After the collapse of the Soviet Union, the two main nuclear powers remaining in the world, namely the United States and the Russian Federation, were in relative strategic nirvana for the first few years. The leadership and the peoples of both countries had a misleading impression of peace that had come, guaranteed for decades to come. The Americans considered their victory in the Cold War so convincing that they did not even allow the thought of further confrontation. The Russians did not perceive themselves as losers and expected to be treated equally and benevolently as a people who voluntarily joined the Western democratic scale of values. Both of them were wrong. Very soon, a civil war began in the Balkans, in the outcome of which American weapons played a decisive role.
The US leadership considered its success in dismembering the SFRY a good omen. It went further, striving to establish complete hegemony, allowing it to dispose of material resources on a planetary scale, and suddenly stumbled at the beginning of the third millennium on the resistance of Russia, a country that has the will and means to protect itsgeopolitical interests. The United States was not ready for this confrontation.
Before and during the war
Even before World War II, the US was a peaceful country. The American army was not numerous, and its technical equipment remained quite modest. In 1940, a congressman boasted that he had seen all the armored vehicles of the armed forces of his state: “All 400 tanks!” he proudly declared. But even then, some types of weapons were given priority, serious achievements of American designers were observed in the field of aircraft construction. America entered the war with a powerful air fleet, which included an armada of B-17 strategic bombers, long-range Mustang and Thunderbolt fighters, and other examples of excellent aircraft. By 1944, in the Pacific Ocean, the United States began to use the latest B-29s, inaccessible to Japanese air defense systems. The US fleet was also impressive, powerful, aircraft-carrying and capable of crushing objects far from the coast.
American weapons of the Second World War were supplied to the USSR under the Lend-Lease program, and this concept included dual-use equipment. Excellent Studebaker trucks, Willis and Dodge three-quarters jeeps enjoyed the well-deserved respect of Red Army drivers, and to this day they are commemorated with a kind word. American military weapons, that is, representing means of direct destruction of the enemy, were not so unambiguously assessed. The Aerocobra fighter, on which the famous ace I. Kozhedub fought, truly possessedtitanic firepower, excellent maneuverability and unprecedented ergonomics, which, combined with a strong engine, contributed to the achievement of many aerial victories. The transport Douglas was also considered a masterpiece of engineering.
US-made tanks were priced quite low, they were outdated both technologically and morally.
Korea and the 50s
American weapons of the ground forces of the post-war decade practically did not differ from those with which the US army fought against fascist Germany and militaristic Japan. In practice, these were the same Shermans, Willys, Studebakers, that is, either outdated armored vehicles or excellent transport equipment created by the Detroit auto industry. Another thing is aviation. By joining the aircraft race, Northrop, General Dynamics, Boeing have achieved a lot, taking advantage of the technological superiority achieved in those years when the fire of war raged in Europe (and not only). The US Air Force adopted the largest B-36 strategic bomber in history, not without irony called the "Peacemaker". The Saber jet interceptor was also good.
The backlog in the field of fighter aircraft of the USSR soon overcame, Soviet tanks for decades remained, undoubtedly, the best in the world, but in many other areas American weapons surpassed Soviet ones. This was especially true of the naval forces, which had a large tonnage and crushing firepower. And the main factor was nuclearwarheads.
Start of the atomic race
A real arms race began after the appearance in the arsenals of the US and the USSR of a large number of atomic charges and their means of delivery to the target. After the vulnerability of piston strategic bombers was convincingly proven in the Korean skies, the parties concentrated their efforts on other methods of delivering nuclear strikes, as well as technologies for parrying them. In a sense, this deadly ping-pong game continues to this day. At the dawn of the arms race, even such joyful events in the history of mankind as the launch of a satellite and Gagarin's flight acquired an apocalyptic coloring in the eyes of military analysts. It was clear to everyone that in the event of a major war, American weapons, even the most modern ones, could not play the role of a deterrent. There was simply nothing to repulse the attack of Soviet missiles at that time, there was only deterrence provided by a guarantee of a retaliatory strike. And the number of warheads was constantly growing, and tests were constantly taking place, either in Nevada, or on Svalbard, or near Semipalatinsk, or on the Bikini Atoll. It seemed that the world had gone mad, and with brisk steps was moving towards its inevitable death. Thermonuclear (or hydrogen) bombs appeared already in 1952, less than a year later the USSR had already presented its answer.
Local wars
Another illusion that arose at the dawn of the Cold War was that fear of an atomic apocalypse would make local wars impossible. In a sense, this was true. American nuclear weapons aimed at major industrial and military areasThe USSR acted on the Soviet leadership as soberingly as the missiles deployed in Cuba did on J. Kennedy. An open military conflict between the two superpowers never happened. But the horror of the inevitable end did not prevent humanity from fighting almost continuously. The best American weapons were supplied to the pro-Western allies of the United States, and the USSR almost always responded to these actions by "rendering fraternal assistance" to this or that freedom-loving people fighting against imperialism. It should be noted that the practice of such (often gratuitous) supply of friendly regimes was stopped even before the collapse of the Union due to economic problems. However, during the time when the allies of the USSR and the USA fought among themselves, analysts had no doubts about the relative parity of the weapons systems of the superpowers. In some cases, the domestic defense industry has demonstrated superiority over overseas. American small arms were inferior to Soviet ones in reliability.
Why doesn't the US attack Russia?
Unlike the Soviet and Russian defense industries, which have always been predominantly state owned, American arms firms are privately owned. Military budgets (or rather, their ratio) indicate that the US military should be the most powerful in the world. The history of recent decades leads to the conclusion that they will inevitably be used against an obviously weak adversary in the event that the American administration is dissatisfied with the policy of this or that state, which is declared a pariah. US military budgetwas an astronomical $581 billion in 2014. The Russian figure is many times more modest (about 70 billion). It seems that conflict is inevitable. But it is not, and it is not expected, despite serious frictions with the superpowers. The question arises as to how the weapons of the American army are better than the Russian ones. And in general - is it better?
Judging by all the signs, the US does not currently have superiority (at least overwhelming), despite the gigantic amounts of military appropriations. And there is an explanation for that. It is in the main goals and objectives of the American military-industrial complex.
How the American military-industrial complex works
It's all about private ownership. American arms manufacturers are interested in observing the basic law of capitalist society, for which His Majesty Profit is the main shrine. Technical solutions that require low material costs, even if they are ingenious, are, as a rule, rejected in the bud. New American weapons should be expensive, technologically advanced, sophisticated, have an impressive appearance so that taxpayers can admire them and make sure that their hard-earned money was well spent.
As long as there is no big war, it is difficult (if not impossible) to evaluate the effectiveness of these samples. And against an enemy that is technically weak (such as Iraq, Yugoslavia, Libya or Afghanistan), the use of miraclestechnology is generally win-win. Apparently, the US Army is not going to fight with a strong enemy. At the very least, it is not making technical preparations for an attack on China, India or Russia in the near future. But spending budget funds on promising secret American weapons is a win-win business, but very profitable. The general public is promised hypersonic missiles and fantastic unmanned aircraft. The latter already exist, for example, "Predator" in shock and reconnaissance versions. True, it is not known how effective they will be in the face of powerful anti-aircraft defense. They were relatively safe over Afghanistan and Libya. The newest Raptor ste alth interceptors are also untested in combat, but they are so expensive that even the American budget cannot stand it.
The main trend of the last decades
The already mentioned relaxation that came after the victory in the Cold War prompted a change in the spending structure of the US military budget in favor of preparing for a series of local wars planned to achieve a new geopolitical picture beneficial to the US and NATO. The nuclear threat from Russia has been completely ignored since the early 1990s. The weapons of the American army were created taking into account the use in such conflicts, which by their nature are close to police operations. The advantage was given to tactical means to the detriment of strategic ones. The US still holds the world championship in the number of nuclear warheads, but most of them were made a long time ago.
Despite the fact that their service life has been extended (for example, the Minutemen - until 2030), even the most vigorous optimists have no confidence in their perfect technical condition. New missiles in the United States plan to start developing only in 2025. The Russian state, meanwhile, did not miss the opportunity to improve its nuclear shield. Against the background of the lag that has arisen, the American leadership is making attempts to create systems capable of intercepting ICBMs, and are trying to move them as close as possible to the borders of the Russian Federation.
American anti-missile systems
According to the plan of overseas strategists, the most likely enemy in the alleged global conflict should be surrounded on all sides by means of detecting and intercepting ICBMs, combined into a single complex. Ideally, Russia should also fall under a kind of "umbrella" woven from invisible satellite orbits and radar beams. New American weapons have already been deployed at many bases in Alaska, Greenland, the British Isles, and they are constantly being modernized. An extensive system of warning about a possible nuclear missile strike is based on AN / TPY-2 radar stations located in Japan, Norway and Turkey, countries that have common borders or are closely adjacent to Russia. Aegis Early Warning System installed in Romania. According to the SBIRS program, 34 satellites are being launched into orbit according to the plan.
Space (both literally and figuratively) funds are spent on all these preparations, howevertheir real effectiveness raises certain doubts due to the fact that Russian missiles can penetrate the most modern missile defense systems - both existing and being created, and even planned.
"Trunks" for export
Approximately 29% of the world's defense exports are American advanced weapons. "On the heels" of the United States comes Russia with its 27 percent. The reason for the success of domestic manufacturers lies in the simplicity, efficiency, reliability and relative cheapness of the products they offer. In order to promote their product, Americans have to act in various ways, including using political influence on the governments of importing countries.
Sometimes simplified and cheaper samples are developed for the foreign market. American small arms are enjoying well-deserved success in many countries, which in most cases are modifications of time-tested and combat experience models that have been in service since the Vietnam War (M-16, M-18 rapid-fire carbines). The R-226 pistol, the Mark 16 and 17 assault rifle and other successful designs developed in the 80s are considered the newest “barrels”, however, in terms of popularity, they are far from the Kalashnikov due to, again, their high cost and complexity.
Javelin - American anti-tank weapon
The use of guerrilla combat methods, the complex nature of the theater of modern warfare and the emergencecompact wearables have revolutionized tactical science. The fight against armored vehicles has become one of the most important tasks. In connection with the expansion of the geography of local conflicts in the world, an increase in demand for American anti-tank weapons is possible. The reason for the shift in import channels is not mainly the superiority of overseas samples over Russian ones, it lies in political motives. The Javelin RPTC has recently become most famous in connection with negotiations on their possible supplies from the United States to Ukraine. The new complex costs $2 million and includes an aiming and launching system and ten rockets. The Ukrainian side agrees to purchase used units, but at a price of $500,000. How the negotiations will end and whether the deal will take place is still unknown.
