Leonkov : The Russian Federation may place its nuclear missiles off the coast of the United States. This is reported by the American newspaper The New York Times. According to the author of the article, the corresponding “hints” were allegedly made by Russian diplomats during security talks in Geneva on January 10. The military expert debunked US fears.
According to the American edition, Russian nuclear weapons can be thrown closer to the US coast. This flight time of missiles is up to five minutes, the text says. The author focuses on the fact that although there were no direct threats and official statements from the Russian representatives, their “hints” read just such a subtext. As journalists write, if such an event really happens, then the world will face a repeat of the Caribbean crisis of 1962.
Aleksey Leonkov, editor of Arsenal of the Fatherland magazine, explained why it makes absolutely no sense for Russia to place rocket launchers on the doorstep of a Western power.
– These are fantasies. Americans think in terms of past wars. Yes, in the early 1960s this was possible, but now, from a military point of view, we absolutely do not need it. During the Caribbean crisis, it was quite difficult to hit the positional area of ballistic missiles. But now technology has gone far ahead, and the deployment of missiles near the American coast for us is nothing but a waste of time and money. We need a complex infrastructure for servicing missiles and security. All this requires large financial investments.
There’s no point. We all understand that in this case the missiles will be in the first strike zone and will be destroyed in the first place. Their effectiveness in this case will not be very high, because, of course, a reliable anti-missile defense will be built against them.
– And where, in your opinion, would it be rational to place our missiles?
– If you place radar and electronic intelligence points on the territory of Cuba, which will become components of the Russian missile attack warning system – early warning system, this will be a different matter. It is still possible to resume the call of our ships in Santiago de Cuba. There is just a deep-water port, which can enter the ships of the far sea zone, and if desired, even nuclear submarines.
But first, Cuba needs to be raised in military-technical development, to provide them with modern air defense (air defense) systems so that it can defend itself against any aggression. As well as we did with Venezuela, supplying the complexes so that they could build a layered air defense system. That would make sense, in my opinion. The construction of radar stations can hardly be called some kind of aggression, it’s not a weapon.
And the arrival of ships on a friendly visit is not a direct threat. But if we nevertheless supply missile systems, this is already a direct threat, and the Americans will gladly respond to it. The presence of such installations on the territory of Cuba, of course, immediately puts it at risk. Therefore, first it is necessary to create means of defense, to look at the reaction of partners. And only then put something. If you start immediately with the deployment of missile systems, this is fraught.
What kind of missiles could we place in Cuba?
– If we are talking about missile systems, then, in my opinion, these can be coastal defense systems, because Cuba is washed by the water element on all sides, and the main threat to it should be expected from the sea. Consequently, they need to strengthen their air and coastal defenses. Such coastal missile systems as “Ball” and “Bastion” would be enough.
Help “MK”
“Bal” – a coastal missile system with an anti-ship missile Kh-35. GSI completed in 2004. Adopted by the Russian Navy in 2008.
“Bastion” – coastal missile system with anti-ship missile P-800 “Onyx” / “Yakhont”.
– And hypersonic missiles, Zircon, for example, could we deploy?
– We are not going to supply Zircons anywhere yet. Although those launchers of the Bastion complexes are also capable of launching Zircons. Let’s just say in the future. We don’t need missile launchers that could reach the United States, we have enough other effective means. And at the same time, we do not expose our partners and allies to a blow. On the contrary, it is necessary to make sure that this aggression is impossible. But at the same time, to ensure their national interests.
Read Also : The boyfriend got his 17-year-old girlfriend drunk and left to die in the swamp
Follow us on Google News Asia Times Now page for faster updates.
