Plus a quick global strike

Plus a quick global strike
Plus a quick global strike

New weapon for the United States as a world leader

Plus a quick global strike
Plus a quick global strike

After the arrival of the new 44th President of the United States of America to the White House, some analysts believed that the "Rapid Global Strike" (PGS) project would soon be put in the basket. The rhetoric of Barack Obama's election campaign and the line proclaimed by the new administration to move away from George W. Bush's foreign policy seemed to give serious grounds for such assumptions.

We recalled the failure in 2007 through the Congress to finance one of the BSU directions - the creation of modified ballistic missiles (SLBMs) Trident-D5, equipped with conventional warheads instead of nuclear warheads: if during the Bush period, when the allocation of money for development and production weapons was an almost hassle-free affair, and the BSU project was tested not only politically, but also doctrinally, the Pentagon could not "sell" it to legislators, then during the time of the liberal and peacemaker Obama, the fate of the BSU was a foregone conclusion. Nothing of the kind, other experts argued, the project will not only be saved, but will also be developed, the change of presidents will not affect it - America needs BSU. They were right. Whatever the circumstances, the United States is not at all going to give up its place and role in the world, from its interests and conquered frontiers. The implementation of the "quick global strike" project fits into the foreign policy and military strategy of the Barack Obama administration as organically as it does into the policy of George W. Bush.


BSU is a longstanding idea of the United States Department of Defense. And at the Pentagon, according to one of its leaders, ideas do not die - they transform, adapt and sooner or later come to life. The first test launch of the Trident with conventional warheads was carried out from the Nebraska submarine in 1993, when the Bill Clinton administration was in power, to demonstrate the capabilities of destroying bunkers and command centers of alleged violators of the non-proliferation of weapons of mass destruction regimes, and technical preparations for the launch began under George W. Bush.

“Rapid Global Strike” is a well thought out and very promising project. It seems that its scale and impact on the military-strategic situation in the world are still underestimated. Already, we can talk about a new highly effective non-nuclear deterrent and deterrent, the first samples of which are about to go to the US Armed Forces. If all goes according to plan, by 2024 they will have an arsenal of BGU systems capable of performing the tasks of today's strategic nuclear forces with conventional warheads, but with significantly lower costs and side effects: civilian casualties, environmental disaster, destruction, etc.

Military strategists and ideologues of Pax Americana were able to draw practical conclusions from two global processes of the 80s and 90s of the last century - perestroika and the collapse of the Soviet Union and a sharp increase in the environmental factor: they were transferred to the mainstream of real projects in the interests of the United States. BSU is one of these projects.

The USSR's withdrawal from the hostile confrontation with the West, the perception of "democracy and common values", the weakening and self-destruction of the Soviet state, on the one hand, and the active introduction of the environmental paradigm into the consciousness and practice of the world community, on the other, made the use of nuclear weapons less and less real and acceptable at the national and international level, they transferred it to the category of "political weapon". Disarmament initiatives, as well as agreements between the Soviet Union and then the Russian Federation and the United States, worked in almost the same vein.

However, the goals and interests of the disarmament partners were fundamentally different. The Russian Federation - especially in the first half of the 90s - was dealing with the problems of the collapse of the USSR, internal reforms, assimilated the status of a former superpower and tried to extract dividends from the brand of "new Russia", which by definition did not imply ambitious projects on a global scale. The United States, on the other hand, actively consolidated its leadership role and, in favorable conditions for itself, formed a new world order.

Against this background, the concept of creating new super-effective non-nuclear weapons - with the decreasing likelihood of the use of nuclear weapons - was perfectly suited to the role of the United States as the undisputed world leader, which, among other things, must have a unique non-nuclear deterrent and pacification.



The developments of the Clinton administration era, when the terms “preemptive” and “preemptive” strike, “rogue state”, etc., appeared, were rapidly developed in practice under Bush, Jr., especially after September 11, 2001. The idea of a "preemptive-preventive" non-nuclear global strike against terrorists or the states providing them shelter, as well as the states of the "axis of evil" (DPRK, Iraq, Iran, Syria) gained official status and became a state doctrine. The technical feasibility of the BSU project was proved, its concept was approved, the Pentagon was tasked with developing and implementing, in the period until 2024-2025, a program for equipping the American Armed Forces with ultra-high-speed, super-powerful and ultra-precise conventional weapons, which would allow up to 60 minutes after the receipt of an order from the President of the United States hit any target anywhere in the world. It has been proclaimed that any challenge, that is, an attack or threat of an attack on the United States, will be followed by an immediate and effective response.

In 2008, the special committee on the prospects of the BSU of the American National Research Council released a report in which it emphasized the importance of the military potential of high-precision non-nuclear weapons of a "rapid global strike" and called for the immediate development and early transfer into production and putting into service of the relevant systems that have successfully passed the tests.

A big plus of the BSU project is the fact that its weapons do not fall under any restrictions under international legal agreements and allow them to maintain freedom of action, of course, relative, which takes into account the reaction of Russia, China and regional leaders. It is assumed that the problems associated with the use of "rapid global strike" means in crisis-conflict situations, for example, notification of launches, can be easily resolved in negotiations with other states.



The creation of BGU systems adequate to the tasks set is, of course, not easy. Observers note problems with the high cost of R&D and financing of work, the organization of research, interagency coordination of programs, skeptical attitude to the project on the part of some officials, and lobbying in favor of alternative projects. There are difficulties with technical solutions.

However, despite criticism and complaints about the project, the Pentagon sought funding opportunities for work in all areas: ballistic missiles, supersonic cruise missiles, strategic bombers, space platforms and vehicles. It is expected that in the near future such BSU weapons as hypersonic aerospace missiles with a range of 6 thousand km and the ability to deliver penetrator warheads within 35 minutes will become a reality.hypersonic cruise missiles with a flight speed of about 6,500 km / h, Pratt & Whitney SJX-61 missiles (engine tests were carried out in the spring of 2007; into service once again postponed indefinitely), as well as non-nuclear warheads of strategic bombers and ICBMs launched from US territory for use in especially critical situations.

In 2010 and the following years, according to media reports, there will be an increase in budgetary funding for the project, which gives reason to believe that by 2014-2015, the Pentagon may have new types of weapons capable of performing the combat missions of the BSU.

Simultaneously with the formation of the concept and research, there was a search for an optimal organizational solution, and temporary command structures were created within the framework of the US Strategic Command (STRATCOM). The Global Rapid Strike Force within STRATCOM or (as it is now) within the US Air Force should act in close coordination with other US services as part of the strategic triad (Bush characterized new conventional weapons as part of deterrence).

In August 2009, the beginning of the operation of the US Air Force Global Strike Command (AFGSC) was announced, which, in addition to BSU operations, from December 1, 2009, included the use of 450 ground-based intercontinental missiles and strategic aviation units. … The practical implementation of the project can take place in the organizational structure of the Air Force Global Strike Command, which united ICBMs and strategic aviation. Other options are possible.


For Russia, the commissioning of the "rapid global strike" forces could have very concrete practical consequences.

First of all, the BSU factor can mean a breakdown of the still existing relative strategic stability. Yes, nuclear deterrence and deterrence are quickly becoming obsolete, becoming an unacceptable vestige of the era of East-West confrontation. Even the modernization of the nuclear arsenals of the United States and Russia and doctrinal confirmation that nuclear warheads remain in service and can be used do not remove the expectation that they will never be used and that states will abandon this type of weapon in the foreseeable future. Obama's line is obviously designed for this: initiate negotiations and reduce nuclear weapons, powerfully advocate such reductions until the nuclear potential of rival rivals, that is, China and Russia, decreases so much that the subsequent rapid deployment of BSU forces will create a complete global military superiority of the United States.

Obama himself has repeatedly stated the need for overwhelming technological superiority over any enemy. And on February 18, 2010, US Vice President Joe Biden made a typical statement at the National Defense University: “… the conventional warheads we are developing with a global range … will allow us to reduce the role of nuclear weapons … With such modern weapons, our power will remain undeniable even in the case of far-reaching nuclear reductions ".

Thus, with a high degree of certainty, it can be predicted that the armaments of the American BSU in the near future will be unique, and the creation of effective means of protection against them will require adequate expenditures, efforts and, above all, political will from other states.

The mission of the "rapid global strike" project will be revealed as it develops. Born under the brand of protection against terrorists who have acquired weapons of mass destruction and malicious and unpredictable states of the "axis of evil", the powerful potential of the BSU that does not fall under any treaty restrictions clearly means globality not only in terms of the radius of action of the means of attack, but also the influence on geopolitics and geostrategy. Terrorists, extremists, violators of non-proliferation regimes and other outcasts are most likely a temporary cover for more distant promising targets of a non-nuclear global strike.

According to their parameters, the BSU forces will be able to carry out more ambitious military tasks than the destruction of a group of extremists in remote areas: to hit any strategic - military and non-military - objects of states, act as a deterrent and achieve military-political goals in crisis-conflict situations, etc. For the time being, it is not said about all this, but this side of the project may begin to manifest itself in the near future as soon as the BSU armaments enter the troops.

To predict the development paths of BSU, it will be important to follow the changes or invariability of its political and legal grounds. Having received de facto legitimacy after the events of September 11, 2001, the BSU project is based on the Bush doctrine of preemptive-preventive strikes. The criticality of the threatening situation and the tightness of time for making a vital decision as factors that prevent the use of the UN charter procedures (Security Council resolution) are understandable, but the international legal moment in the doctrinal provisions of the BSU should still be present, and he, to put it mildly, did not receive a reflection.

In short, by ordering a "rapid global strike" against a target (s) in another state, the US President is effectively acting as a prosecutor, judge and enforcement agent of the decision of a national American court in relation to a situation under the jurisdiction of another state. At the time of the "crusade against terrorism" and the advancement of the concept of a unipolar world, the international community's agreement with such a statement was, as it were, implied. And although the foreign policy of Bush Jr. was assessed both in his own country and abroad as a failure, during the Obama presidency, there were no statements about a departure from the doctrine of "preemptive-preventive strikes" and the BSU concept, as well as doubts on the part of states. international organizations or NGOs in the legality of these principles.

The political and legal legacy of the neoconservatives remains intact, perhaps due to the lack of courage of politicians in other states and the lack of understanding that if a “quick global strike” is delivered inappropriately and falls on unjustly suspects, it will appeal to the right, responsibility, etc. late. The consequences of the erroneous BSU will most likely be the same as now in Afghanistan with the defeat of the civilian population instead of the militants - letters from the command with regrets and apologies.


For the same reasons, other political and legal aspects of BSU remain unnoticed.

First of all, the flight of high-precision strike weapons over the territories of other countries to the intended target. With such a violation of the airspace of a non-nuclear state, specific legal, political and military consequences arise, the seriousness of which does not need comment. As for the nuclear powers, including Russia, since in the absence (and even in the presence) of notification about the goals and launch parameters, it is impossible to determine the real (nuclear or conventional) warhead of the carrier, the state over whose territory the carrier is flying will have to decide the degree of threat and possible response actions in conditions of extreme time pressure. In a short time interval and in the absence of reliable data on what kind of warhead the missile is equipped with, the choice of a nuclear state's response, especially in the context of an international crisis, can be quite predictable. A "quick global strike" could lead to lightning-fast military escalation.

The relationship between BSU and the problems of space demilitarization also deserves serious attention.

It seems legitimate to raise the question of the compliance of some of the developed types of weapons of the Belarusian State University with international humanitarian law, although this branch of international law is not in vogue now. Conventional high-precision kinetic weapons, capable of striking all living things over large areas with tungsten tips without distinguishing between combatants and non-combatants, can hardly be considered consistent with the laws and customs of war.

And there is also no reason to doubt that if the purely monopolar, unilateral, doctrinal and conceptual basis of BSU, which was inherited from the time of Bush Jr., the deployment and development of the US global strike forces will lead to a race of non-nuclear strategic weapons and appropriate means of protection. This process has almost begun.

In the opinion of the author of this article, for Russia in the impending military-political problems of BSU, the most important thing is the interconnection of the "global strike" with the American missile defense deployed along the Russian perimeter. The combination of two potentials - a shock-preventive BSU and a deterrent missile defense system - can create a situation for our country in which ensuring its security, sovereignty and independence may face serious challenges. Of course, this is the worst scenario, it will not come to this, but it must be considered - at least taking into account the statements of the representatives of the American military command that Russia is not an enemy, but not an ally, it is a rival. And what kind of policy in the continuing attitudes of the neoconservatives is intended for America's rivals is known.

Or, perhaps, the BSU, in addition to the missile defense system, will become a weighty argument in the unofficially voiced proposal to Russia to cast aside doubts and join NATO? An offer that invitees think it will be impossible to refuse?

Popular by topic