After the arrival of the new white-washed house, the 44th President of the United States of America, some analysts believed that the project "fast global strike"(BSU, PGS — Eng.) Will soon be put in the basket. The rhetoric of the election campaign of Barack Obama's administration and proclaimed the newest line on the departure from the foreign policy of George W. Bush, it would seem, given the harsh grounds for such speculation.
Remembered trouble with the advancement in 2007 by the Congress of financing the 1st of the areas of BSU — the creation of modified ballistic missiles (SLBMs), "Trident-D5», filled with nuclear warheads instead of the ordinary warheads: if even in the period of the Bush administration, when the allocation of funds for development and the creation of weapons was a matter of almost trouble free, and the project has been approved BSU is not only politically, and doctrinally, the Pentagon has failed to "sell" it to legislators, then in times of liberal and peacemaker BSU Obama's fate is sealed. Nothing of the sort, other experts argued, the project will not only saved, and will be developed, a change of president does not act on it — BSU America needs. They were right. Whatever the event, the United States is not going to turn away from your own place and role in the world of self-interest and conquered frontiers. Implementation of the "prompt global strike" fits into foreign policy and military strategy of the Obama administration are as much as in that of George W. Bush.
Non-nuclear, but strategically
BSU — a long-standing idea of the Ministry of Defense of the United States. And at the Pentagon, according to the 1st of its management, the ideas do not die — they transform, adapt, and at some point come to life. First test run "Trident" with ordinary warhead was produced from a submarine "Nebraska" in 1993, when the authority was Bill Clinton's administration, to demonstrate the capabilities of defeat bunkers and command centers of alleged violators of the non-proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, and technology training for the launch began under George HW Bush.
"Prompt Global Strike" — project obmyslenny excellent and very promising. It seems that its scale and impact on the military-strategic situation in the world so far underestimated. Already at this point it could be a brand-new high-performance non-nuclear means of deterrence, the first of which is about to arrive standards in the U.S. Armed Forces. If all goes according to plan, by 2024 they will have an arsenal of BSU systems capable of non-nuclear warheads do puzzles current strategic nuclear forces, but with significantly lowest cost and side effects: in the middle of civilian victims of the population, environmental disaster, destruction, etc.
Military strategists and ideologues Pax Americana were able to draw practical conclusions from the 2-global processes of the 80s and 90s of the last century — perestroika and the collapse of the Russian Union and a sharp increase in environmental factors: they were moved into the mainstream of real projects in the interests of the United States. BSU — number of these projects.
The withdrawal of the USSR from the aggressive confrontation with the West, the perception of "democracy and common values", and the weakening of Russian self-destruction of the country, on the one hand, and the active implementation of the environmental paradigm shift in consciousness and practice of world society on the other, making the use of nuclear weapons all the least realistic and applicable at national and international level, translating it into the category of "political weapon." In fact, in the same vein and disarmament initiatives, as agreements between the Russian Union and then Russian Federation and the United States.
But the goals and interests of the partners in disarmament differ fundamentally. Russian Federation — particularly in the first half of the 90s — shoveled prepyadstviya collapse of the Soviet Union, domestic reforms, mastered the former superpower status and tried to extract dividends from the brand "new Russia", which by definition does not imply conceptual designs on a global scale. United States, by contrast, rapidly secured to show strong leadership and appropriate criteria currently forms the new world order.
Against this background, the concept of the creation of the new ultra-efficient conventional weapons — in decreasing the probability of introduction of nuclear weapons — could not be more suited the role of the United States as the world's undisputed favorite, which, apart from the rest, must possess a unique non-nuclear means of deterrence and appeasement.
Production era of the Clinton administration, when the definition of "pre-emptive" and "preventive" strike, "rogue state", etc., were frisky practical development at W. Bush, especially after September 11, 2001. The idea of "pre-emptive-preventive" non-nuclear global strike at terrorists or providing them shelter States, also on the states of the "axis of evil" (North Korea, Iraq, Iran, Syria) has gained an official status and became a state doctrine. Technological feasibility has been confirmed by the BSU project, approved its conception, the Pentagon tasked to create and perform in the period up to 2024-2025 years of American military equipment program from super-fast, super-powerful and ultra-precise everyday tool that would allow up to 60 minutes after receipt of the order of U.S. President hit any target anywhere in the world. It was announced that at least some challenge, in other words, an attack or danger of an attack on the United States, followed by an immediate and effective response.
In 2008, a special committee on the prospects of the Belarusian State University National Research Council of South America released a report which highlighted the importance of the military potential of high-precision non-nuclear "prompt global strike" and called for the immediate development and early transfer to the creation and production of weapons for the respective systems, successfully passed the tests.
The great advantage of this project BSU is an event that his arms are not subject to any restrictions on international legal agreements and allow you to save the freedom of action, of course, a relative, which takes into account the reaction of the Russian Federation, China and regional states leaders. The implication is that the difficulties associated with the application of "prompt global strike" in crisis-conflict situations, such notification of launches can be resolved without much difficulty in negotiations with other countries.
Creating adequate to the task of systems BSU goes, of course, difficult. Observers have noted difficulties with the highest price and the financing of R & D activities, the organization of research, interdepartmental coordination of programs, skeptical attitude to the project on the part of some officials, lobbying in favor of other projects. There are difficulties with the technical solutions.
But despite the criticism and complaints to the project, the Pentagon sought ability to finance the work on all fronts: ballistic missiles, supe
rsonic cruise missiles, ammunition strategic bombers gallakticheskih platforms and devices. It is expected that in recent years become a reality such weapons BSU as aerospace hypersonic missiles with a range of actions 6 thousand kilometers and the ability to deliver nuclear warheads, penetrators for 35 minutes, hypersonic cruise missiles flying at a speed of 6,500 km / h, missiles SJX-61 Company Pratt & Whitney (spring 2007 passed the tests the engine, taking into service planned for 2017), modified SLBM "Trident-II» with non-nuclear warheads (enacting once again postponed for an indefinite period of time), and non-nuclear warheads and strategic bombers launched from the territory of the United States ICBMs for use in particularly critical situations.
In 2010 and next year, according to the media, will be increasing cost-efficient financing of the project, which gives reason to believe — for 2014-2015 to the Pentagon can do new types of weapons that can do battle puzzles BSU.
Immediately to the formation of concepts and research works were searching for sustainable organizational solutions within the framework of U.S. Strategic Command (STRATCOM) to create temporary command structures. Forces of "prompt global strike" as part of STRATCOM or (as at present) in the U.S. Air Force to act in cramped coordination with other U.S. Armed Forces as part of the strategic triad (Bush characterize new ordinary weapons as part of a deterrent.)
In August 2009 it was announced the beginning of the Global Impact of the military command of the U.S. Air Force (Air Force Global Strike Command, AFGSC), the responsibility of which except for operations BSU 1 December 2009 included the use of 450 land-based intercontinental ballistic missiles and strategic aircraft parts . Practical implementation of the project can take place in the organizational structure of the Global Impact of the Air Force, bringing together ICBMs and strategic aircraft. Likely other options.
What is the consequence of BSU
For Russia the commissioning of power "prompt global strike" may have very specific practical consequences.
First factor BSU could mean scrapping while still having a relative strategic stability. Yes, nuclear deterrence is rapidly becoming obsolete, become unacceptable vestige of the era of confrontation East — West. Even the modernization of nuclear arsenals of the U.S. and Russia and doctrinal evidence that nuclear warheads remain in the ranks and may be used, do not remove the expectation that they will never be used in the foreseeable future, countries will refuse from this type of weapon. This, of course, the line is designed Obama: initiate negotiations to reduce nuclear weapon, massively promoted such reductions until such time as the nuclear potential rivals and competitors, in other words, China and Russia, do not go down so that the next frisky deployment will complete the BSU U.S. global military an advantage.
The need of the vast technological advantages over even what the enemy has repeatedly said Obama himself. A February 18, 2010 made a peculiar expression in the State Institute of Defense, U.S. Vice President Joe Biden: "… we develop everyday warhead with a global radius of the act … will allow us to reduce the role of nuclear weapons … With such modern weapons, our power is undeniable, even in the case of the far-reaching nuclear reductions. "
So Makar, with a large modicum of certainty can predict what is really a South American arms BSU recently will be unique, and the creation of effective defenses against them will claim the other countries of adequate cost, effort, and at first — political will.
Purpose of the project "prompt global strike" will be revealed as it develops. Born under the name of protection from having caught the weapon of mass destruction and terrorist vicious and unpredictable countries of the "axis of evil", a powerful and do not fall under any contractual restrictions potential BSU obviously has in mind the global nature not only in terms of the range of the means of attack, and the impact on geopolitics and geostrategy. The terrorists, extremists, violators non-proliferation regimes and other rogue states most likely to be a temporary cover of a promising long-term goals of the global non-nuclear strike.
According to its characteristics of force BSU will be able to do more large-scale, if the liquidation of the extremists in remote areas, the military objectives: hit any strategic — military and non-military — the objects of countries to act as a deterrent and merits military and political objectives in crisis-conflict situations, etc. etc. All of this for the time being does not say, but this aspect of the project can begin to manifest itself in recent years as more troops into the arms of BSU.
To predict the path of BSU will essentially follow the changes or the immutability of his political and legal studies. Received after the events of September 11, 2001 is not disputed by anyone legitimacy of the de facto project BSU is based on the Bush doctrine of pre-emptive strikes, proactively. The criticality of a threatening situation and compacting time to make important policy decision as reasons for not allowing to use the statutory procedures the United Nations (Security Council resolution), are understandable, but the international legal point in the doctrinal positions of the BSU had to be all the same to be, and he, to put it mildly , the reflection is not received.
In short, giving the order to deliver "prompt global strike" on purpose (goals) in another state, the president of the United States almost acts as prosecutor, judge and bailiff's decision of a state court against the South American situation is under the jurisdiction of another country. At the time of a "crusade against terrorism" and promote the concept of a unipolar world consensus of the world community to that formulation seems to be expected. Although foreign policy George W. Bush has been evaluated in our own country and abroad as a failure, during the presidency of Obama's statements about the departure from the doctrine of "pre-emptively, pre-emptive strikes" and the concept of BSU were observed, as well as vibrations from countries international organizations or NGOs in the legitimacy of these principles.
Political and legal heritage neoconservatives remains intact, perhaps because of the lack of courage of politicians in other states and misunderstanding that if a "fast global strike "would suffer unduly and unfairly collapse on the suspects, call out to the right, responsibility, and the like will be too late. The consequences of incorrect BSU will, most likely, such as at the moment in Afghanistan, with the defeat of a civilian population instead of the insurgents — letters of command with regrets and apologies.
THIS IS A CALL?
For the same reasons unnoticed other political and legal nuances of the BSU.
First, clearance of high-precision strike on the territory of other states to the task. If such a violation of air space of non-nuclear countries there are certain legal, political, and military consequences, the seriousness of which in the comments do not need it. As for the nuclear weapons states, including the Russian Federation, then, since in the absence (and even with) warning about the goals and parameters of the start-up impossible to find a real (nuclear or ordinary) warhead carrier, government, flying over the territory of which the media will be forced to address the issue the degree of risk and the likely response, in the last criteria of lack of time. In a small time interval, and in the absence of reliable data on how warheads armed with rocket range nuclear response of the country, especially in the criteria of international crisis can be quite predictable. "Prompt Global Strike" can lead to instant military escalation.
Deserves attention an
d harsh relationship with BSU neuvvyazkami demilitarization of space.
It seems legitimate the question of harmonization of certain types of weapons developed by BSU internationalist humanitarian law, although this branch of international law is not currently in vogue. Ordinary high-precision kinetic weapon, capable of hitting tungsten tipped all life on large areas without distinguishing between combatants and non-combatants, is unlikely to be considered by the law and customs of war.
And there is no reason to hesitate and that saving in the current state of pure unipolar lopsided referred by succession from the time of the Bush-doctrinal conceptual framework BSU deployment and development of the forces of global strike the U.S. will lead to non-nuclear strategic arms race and the corresponding remedies. This process has in fact already begun.
According to the views of the creator of this article for the Russian Federation in the impending military-political dilemmas BSU most significant — is the connection between "global strike" with posted on the Russian perimeter of the U.S. anti-missile defense. The combination of 2-potentials — impact of preventive and deterrent BSU defense — can do for our country, a situation in which its security, sovereignty and independence could face severe challenges. Naturally, this is the worst case scenario, the case had not come to that, but it needs to be considered — even taking into account the views expressed by representatives of South American military commanders that our homeland is not the enemy, and not an ally, it is a competitor. And what kind of policy to continue to operate plants neoconservatives intended to competitors of America, of course.
Or, maybe, in addition to the BSU defense will be a weighty argument in the sounded far unofficially proposal for Russia to discard the doubts and enter into NATO? Offer, from which, according to the views of the inviting, will not be feasible to abandon?