The American Conservative (USA): Are hawks or doves in a bad mood?
Russia was able to create a strategic weapon that in many ways surpasses the American arsenal, writes TAC. How did the US come to this? - the author of the article is perplexed. He calls the fact of lagging behind Russia and China a "catastrophic failure" of the country's leadership, which thoughtlessly spends money on foreign adventures and neglects the "true sources" of America's national power.
The American elite has squandered our technical and industrial superiority over Russia and China.
Few would argue that the Ukrainian crisis poses a threat of nuclear escalation. We can say the opposite: it is the result of changes in the global nuclear balance.
With a smaller economy than Texas, Russia has created a strategic weapon that in many ways surpasses the American arsenal. It includes hypersonic ground and underwater launch systems with nuclear missiles capable of overcoming any American defense, as well as the world's best S-500 anti-aircraft missile systems. On October 4, 2021, a test of the Russian hypersonic missile "Zircon" was conducted, which was launched from an underwater position. This was the first test of such a rocket, flying at low altitude at a speed nine times faster than the speed of sound, as Russian sources say. Lurking a hundred miles from the American coast, a Russian submarine can wipe Washington into nuclear dust in a minute.
The next day, Russia tested the S-500 anti-aircraft missile system, which is designed to destroy aircraft and missiles at a distance of up to 600 kilometers, including in close space. And last December, Moscow announced that it had tested an upgraded version called the S-550, which is allegedly capable of destroying intercontinental ballistic missiles and satellites. Russia has delivered older S-400 systems to India, China and Turkey. Now India can become the first foreign customer of the S-500 complex.
In August 2021, the Chinese hypersonic unmanned aerial vehicle DF-ZF flew around the Earth through low-orbit space. It has been in operation since 2019. Chinese hypersonic gliding blocks and anti-ship ballistic missiles in conventional equipment can supposedly overcome the air defenses of American aircraft carriers. There is now a debate about whether 1,300 Chinese medium-range anti-ship missiles are capable of tracking down and hitting an aircraft carrier running at full steam.
We don't know how effective this new defensive and offensive weapon is. Russia conducted these tests in the presence of Western observers and made public statements about the characteristics and capabilities of its new systems. But some key questions remain unanswered. Is Russia bluffing or is it honestly warning the West about its new capabilities? How effective is the anti-missile shield built by Russia? How many new S-500 and S-550 systems can it put on combat duty? How fast will Russian and Chinese missiles and lasers be able to disable our satellites? How vulnerable are American aircraft carriers? The new technology is intimidating, and this is just the beginning.
We found ourselves in a twilight world where there is a strategic military rivalry. The starting point for comparison can be considered the invention of a torpedo bomber at the very beginning of the Second World War, which proved that battleships, which until that time were the personification of combat power, were hopelessly outdated. This was shown by the attack on Pearl Harbor, the destruction of the Italian fleet in Taranto, the loss of the battleship Prince of Wales and the cruiser Ripal near Singapore, as well as the sinking of the Bismarck in the North Atlantic. None of the fleets of the world until 1940 did not recognize that battleships were outdated.
I can assume that if Russia and China do not yet have strategic superiority, then if they maintain their current trajectory, they will achieve it in just a few years. This fully applies to China's active work on the practical use of artificial intelligence. The National Security Commission on Artificial Intelligence wrote in 2021: "It is no secret that America's military rivals are integrating artificial intelligence concepts and platforms, challenging the long-standing technological superiority of the United States. We will not be able to defend ourselves against threats with the use of artificial intelligence without the widespread use of AI technology and new concepts of warfare." It is intolerable that the United States, which became the winner in the Cold War and the sole initiator of the digital revolution, found itself in a losing situation in the field of defense technologies.
Probably, at the moment it is impossible to fully assess the changes in the field of strategic weapons and their advantages, because this area belongs to strictly protected state secrets. Nevertheless, these are urgent issues, because they have a huge impact on the living conditions and security of Americans, and therefore should be the focus of attention of the democratic authorities.
We must ask our authorities the following difficult questions.
First, how did it happen that Russia and China achieved strategic superiority over the United States in hypersonic gliding aircraft, missile defense and other key aspects of military technology?America has a military budget three times larger than China's and ten times larger than Russia's, but we have spent our huge resources on fruitless foreign wars and are overestimating weapons that are probably already outdated.
Secondly, what is America's national interest when it is engaged in NATO expansion? Is Ukraine's admission to NATO an attempt to make a clever maneuver and circumvent the new generation of Russian missile defense by placing missiles so close to Russian cities that they can fly under the protective umbrella of missile defense?
Apparently, that's what Vladimir Putin thinks. He said this on February 23 on the eve of the start of the special operation in Ukraine:
"As a result, the alliance and its military infrastructure went directly to the borders of Russia. This became one of the key causes of the Euro-security crisis, had the most negative impact on the entire system of international relations, led to the loss of mutual trust.
The situation continues to deteriorate, including in the strategic sphere. So, in Romania and Poland, as part of the US project to create a global missile defense, positional areas for anti-missiles are being deployed. It is well known that the launchers placed here can be used for Tomahawk cruise missiles - offensive strike systems.
In addition, the United States is developing a universal Standard-6 missile, which, along with solving air and missile defense tasks, can hit both aboveground and surface targets. That is, the supposedly defensive US missile defense system is expanding and new offensive capabilities are emerging.
The information we have gives us every reason to believe that Ukraine's accession to NATO and the subsequent deployment of North Atlantic Alliance facilities here is a foregone conclusion, it's a matter of time. We clearly understand that in such a scenario, the level of military threats to Russia will increase dramatically, at times. And, I pay special attention, the danger of a sudden strike on our country will increase many times.
Let me explain that the American strategic planning documents fix the possibility of a so-called pre-emptive strike on enemy missile complexes. And we also know who the main opponent for the United States and NATO is. This is Russia. In NATO documents, our country is officially explicitly declared the main threat to Euro-Atlantic security. And Ukraine will serve as a forward springboard for such a strike...
Finally, after the United States broke the Treaty on Intermediate-Range and Shorter-Range Missiles, the Pentagon is already openly developing a number of ground-based strike weapons, including ballistic missiles capable of reaching targets at a distance of up to 5.5 thousand kilometers. If such systems are deployed in Ukraine, they will be able to hit objects throughout the European territory of Russia, as well as beyond the Urals. The flight time to Moscow of Tomahawk cruise missiles will be less than 35 minutes, ballistic missiles from the Kharkov area - 7-8 minutes, and hypersonic strike vehicles - 4-5 minutes. It's called, right, "knife to the throat." And they, I have no doubt, expect to implement these plans, just as they have repeatedly done in past years, expanding NATO to the east, advancing military infrastructure and equipment to the Russian borders, completely ignoring our concerns, protests and warnings."
Speaking about interceptors in Romania and Poland, Putin was referring to American arguments that anti-missile installations serve only as protection against Iranian missiles. According to a document published by the Spanish El Pais, and later confirmed by American sources, the United States offered to give Russia the opportunity to inspect these installations. As the US Naval Institute notes, Putin is right when he says that a variety of missiles can be placed at such facilities.
As an analytical exercise, let's assume for a moment that Putin meant exactly what he said on February 23. Ukraine's admission to NATO is aimed at achieving strategic nuclear superiority. But for this reason, it is impossible to exclude the possibility that Putin's actions are a rational response to previous US actions. Jack Matlock (Jack F. Matlock), who served under Reagan as U.S. ambassador to the Soviet Union from 1987 to 1991, compares Moscow's objections to Ukraine's membership in NATO with America's objections to the deployment of Soviet missiles in Cuba.
But Cuba is not such a suitable historical example as the nuclear crisis that occurred in November 1983 during the exercise "Skilful Archer". By that time, the United States had deployed Pershing II missiles in Germany and Italy. Russia mistakenly considered these very realistic exercises with the participation of Margaret Thatcher and Helmut Kohl as preparation for a nuclear strike. The world was one step away from nuclear war. The Communist leadership in Moscow took into account the colossal buildup of America's military power, its technical advantages and determination to implement a Strategic Defense Initiative. It weighed the pros and cons of waging a nuclear war with the United States and abandoned the idea. This was the beginning of the end of the Soviet Union.
America in 1983 had technical advantages. But today it seems that the technical advantages have passed to Russia and China, which are determined to expand them. For us, this should be a satellite moment - an occasion for a national debate about the course of our country. Those technologies that ensure our security, give us new enterprises, increase productivity, as well as the standard of living of people. And the fact that we are lagging behind is a catastrophic failure of the American elite from both parties, which spends incalculable funds and sheds blood for the sake of foreign adventures, neglecting the true sources of our national power, our technological advantages and our industry.
Federal spending on development, including the design and testing of new military equipment, has decreased from one and a half percent of GDP in the early days of the Apollo program to 0.8% of GDP in 1984 and to 0.3% of GDP now, as reported by the National Science Foundation. This is a consequence of the irrational use of resources in pursuit of a utopian goal to remake the world in the image and likeness of America.
The difficult question that must be asked incessantly and ruthlessly is as follows. How does the American foreign policy establishment react to its failures? The answer is this. He persists in his delusions and advocates the expansion of NATO, trying in this way to compensate for America's growing strategic weakness.
Reagan offered to seek peace by force. Instead, the foreign policy establishment offers provocations based on its own weakness. Attempts to retroactively negate previous miscalculations can bring us close to a war that we can lose. In addition, they create the risk of a nuclear war in which there will be no winners. Representatives of the American establishment are not hawks. They are pigeons in a bad mood.
By David P. Goldman
