

The first in September 2014 the US State Department published a report which stated that Russia for the first time after the collapse of the Soviet Union achieved parity with the US in the field of strategic nuclear weapons. Thus Washington acknowledged that Moscow has regained that status by the Soviet Union achieved by the mid 70-ies of XX century, the cost of enormous effort and which (it seemed – forever) we had lost after the collapse of the Union.

According to the report of the State Department, at the moment, Russia has the 528 th carriers of strategic nuclear weapons, which deployed 1,643 warheads, and the US – 794 carriers and 1,652 nuclear warheads-name.

It turns out that the Russian strategic nuclear forces (SNF) today even more high-tech than the United States, as they provide the final parity warhead significantly smaller number of carriers of strategic nuclear weapons. And in light of the well-known statements by the Russian leadership that in 2020 Russia’s strategic nuclear forces will be completely, one hundred percent, rearmed with missiles of the new generation, the gap between Moscow from Washington will only increase.

This breakthrough was made possible by the Treaty on the Limitation of nuclear weapons, also known as START-3, signed by Dmitry Medvedev and Barack Obama on 8 April 2010 in Prague (entered into force on February 5, 2011), according to which in 2021 provided for the reduction of nuclear warheads sides to 1,550, and the carrier (intercontinental ballistic missiles, submarine launched ballistic missiles and heavy bombers) – up to 700 units.

It was the first agreement in a strategic area, after the treacherous policy of “perestroika” and the Democrats, in which Russia has managed to achieve for itself significant advantages. In it for the first time the Americans have to reduce its strategic potential, while Russia gets the opportunity to increase it. In addition, within its framework with Russia were removed major restrictions existed in previous treaties START 1 and 2: the size of mobile ICBM deployment areas, the number of multiply ICBMs, the possibility of creating a rail ICBMs. Russia is no concessions are not made.

Written off with Moscow as a serious geopolitical schёtov competitor and believing in the myth of the reach of its military and technological superiority, Washington drove himself into such a trap, out of which – at least in the short to medium term – not even in sight. And it’s not only in strategic nuclear forces.

Recently a lot of talk about the so-called “Sixth-generation wars” and high-precision long-range weapons, which is designed to ensure victory over the enemy without coming into direct contact with its armed forces. But besides that, by itself, this concept is highly questionable (in either Iraq or Afghanistan the US could not prevent the victory, achieved in this way), Russia, and here enters the parity line. Proof of this – long-range cruise missiles of the new generation, which will soon be posted on the Black Sea Fleet submarine and missile ships of the Caspian Flotilla. On this, recall, was discussed in previous article “Rocket surprise Putin.”

In Russia today, many people in this hard to believe. This mistrust is particularly widespread in the circles of the so-called “Patriotic public” due to the fact that our public opinion firmly and selflessly remains in captivity numerous myths about the total “weakness” of Russia and the same total Western “superiority”. These myths have developed more in the “dashing 90” under the influence of Yeltsin betrayal of our national interests and bestial Russophobia then dominant liberal-democratic “owners” of Russia. I must admit that at the time they are fully consistent with the sad reality.

But times have changed. And it can be easily understood if we do not try to substitute a sober analysis of slogans and chants, and the facts – fictions and fantasies.

Russian tanks in Europe

Consider, for example, the potential of conventional weapons Russia and the West in the European theater of military operations (TVD). In this area, as considered in the “decent patriotic society,” NATO’s almost an order of magnitude “weak” Russia. But the first encounter with the reality leaves from such errors stone unturned.

As is known, the main strike force and the core combat power of the Ground Forces are tanks. By the time of the collapse of the USSR, our Armed Forces have in their composition in the European theater of about 20,000 tanks.

Americans, in turn, deployed on the territory of the Allied group in 6000 heavy tanks “Abrams”. But despite this, the combined potential of NATO in Europe is still significantly inferior to the Soviet. And to compensate for this imbalance NATO strategists were forced using tactical nuclear weapons (TNW).

In the first half of the 1950s in the NATO study was conducted on what force is necessary to have the unit for reliable reflection of large-scale land offensive superior forces of the Soviet Union and the Warsaw Pact. Then the calculations showed that for this task, you must have at least 96 full-fledged divisions. Meanwhile, the cost of only one such weapons division exceeded $ 1 billion. (And it is not in current dollars, and in the prices of the time!). Plus More about 2-3 times more funds required for the maintenance of such a large group of troops and the creation of appropriate infrastructure. This burden was clearly beyond the power of the economy of the West.

The solution was found to expand on the continent group of US tactical nuclear weapons, which soon was done. By the early 1970s, the US arsenal of tactical nuclear weapons, according to experts, there are about 7 thousand. Ammunition for various purposes, and the highest achievement in this area was considered to create weapons of selective action – neutron charges (for guns caliber 203 mm and 155 mm, and to missiles “Lance”) with a capacity of 1 to 10 kilotons, which were seen as the main means of struggle with the staff of ground forces, especially with the crews of Soviet tanks.

In view of the nuclear factor to reflect the “Soviet aggression” NATO is no longer required to deploy 96, but only 30 divisions, and they were deployed.

How do things stand in this area now? Here’s how: In early 2013, the last batch of heavy “Abrams” was derived from the Americans in Europe. In NATO countries, for the past 20 years, one new tank, by the armed forces, to discard 10-15 “old”, but in fact – it is more combat-ready machines. At the same time Russia their tanks almost no shrinking.

As a result, today our country is an absolute leader HERE: in mid-2014 on the balance of the Ministry of Defence there were neither more nor less, already 18,177 tanks (T-90 – 400 units. T-72B – 7144 units. T-80 – 4744 units. T-64 – 4000 units. T-62 – 689 u, and T-55 – 1200 units.).

Of course, in the permanent readiness units deployed only a few thousand cars, and most of them are located at the bases of storage, but you and NATO troops picture is exactly the same. So decisive superiority of Russian tanks anywhere since the Soviet Union has not got, no matter how strange it is to hear the “patriotic” and mourners vsepropalschikam!

Okay, tell meticulous reader. But some of these tanks should be kept in the Far East, because China has its 8,000 armored vehicles. In addition, NATO, as before, can compensate for this imbalance by using tactical nuclear weapons. So even more reliable and cheaper …

And here we will have another surprise.

In the modern Russian tactical nuclear weapons superiority over NATO altogether crushing!

Fatal miscalculation Washington

And Americans are aware of this. Just before they believed that Russia will never rise, that the possibility of a major war in Europe is reduced to zero and Russian tactical nuclear weapons with Russian tanks themselves eventually crumble with age and uselessness. And now … now awake, but too late – the train left!

You’ve got to say that “tactical” nuclear weapons it can be called a very arbitrary. Sometimes it significantly exceeds the power of warheads mounted on strategic ICBMs. Will show for example that the range of safe shooting Russian torpedoes 65-76K in the nuclear option is eleven and a half miles, but otherwise you can get under its own torpedo blast. And this despite the fact that cruising range of these torpedoes does not exceed 50 km. And, for example, US tactical bombs (B-61, 170 kt) and Russia (350 kt) are far superior to its capacity of strategic warheads American ICBM “Minuteman-2” (170 kt) and SLBMs “Poseidon” (40 kt).

There will be worth remembering that just two atomic bombs capacity of 15 kt (tactical, in the present classification) dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945, three weeks later brought to Japan from the war …

So, NATO countries have today in the European theater only 260 tactical nuclear weapons. 200 aerial bombs with a total capacity of 18 megatons have USA. They are located on six air bases in Germany, Italy, Belgium, the Netherlands and Turkey. 60 more nuclear bombs have France. Everything! And Russia today, according to conservative estimates, has neither more nor less than five thousand units of tactical nuclear weapons of different classes – from warheads for “Iskander” to torpedo, aviation and artillery warheads! However, the US has more 300 tactical bombs B-61 on their own territory, but this imbalance is, you know, does not change. A change this imbalance the US can not: everything else “legacy of the Cold War” – and tactical nuclear missiles and land-based missiles and nuclear warheads winged sea-based missiles “Tomahawk” – they destroyed.

In order to understand how it happened that the “losers” cold war Russia is an order of magnitude superior to NATO in this crucial area, refer to the history of the problem.

It is believed that by the beginning of 1991, the Soviet Union was about 20-22 000 units of tactical nuclear weapons. This nukes bombs, warheads of tactical missiles “Moon”, “Point”, “Oka”, anti-nuclear warheads and anti-ship weapons fleet  special warheads launch air and missile defense, nuclear mines and nuclear artillery shells Ground Forces.

This was the result of an impressive arsenal of forty intense arms race started, by the way, is not “totalitarian” USSR, but it is a democratic and liberal United States, which in the early 1950s began to develop and test various types of tactical nuclear weapons. The first example of such a class was the warhead missile to 280-mm gun, a capacity of 15 kt tested in May 1953. As the miniaturization of nuclear warheads in the future were adopted for projectiles propelled howitzers of 203 mm and 155 mm, which had a capacity of 1 to 10 kt, and until recently were in the arsenal of American troops in Europe.

Subsequently adopted received tactical missiles with nuclear warheads, “Redstone” (distance 370 kilometers), “Corporal” (125 kilometers), “Sergeant” (140 kilometers), “Lance” (130 kilometers) and several others. In the mid-1960s was finalized operational-tactical missiles “Pershing-1” (740 kilometers).

In turn, the Soviet military and political leadership decided that the saturation of the US forces in Europe creates a continent TNW fundamentally new balance of power. Have been taken decisive steps to create and deploy numerous types of Soviet tactical nuclear weapons. Already in the early 1960s, the troops began to arrive tactical missiles T-5, T-7, “Moon”. Later in non-strategic nuclear arsenal includes medium-range missiles SS-10, P-12, P-14 medium-range bombers Tu-22 and Tu-16 tactical missiles OTP-22, OTP-23 tactical – P-17 “point”, nuclear artillery caliber 152 mm, 203 mm and 240 mm, tactical aviation aircraft Su-17, Su-24, MiG-21, MiG-23, the means of sea basing.

By the way, the Soviet leadership has repeatedly offered to Western leaders to begin negotiations to reduce tactical nuclear weapons. But NATO has long been persistently rejected all Soviet proposals on this topic. The situation changed radically only when the Union reeled under the impact of Gorbachev’s “perestroika”. Then Washington considered that it is necessary to use the moment to maximize to weaken and disarm its main geopolitical rival.

In September 1991, US President George W. Bush took the initiative on the reduction and even elimination of certain types of tactical nuclear weapons. Gorbachev, in turn, also announced plans to radically reduce similar weapons in the Soviet Union. Subsequently, these plans have been developed in the statement of Russian President Boris Yeltsin “On Russia’s policy in the field of arms limitation and reduction” of 29 January 1992. It pointed out that Russia discontinued production of nuclear artillery shells and warheads for land-based missiles, and all stocks of such weapons will be destroyed. Russia will remove all tactical nuclear weapons from surface ships and attack submarines and eliminate one-third. There will also be eliminated half of warheads for anti-aircraft missiles and aircraft ammunition.

After these cuts in the arsenals of tactical nuclear weapons in Russia and the United States should have stayed on the 2500-3000 tactical nuclear warheads.

But it turned out differently. The illusion of world hegemony has played a cruel joke with Washington.

“Democratic” Russia after the terrible massacre, which then arranged their liberal agents, American strategists written off. At the same time – after during the Gulf War of precision-guided weapons to successfully cope with some combat missions, previously scheduled for TNW – Washington gambled on a technological breakthrough. But this has led to the fact that “smart” weapons are becoming more and more expensive, makes it less and less, and eventually “precision ammunition” NATO was completely insufficient for conducting large-scale fighting with the enemy, at least approximately equal to the West its technological level.

“Borjomi” to corrupt kidney

Meanwhile, in Russia, experts quickly agreed that in the current collapse of the USSR after the geostrategic situation precipitous reduction and elimination of tactical nuclear weapons is unacceptable. After all tactical nuclear weapons, which has a fairly high on the criterion of “cost-effectiveness” can serve as a universal leveler forces, depriving them of NATO military advantage. Under these conditions, Russia is simply borrowed from the NATO alliance has recently used the thesis of the need to compensate for the enemy’s superiority in conventional forces by placing in the European theater of tactical nuclear arsenal.

Since the situation has developed over two decades. West, writing off Russia, cut their tanks, destroy tactical nuclear weapons. Russia, feeling his weakness, and tanks and tactical nuclear weapons left in himself as “an armored train on the siding.” This is what led to the fact that now – after the collapse of the Russian overcome inertia and started systematic revival of its power, and the West, lulled by the sweet day-dreams of the liberal “end of history”, castrated their armed forces to the point where they are able to conduct a colonial war with a weak, technically backward enemy – the balance of power in Europe radically changed in our favor.

Realizing this, the Americans realized it, but too late. In December 2010, Assistant Secretary of State for Verification, Compliance, and Implementation Rose Gottemoeller has sounded the alarm: “In Russian tactical nuclear systems more than we have, and urges Congress to address these issues … The next step should be to reduce tactical nuclear weapons.” More very active in the same year showed the Europeans in the face of the foreign ministers of Poland and Sweden, insolently demanded that Russia unilateral creation of two nuclear-free zones – the Kaliningrad region and the Kola Peninsula – the priority areas deployment of Russian tactical nuclear weapons, including the main base area of the Baltic and Northern fleets (in the case of the Northern Fleet, it is also a district-based a large part of Russian strategic nuclear forces).

Since then, the Americans repeatedly offered our country flawed way to solve the “problem of tactical nuclear weapons”, stubbornly insisting on reaching an agreement “to eliminate disparities on stocks of tactical nuclear weapons.” They even tried to determine the entry into force of the SALT-3 start of negotiations on tactical nuclear weapons.


You can comment this article, but links are not allowed.

Оставить комментарий