Russia's preventive global strike. Putin ruled out a preventive nuclear strike How to understand a preventive strike
Blow to the strategic balance: Putin's preemptive response
I think that it was no accident that Vladimir Putin in Valdai spoke about the increased danger of nuclear war, repeated the axiom that Russia is ready to take the whole world with it, and discussed the existence of the right to a preemptive strike.
On the last question, experts immediately launched a discussion about whether the Russian president had in mind a nuclear preemptive strike, and, if so, how does this fit with his own statement that he would not launch a nuclear strike first.
Let's answer briefly.
First, it fits in, since a preemptive strike is considered by international law as response to the already inevitable aggression. You really need to prove that aggression was inevitable. But hardly anyone after a nuclear war will be interested in evidence. Whoever survives will win, and few will survive (if they survive). And it will be individuals and/or communities, not states or international organizations. So, if the Russian leadership receives information about the inevitability of a massive nuclear strike against Russia in the coming hours, it has the right (and even obliged) launch a preemptive nuclear strike, and that would not be the first use of a nuclear weapon.
Secondly, this is not important at all, because even if a preventive strike is delivered by conventional precision weapons, it will be directed against the positional areas in which carriers of nuclear weapons threatening Russia and missile defense systems. From the point of view of the military doctrines of both the USSR and Russia, a massive attack of strategic nuclear facilities by non-nuclear forces was equated with the start of a nuclear war and gave the right to a nuclear response. Americans approach this issue in exactly the same way.
So, in principle, it makes no sense to discuss whether he meant Vladimir Putin a preventive or exclusively retaliatory nuclear or non-nuclear strike by Russia. He quite clearly focused on the sharply increased danger of a nuclear confrontation.. And this is the main point. Because “who started it first” will not matter, and no one will know about it.
So the question of interest to us should be as follows: “Why did the President of Russia talk about the threat of a nuclear catastrophe right now, when we are not experiencing the deepest aggravation of the Syrian and Ukrainian crises, but on the Korean peninsula Seoul and Pyongyang and do demonstrate an unprecedented level of friendliness, seriously discussing denuclearization of the peninsula as part of the development of inter-Korean dialogue and economic cooperation between North and South?”
I'm sure that it was a preemptive response to the US decision announced a day later to withdraw from the INF Treaty (Intermediate-Range and Short-Range Missiles).
Why did this decision cause such a strong reaction? After all, the INF Treaty signed in Washington Gorbachev and Reagan December 8, 1987, entered into force in June 1988, and by June 1991 was already implemented. That is, all the complexes that fell under the ban were destroyed by both Russia and the United States. Moreover, the development military equipment over the past 30 years allows the tasks that were solved by the complexes destroyed under the Treaty to be assigned to other systems that, without formally violating the Treaty, are even more effective.
Rocket system "Pioneer" in the museum missile troops in the city of Znamensk
The treaty prohibits the production and deployment of ground-based missiles with a range of 500 to 5,000 kilometers. But today Russia is armed with complexes " Iskaner"(up to 500 km), deployed cruise missiles" Caliber" air and sea-based (not subject to the restrictions of the Treaty, which the Americans themselves insisted on at one time). The declared range of these missiles against ground targets can reach 1,500 kilometers. At the same time, some sources speak of 2000-2500 kilometers. The range of the complex " Dagger"(including the range of the carrier) placed on the Tu-22M3 reaches 3000 kilometers. But this, if we keep in mind the combat radius of the aircraft at supersonic, in the mixed mode, the combat radius of the aircraft increases from 1500 to 2500 kilometers, respectively, the range of the complex together with the missile can reach 4000 thousand kilometers.
That is, without a formal violation of the treaty, Russia is able, with the help of the latest developments, to solve problems that in the last century were available only to medium-range missiles. Moreover, the latest developments that should go to the troops in the next 10-12 years generally have arbitrary range, that is, for them in principle no inaccessible targets on planet earth.
Let me also remind you that Russia at one time announced the possibility of its withdrawal from the INF Treaty in response to the withdrawal of the Americans from the ABM Treaty. I think that the exit was not carried out because it turned out to be more efficient to develop and put into service new high-precision weapons, which allow not to violate the Treaty and at the same time not be particularly connected with them from a strategic point of view.
For thirty years, Russia has simply turned the situation around. At the conclusion of the INF Treaty, the United States had an overwhelming advantage in non-nuclear high-precision weapons capable of hitting the then Soviet (and later Russian) strategic launchers as part of the first disarming massive non-nuclear strike. The USSR opposed these classes of American missiles (including " tomahawks"Air and sea-based) its medium-range missiles, in the production of which it had a technological advantage. The United States withdrew sea- and air-launched cruise missiles from the scope of the Treaty (promising that they would be in service exclusively with non-nuclear weapons), but at the same time completely deprived the USSR / Russia of a whole class of strategic weapons in exchange for the elimination of their similar INF missiles, which were are not important to them.
That is, at that moment the United States could resolve strategic issues without medium-range missiles, but Russia could not, and therefore Washington it was profitable to destroy these missiles. Now, much to the chagrin of the Americans, it turned out that in terms of high-precision weapons (including cruise and ballistic missiles), Russia has seriously surpassed them, and will increase this superiority in the near future. Moreover, Moscow can do this, formally without violating INF Treaty.
Thus, Washington needed the restoration of the class of medium-range missiles in service solely so that its technological backwardness from Moscow does not turn into a factor of its strategic helplessness. After all, you and I understand that the T-90 tank can destroy the T-34 tank without even approaching the distance of aimed fire of its gun (not to mention effective hits). Also with missiles. Not just a rocket is important, but its tactical and technical data.
But just as an obsolete tank can destroy its super-modern brother if it gets close enough to it to effectively destroy it, the shortcomings of a missile weapon can be compensated by the proximity of its deployment.
This is where the danger lies. If the United States has not yet lost the technology for the production of those medium-range missiles that they had in service in the 80s of the last century, then they can relatively quickly stamp out hundreds of the same " Pershingov-2". The next question is: where will they be placed? From the territory of the United States, they will not finish Russia. There are three options: Europe, Japan and South Korea. It is not a fact that Seoul will agree to participate in a new round of the arms race, taking into account its honeymoon with Pyongyang and frank fears of being set up by the United States under a retaliatory strike by North Korean or Chinese missiles. Yes, and you can shoot from the Korean Peninsula and the Japanese Islands only at Far East, where, frankly speaking, there are few targets for these missiles and they are well covered.
American medium-range missiles Pershing II
The last time the main position areas for medium-range missiles were located by the United States in Western Europe (in Germany, UK, Italy, Denmark). Then the flight time of the Pershing to Smolensk was 6 minutes, to Moscow - up to 10 minutes. This dramatically reduced the time to make a decision in a crisis situation and increased the likelihood of an accidental conflict. That is why then the Soviet leadership, like the Russian leadership now, warned that the United States began dangerous game, fraught with a breakdown into an uncontrollable conflict that could instantly escalate into a full-scale nuclear war.
Now it is far from a fact that the Americans will be able to deploy missiles in the same countries as in the last century. So far only Great Britain unequivocally supported the United States, saying that it no longer considers itself bound by the INF Treaty. Germany and Italy will obviously not be happy if they receive such an offer. Besides Trump started an economic war against the EU, directed with its tip just against Old Europe.
But there is a New Europe. Who can guarantee that Poland, the Baltics and joined them Ukraine will they think for a long time after receiving an offer from the United States to place Pershings (or something similar) on their territory? But then the flight time of missiles to Moscow will be no more than 3-4 minutes, and to St. Petersburg at all a minute and a half.
This is the situation in which any accident can provoke a preemptive strike. Moreover, in a situation where it is applied to the starting positions of American nuclear missiles, it is possible, without further ado, to immediately launch intercontinental missiles at Washington as well. All the same, the disruption of the conflict into a full-scale nuclear one will be a matter of several minutes, at best, several hours.
This is what Putin was talking about in Valdai, when he promised the aggressors that we would go to heaven, and they would just die.
The system of international treaties designed to ensure nuclear stability was based on the treaties on the MTCR (non-proliferation of missile technologies), the NPT (non-proliferation of nuclear weapons), missile defense (missile defense), SALT-1 and SALT-2 (on the limitation of strategic offensive arms), START- 1, START-2, SNP, START-3 and INF.
The treaties on the MTCR and the NPT have practically become little-meaning pieces of paper. Spit on them, got nuclear weapons India and Pakistan. Informally, it is a nuclear power and Israel, whose capabilities are estimated at 100-200 tactical nuclear warheads, but the "civilized world" pretends not to be aware of the violation of the treaty by a permanently belligerent country. Well, after the DPRK was not only able to implement its nuclear program, but also with the help of received from Ukraine technologies to create all classes of missiles, including intercontinental ones, there is no need to talk about the effectiveness of the treaties on the MTCR and the NPT. What was able Kim Chen In, anyone whose international weight is even slightly larger than that of Swaziland or Lesotho can.
As is well known, the United States withdrew from the ABM treaty.
The SALT-1 Treaty limited strategic arsenals to the levels reached by the end of 1972 (and this is tens of thousands of carriers). The SALT-2 treaty did not enter into force, since the US Senate blocked its ratification in connection with the introduction of Soviet troops into Afghanistan. The START-1 and SORT treaties are not relevant, since they were replaced by the START-3 Treaty, which slightly reduced the total number of deployed carriers compared to the SORT. The START-2 treaty (which prohibited the equipping of missiles with multiple reentry vehicles) was signed in 1993, ratified by the State Duma in 2000, and already in 2002 Russia withdrew from it in connection with the US withdrawal from the ABM Treaty.
Thus, today, after the announced withdrawal of the United States from the INF, from the entire system of international treaties that regulated the system of strategic potentials, only the START-3 Treaty is really valid, but it means little in the course of the unfolding arms race.
Perhaps the United States wants to repeat the successful blackmail attempt of the 1980s, which forced the USSR to make concessions and ultimately contributed to its eventual collapse. But the situation is fundamentally different. First, Russia has relevant experience and knows that “gentlemen” cannot be trusted at their word, and treaties they sign,. Secondly, if Russia is still moving along an ascending line both in politics and in the economy, then in the United States, at best, we can talk about stagnation. However, Trump prefers to talk about the crisis that he wants to overcome and "make America great again." Thirdly, in terms of military technology in the last century, the USSR was catching up, and now the United States is catching up. Fourthly, stories with 5th generation fighters, the latest destroyers and littoral ships show flagrant inefficiency of the US military-industrial complex when the funds are mastered gigantic, but there is no result. Fifth, in the last century, all world centers of power (USA, EU, China, Japan) were against the USSR, which was forced to stretch its meager military, political, financial, economic and diplomatic resources to confront everyone. Now even Japan is not entirely unconditional support for the United States. In Europe, they were left with Great Britain, torn by internal contradictions, and a part of the poor Young Europeans. They are in a tougher confrontation with China than with us, and now they are also talking about imposing sanctions against India.
In general, if we proceed from the actions of the United States as an attempt at blackmail, then it is doomed to failure. But this does not negate the military danger of such games. If you fry kebabs on a barrel of gunpowder, sooner or later it will explode. So a new system of international treaties aimed at limiting, reducing, and ideally eliminating nuclear arsenals will have to be developed. But first, it is necessary that the United States realize its place in the new world and come to terms with it.
Many countries of the world have used preventive strikes against states with which they were not at war in order to ensure their security. Curiously, this experience is over 200 years old. In many cases, such operations had an extremely negative impact on the reputation of the states that organized them.
In 1801, the British fleet under the command of the famous Admiral Horatio Nelson\Horatio Nelson appeared on the roadstead of the capital of Denmark - Copenhagen. The British Empire and Denmark were not at war, but Denmark joined a group of states that pursued a policy of "armed neutrality". The point is that then Napoleonic Wars, and British ships inspected the ships of neutral states, which could carry cargo destined for France. "Armed Neutrality" was called upon to stop this practice. The British demanded that the Danish fleet be transferred under their control (so that Napoleon could not use it), but, having been refused, they shot the warships of Denmark, and then turned their fire on the city itself. The Danes agreed to negotiations and abandoned the policy of "armed neutrality". However, the story did not end there: in 1807, the British reappeared near Copenhagen and again demanded the surrender of the fleet. The Danes again refused: as a result, Denmark lost all its warships, and a third of Copenhagen burned down. As a result, a new term appeared in the world, denoting a preventive strike by the forces of the navy - "Copenhagening". Historians who have studied this period of history note that London's actions were morally and legally illegal and unjustified, but from a strategic point of view, the British did smart move: if France had at its disposal a powerful Danish fleet, then Napoleon would have a real chance to organize a landing and capture Albion.
In 1837, British ships intercepted the American ship Caroline on the Niagara River, which separates the United States and Canada (then a colony of Great Britain). British intelligence had evidence that weapons intended for local separatists were being transferred to Canada on this ship. Caroline was captured (several crew members - US citizens - were killed), after which she was set on fire and flooded. After that, the United States adopted the "Caroline Doctrine"\Caroline Doctrine, which set limits for preemptive strikes: in particular, it was declared that in order for such a strike to be delivered, it was necessary that there be irrefutable evidence that the opposing side was preparing for an attack, and the power of the blow must correspond to the level of this threat. It is curious that in 2002 the United States adopted the "National Security Strategy"\The National Security Strategy, which states that preventive military strikes can be launched if a hostile country or terrorists have the necessary capabilities and show a real intention to attack on the US and its allies. This means, for example, that the hostile army is ready to attack and is only waiting for the order to attack. Operations similar to the attack on Caroline were repeatedly carried out and subsequently. For example, in 2002, Israeli commandos in the Red Sea seized the Palestinian ship Karine-A, which was secretly transporting more than 50 tons of Iranian-made weapons and explosives.
In 1904, the Japanese fleet made a surprise attack on the Russian squadron in Port Arthur ( Russian base in China). The attack was carried out on the night of February 9, three days before Tokyo had severed diplomatic relations with St. Petersburg. The attack on Port Arthur was the first in the history of the navy when torpedoes were used on a massive scale: the Japanese fired 20 torpedoes, but only three were hit. They sank two of the newest Russian battleships (they were soon recommissioned). This attack marked the start of the Russo-Japanese War. Subsequently, in 1941, Germany, which attacked the USSR, and Japan, which attacked the United States, acted in a similar way.
In 1940, shortly after the defeat of France, whose ally was Great Britain, British ships captured or destroyed several dozen ships of the French fleet. France and Great Britain were allies in the war against Nazi Germany. However, the Germans took Paris, the surviving British and French troops were evacuated from Dunkirk. The loyalty of the French allies was questioned by the British, who feared that the French Navy might fall into the hands of Germany and Italy. Therefore, Operation Catapult was carried out. First, French ships in British ports were captured (in one case, French sailors from the Surcouf submarine refused to surrender and opened fire). Then an operation was carried out in the Algerian (then a colony of France) port of Mers-el-Kebir. The French were given an ultimatum: they could hand over the ships to the British; or sail across the ocean - to the French islands of Martinique and Guadeloupe, where to remain under supervision until the end of the war; or fight. The French chose the latter. A few hours later they lost several ships and 1.3 thousand sailors killed. The French squadron surrendered, agreed to disarm and remain at the parking lot until the end of the war (in 1943 it joined the Free French forces). Later, without a single shot, the British captured French ships anchored in Egyptian (then a British colony) Alexandria and attacked the French base in Dakar (now Senegal), but some of the ships located there made their way to French Toulon. The last act of the tragedy occurred in 1942: German and Italian troops already tried to capture the main base of the French fleet - Toulon (then controlled by the Vichy government, allied with Germany). In order not to give up their ships, the French sailors sank or blew up most of them, including 3 battleships and 7 cruisers.
In 1983, US President Ronald Reagan ordered a preventive military operation against the island nation of Grenada. Formal application decision military force was adopted by the Organization of Eastern Caribbean States\Organization of Eastern Caribbean States. The US President said that "the Cuban-Soviet occupation of Grenada is being prepared," and also that weapons depots are being created in Grenada that can be used by international terrorists. The immediate reason for the start of the military operation was the hostage taking of American students by the authorities of Grenada. As it turned out later, the students were not in danger. The authorities of Grenada were not going to take them hostage, but simply decided to provide protection, since shortly before that, armed clashes began on the island, as a result of which the leader of the Grenada Marxists, who had come to power shortly before, was killed by his associates. After the capture of the island, it also turned out that the Grenadian military depots were filled with old Soviet weapons. Before the start of the invasion, the US announced that there were 1.2 thousand Cuban commandos on the island. After it was found that there were no more than 200 Cubans, a third of them were civilian specialists.
Israel used preemptive strikes effectively several times. In particular, in 1981, his warplanes bombed the Iraqi nuclear reactor in Osirak. Iraq established its nuclear program in the 1960s. France agreed to supply Iraq with a research reactor. It was he who gained fame as "Osirak". Israel initially viewed the reactor as a serious threat to its security, as Saddam Hussein repeatedly promised to wipe out the Jewish state from the face of the earth. The military operation was an extremely risky act: the attack could be regarded by the Arab states as an act of aggression, which could lead to a large-scale war. Other unpleasant consequences for Israel could follow, for example, an economic embargo by the United States and European countries. The decision to attack Osirak was finally made after Israeli intelligence reported that France was ready to ship 90 kg of enriched uranium to Iraq for Osirak. By that time, Israeli intelligence believed that Iraq had 6 kg of weapons-grade plutonium, which is enough to create one nuclear weapon. As a result, Israeli aircraft bombed the reactor. Many states of the world and the UN Security Council condemned Israel's actions. However, more stringent sanctions from the international community did not follow. In 1991, after Saddam Hussein's army invaded Kuwait, Israel's actions were reinterpreted as necessary. The last story of this kind occurred in 2007, when Israeli aircraft bombed unspecified targets in Syria. Information on this subject is very limited and contradictory; according to some sources, a nuclear facility was destroyed.
Russia will never launch a first nuclear strike, President Vladimir Putin said at a meeting of the Valdai Discussion Club on Thursday, October 18.
According to him, the Russian Federation "will never initiate military actions, including the use of nuclear weapons," but will carry out an attack only in the event of alleged aggression, making sure that it has taken place.
"The aggressor must know that retribution is inevitable. We are the victims of aggression, we will go to heaven as martyrs. And they will simply die. Because they will not even have time to repent," Putin said.
He also stressed that Russia is not afraid of anything, but is ready to use nuclear weapons if it is convinced that a potential aggressor will inflict a "reciprocal" strike on the Russian Federation.
“We are not afraid of anything at all. When your country has such a territory, with a population ready to give their lives for the Fatherland, no one can do anything about it,” Putin said.
Earlier, US Secretary of Defense James Mattis said that, namely from Russia, to a lesser extent from China and North Korea.
military conflicts between different countries become an integral part of human history. Even in our time, in some parts of the world there are armed confrontations that bring devastation and many human casualties. To get ahead of the aggressor who is about to start a war, the defending side can launch a preemptive strike. This concept arose 200 years ago, and today it has become especially relevant. Let's try to understand its meaning and find out how these actions are qualified in international law.
Term meaning
A preemptive strike is an armed action by one side of the conflict on the other in order to get ahead of the enemy and prevent the first from attacking. The purpose of these operations is to destroy the strategically important objects of the enemy, which can give him an advantage in a possible upcoming war. Suppose a situation where state A is actively building up its military power in order to attack country B. The aggressor strengthens the army, pursues a propaganda policy in order to hostilely set up the population. In such a situation, country B can get ahead of the enemy and strike first.
Unfortunately, many people abuse this rule, so such actions are condemned by many politicians. This is because, from a legal point of view, these actions may resemble an act of aggression. This happens when a certain country builds up military forces to protect the integrity of its territory. But another state may qualify such actions as preparation for war and launch a preemptive strike. This will be considered aggression.
Examples of preemptive attacks in history
As mentioned earlier, similar military operations were carried out two centuries ago. The first of these dates back to 1801, when the English fleet approached Copenhagen and opened fire on the Danish ships, as well as on the city. Although the two countries were not at war, there were suspicions that the Danes were secretly helping the French. Refusing to voluntarily provide their ships for inspection, they were severely punished by the British.
The next known case was in 1837, where the British were also involved. It was connected with the attack on the American ship Caroline. British intelligence reported the presence of weapons that were supposed to reach the Canadian separatists who were fighting for independence from Great Britain. To avoid this, the British captured the ship, after which they burned it.
In 1904, Japanese ships attacked Russian fleet based on Chinese territory in Port Arthur. During the attack, torpedoes were used, few of which reached the target, but the Japanese managed to sink several ships. These events led to the beginning of the Russo-Japanese War.
The Japanese carried out a similar attack in 1941, when they attacked Pearl Harbor.
German preemptive strike on the USSR
From the very beginning of the Great Patriotic War in 1941, no one doubted that this was an act of aggression by fascist Germany against the USSR. The purpose of these actions was the destruction of the Soviet ideology, which was to be replaced by National Socialism. Success in this campaign would make it possible to annex new territories and gain access to huge reserves of resources that would be useful for further advances into Asia.
But in the mid-80s, a new theory appears regarding the reasons for such actions of Hitler. It was based on the idea that German troops invaded the territory of the USSR only in order to protect their eastern borders. Documents were provided, according to which the Soviet military command was concentrating additional forces to the western borders, allegedly for a subsequent attack. But the theory of a preemptive strike was quickly refuted by historians. This is because the Germans have been preparing this attack for a long time, and this is confirmed by the so-called “Barbarossa” plan, where everything was described in detail. In addition, they violated the non-aggression pact, which both sides signed back in August 1939.
Threats of preemptive strikes today
Despite the fact that now the situation in the world is relatively stable, there are still a number of threats that can shake this fragile world. In the 21st century the problem of international terrorism has become especially urgent. Probably, no one has yet forgotten the events of September 11 or the armed seizure of the school in Beslan. In addition, military conflicts in the Middle East, Africa and Ukraine are forcing the leaders of world states to prepare for the most extreme measures. There have been repeated statements from representatives of the United States, the EU and even Russia about the possibility of delivering a preemptive strike. This may be the only chance to guarantee the security of their country, the politicians say. Despite the fact that such actions are considered a gross violation of international law, the likelihood of this outcome exists.
Preemptive nuclear strike, what is it?
The extreme method of influencing the enemy is the use of nuclear weapons. Because of their incredible power, this type of weapon is almost never used. Its main task is to frighten and force the alleged enemy to refrain from armed aggression.
Despite the huge destructive force However, some countries allow the possibility of using nuclear charges in the event that other methods of influencing the enemy turn out to be ineffective. In connection with the aggravation of Russia's relations with the EU states and the USA, disturbing news began to appear more and more often. It was even assumed that the United States was preparing to deliver a preventive nuclear strike against Russia. Fortunately, there is no official confirmation of this, and such information is just a media fiction.
Bush Doctrine
This declaration was created with the assistance of 43 Presidents of the United States and expressed the principles foreign policy countries. Its main goal was the destruction of all international terrorist groups. In addition, all economic and political agreements were broken with the countries that provided assistance to the militants.
The next item in this document was the so-called pre-emptive strike doctrine. It stated that the United States reserves the right to carry out armed attacks on military installations and remove the current government of states around the world if their actions could directly or indirectly threaten the security of the country. America's new foreign policy was viewed negatively by many. Some politicians have said that the president wants to justify some of his erroneous decisions, one of which was the invasion of Afghanistan in 2001, by such actions.
Military Doctrine of the Russian Federation
Recently, the situation regarding Russia's cooperation with the EU states and the United States has remained very tense. The main reason for everything remains the conflict in the east of Ukraine. In addition to economic sanctions, many European and American politicians are making statements about the need to strengthen the presence of NATO forces in the Eastern European region. On the other hand, the military command Russian Federation sees such actions as a threat to his country. Therefore, statements were repeatedly made about amending the main document of the state responsible for its defense capability. A new version of the doctrine was approved in December 2014.
Some experts argued that it would include a clause according to which Russia has the right to launch a preventive strike against the United States or in the event of a threat to the security of the Russian state. The doctrine does not contain this provision, but it says that the main threat to the Russian Federation today is the countries of the North Atlantic Treaty.
Events in Ukraine
The entire world community is closely following the situation in Ukraine. Despite the agreements reached, the situation in the region remains tense. Recall that many Western states accuse Russia of direct involvement in the conflict and the presence of federation troops on the territory of another country. A version was even put forward that a preventive strike against Ukraine might be carried out using
The Russian side denies any involvement in the outbreak of an armed clash on the territory of a neighboring state. The absence of the Russian armed forces in Ukraine was confirmed by both the President and the top military leadership. Despite this, the option of using force is allowed if a preventive strike is launched against Russia or if another threat arises that threatens the country's security.
The legality of the use of preemptive strikes
According to international law, each country has the ability to take appropriate countermeasures in response to aggression or breach of the peace. In turn, the UN Charter states that a preemptive strike is an illegal method of countering a threat. It is allowed to carry out such measures only in case of a clear danger and after agreement with the UN committee. Otherwise, it will not be considered self-defense, but an act of aggression against another state.
For preventive action to be legal, it is first necessary to collect evidence against another state, confirming that it is a clear threat to peace on its part. And only after considering all the documents, a decision is made regarding further actions against the aggressor.
The head of the Pentagon, James Mattis, admitted the likely scenario in which US President Donald Trump could order a preventive nuclear strike without the approval of Congress. This statement was made by the Secretary of Defense of the United States, speaking at a hearing in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. The meeting was devoted to the use of military force by Washington abroad.
In response to a question by Senator Edward Markey, are there any circumstances that would allow the American leader to launch a preventive nuclear strike against North Korea or other countries with nuclear weapons, Mattis stressed that this issue is hypothetical.
The head of the Pentagon noted that such a scenario could be realized only if the threat of a nuclear strike on the United States becomes inevitable. He added that such a hypothetical solution would be subject to close scrutiny, and called for trust in the current system, which has proven its effectiveness for decades.
“It's not the only tool in our toolkit,” Mattis said. “I believe that control by Congress should not be equated with operational management.”
Democratic Senator Markey several times tried to get a clear answer to his question from the head of the Pentagon, but Mattis refused to comment on the hypothetical situation. He stressed that a pre-emptive strike is possible only if it is the only way to stop nuclear attack against the USA.
“I did not say that this would happen, we have various traditional means to stop it. The president is obliged to protect the country, ”TASS quotes Mattis.
As a result, the congressman demanded a closed hearing on this issue with the participation of the United States Secretary of Defense.
In turn, Secretary of State Rex Tillerson, who was present at the hearing, said that not a single US president “swears against (the possibility of applying. — RT) preemptive strike, and it has served us well for 70 years."
- James Mattis and Rex Tillerson
- Reuters
"High hopes for the Russians"
Also during the Senate hearing, Mattis stated that Armed forces The United States conducts regular training to repel hypothetical attacks from North Korea.
Answering a question about the plan of action in the event of a North Korean missile attack, when it will not be about days, but about minutes, the head of the Pentagon said: “In any case, the president will be raised. I can say that we are working on it.”
He noted that in the first place, anti-missile systems and tracking stations in California and Alaska will be involved. Then the head of the White House will be presented with a list of possible responses, including joint actions with American allies in the region.
At the same time, the head of the US State Department, Rex Tillerson, confirmed that Congress did not give permission for the use of military force against North Korea.
At the same time, White House Chief of Staff John Kelly noted that Washington is counting on Beijing and Moscow to exert political pressure on Pyongyang. Kelly stressed that the United States hopes that China will influence the North Korean authorities.
“We also have high hopes for the Russians,” he added.
The announcements come ahead of Donald Trump's big Asian tour, which will visit Japan, South Korea and China in early November. The American president will then attend a number of major international events, including the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) summit and the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) leaders' summit.
- THAAD
- globallookpress.com
- Ralph Scott
Old new threats
During a hearing before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Rex Tillerson also called on Congress to allow the presidential administration to use force against terrorist threats to the United States without delimiting its use.
“The new authorization for the use of military force should not be geographically limited. As with the current permit, the administration will need to maintain the statutory authority to use military force against an enemy that does not respect boundaries and does not limit itself to their observance, ”Tillerson said.
According to him, this question fully agreed with both the head of the Pentagon and the rest of the US presidential administration. Tillerson also said that members of the administration will continue to brief Congress on a regular basis so that both parliamentarians and the American people have a clearer understanding of US foreign policy and military goals, as well as efforts being made in the field of national security.
Recall that the day before, large-scale command-staff and field exercises of the Global Thunder strategic nuclear forces began, within which units in all areas of responsibility of the US Strategic Command (Strathcom) will be checked.
The exercise scenario provides for the training of responses to "various strategic threats to the United States" and uses the full capabilities of Stratcom with the participation of units around the world in real time. During the exercises, the capabilities of space forces, global strike systems and anti-missile defense systems, as well as surveillance and reconnaissance systems will be worked out.
Earlier, on October 26, the Russian military worked out the interaction of all components of the nuclear triad as part of training in the management of strategic nuclear forces (SNF). During the exercises, four intercontinental ballistic missiles were launched: three from nuclear submarines in the Barents and Okhotsk Seas and one from the Plesetsk cosmodrome.
- Dignities and clothes of Orthodox priests and monasticism
- Healers and fortune tellers - why do people go to them?
- During confession. Preparing for confession. List of sins for confession. How to dress for confession
- Praise of the Most Holy Theotokos Praise of the Mother of God with an akathist what they pray for