The aggressive concept

Andrey Kots

The Russian Defense Ministry magazine “Military Thoug-ht” reports that the Pen-tagon is developing fundamentally new weapons that will allow attacking enemy strategic targets with impunity. They will bet on non-nuclear forces. About the conclusions of analysts – in the material RIA Novosti.
Negative scenario
The concept of mutually assured destruction assumes that one superpower, subjected to nuclear aggression by the other, will have time to put its strategic forces on full alert and deliver a retaliatory strike. Of course, you need to detect enemy ICBMs in time. Both Russia and the United States have effective missile attack warning systems (EWS) – satellites and powerful over-the-horizon radars. They will allow the country’s political leadership to fully engage the nuclear triad.
Among the main targets of the aggressor state are ICBM mines, nuclear submarine bases, strategic aviation airfields, headquarte-rs, and special ammunition storage points. If, for some reason, the country being attacked does not have time to launch a retaliatory strike, most of the nuclear deterrence forces will be destroyed. A few dozen remaining missiles will not be enough for irreparable damage. In addition, some of them will bring down missile defense systems.
The second scenario of a hypothetical nuclear conflict with Russia is desirable for the United States, since it does not imply large losses on its part. The authors of the publication in Military Thought argue that for this the Pe-ntagon may not need heavy silo ICBMs and strategic nuclear submarines. The main thing is to take the Kremlin by surprise.
“In the medium term, the United States seeks to possess strategic non-nuclear weapons with a short flight time to the target and not f-ormally subject to any bil-ateral or international rest-rictions, the use of which is possible to carry out strategic offensive tasks,” the article says. “These tasks should ensure the defeat of a significant the number of Russian nuclear forces until the Supreme Commander-in-Chief decides to launch a retaliatory strike. According to the conclusions of the publication, “this can have an extremely negative impact on national security and will require active counteraction to threats.”
Aggressive concept
Washington’s long-term plans, according to the authors of the article, include the creation of strategic highly effective fire weapons systems operating on the principle of a reconnaissance strike complex, directed energy weapons and other promising options.
In the meantime, the United States will be engaged in some kind of intermediate structure, equipped with existing and coming to the troops means of kinetic and non-kinetic, global and regional impact.
“Already now we can talk about a new highly effective non-nuclear deterrent and deterrent, the first samples of which in the medium term may enter the US Armed Forces,” the ar-ticle says. “They will have an arsenal of systems capable of partially fulfilling the tasks of existing strategic nuclear forces with conventional warheads “.The Americans are acting in accordance with the military-strategic concept of a rapid global strike (Prompt Global Strike), which implies an attack with conventional weapons on a target anywhere in the world within one hour.
An important element of this system is the thousands of Tomahawk cruise missiles deployed on cruisers, destroyers and submarines. Firing range – 2500 kilometers. However, the subsonic speed of this missile may not be enough to hit any target on the planet in an hour. And the attack ships are not always in the right radius of action.
Actually, aggressive pl-ans are not hidden in the States. Back in October, re-tired Gen. David Petraeus, the former head of US C-entral Command, told ABC that if Moscow used nu-clear weapons in Ukraine, the Pentagon would resp-ond with a non-nuclear military response. Of course, so far Washington is not calling for hitting Russian nuclear mines, but the rhetoric on this score is intensifying.
Hypersonic Argument
In the early 2010s, the Americans were going to develop a ballistic missile with a non-nuclear warhead based on regular Minuteman III ICBMs and Trident II SLBMs for a quick strike against “rogue states”, by which Washington at that time understood in particular Iran and North Korea. But this idea was quickly abandoned. The Pentagon considered that Russian early warning systems could misinterpret ICBM launches, and this would turn into a full-scale nuclear war.
As a result, they concentrated on hypersonic weapons. One of the first projects is the winged X-51A Waverider. The declared speed is 7500 kilometers per hour. However, problems arose during the tests, and the missile was never accepted into service.
Nevertheless, these developments were used to create other hypersonic systems – in all types of armed forces. Within the framew-ork of the fast global strike concept, the main option being considered is high-s-peed cruise missiles for V-irginia-class submarines. It is part of the Conventional Prompt Strike (CPS) program.
The Pentagon hopes to receive the first serial samples by 2024, the nuclear submarines will be converted to them by 2028. Up to 65 CPS will be placed on e-ach Block V series submarine. These missiles will al-so equip the latest stealth d-estroyers of the Zumwalt type.
In addition, the US could deliver a disarming strike from Europe. Back in June 2020, the German media wrote that at the summit of NATO defense ministers, s-ome EU countries approved the deployment of promising American medium-range missiles in conventional equipment. The range of this we-apon is from 1000 to 5500 kilometers. Flight time to Moscow is minimal. As you know, Washing-ton withdrew from the tre-aty on the elimination of in-termediate-range and shorter-range missiles. And just a few weeks later, he tested prototypes of a cruise, and then a ground-based ballistic missile. That is, they prepared in advance for the abandonment of the INF Treaty. As well as to raise the stakes in the conflict.