‘Deterrence not arms race’: Russia hints it may develop rival to US Prompt Global Strike
RT | September 11, 2014

Russia could use ballistic missiles, such as the Yars , with conventional warheads to counter CPGS. (RIA Novosti / Vadim Savitskii)
A highly-placed Defense Ministry official says that Russia may be forced to match the US Conventional Prompt Global Strike (CPGS) doctrine, which prescribes that a non-nuclear US missile must be able to hit any target on Earth within one hour.
“Russia is capable of and will have to develop a similar system,” Deputy Defense Minister Yuri Borisov said during a public discussion of the Russian rearmament program for the decade of 2016 through 2025.
“But mostly we will concentrate on countering CPGS, as our military doctrine is a defensive one.”
But the official denied that the Kremlin was setting off for another Cold War-style arms race with the West.
“This is not in these plans, and I hope will never happen,” said Borisov. “We simply want to protect our civilian population from outside threats.”
While Prompt Global Strike is often treated as a futuristic super-weapon, it is simply a system that ensures that strike areas of existing technologies cover the entirety of the planet. The concept of CPGS was first explicitly stated in official US documents during the first George W. Bush administration, and in more than a decade on, it has gone through various iterations, from ones that would see kinetic weapons fired at targets on the ground from space, to hypersonic missiles, to conventional solutions of placing short and medium range missiles around the world. There is no deadline for the program’s official completion, which is just as much subject to budget constraints as other articles of the defense budget, or consistent status updates on whether its aims may have already been achieved through existing armaments.
Despite its vague remit and gradual implementation, the program has caused considerable consternation in Moscow and Beijing. A previous US study showed that up to 30 percent of enemy nuclear launchers could be taken out with conventional weapons that would form part of the CPGS. Russian officials have said that together with the missile defense system the US is deploying around the world, this could mean that the current nuclear balance could be undermined.
This was clearly on Vladimir Putin’s mind when he spoke of creating new “assault capabilities, including maintaining a guaranteed solution to the task of nuclear deterrence” at the same Wednesday meeting.
But most experts agreed that Russia’s current abilities are already sufficient to withstand CPGS, even if it lacks the same attack capabilities.
“We already have a system of swift retaliation,” said Yuri Baluyevsky, former Chief of the General Staff of the Russian Armed Forces. The retired general is helping to develop the Kremlin to develop a new military doctrine by the end of the year, in the face of geopolitical changes in Ukraine, NATO’s increased presence in Eastern Europe, and the NATO missile shield.
“Russia has missiles, such as the long-range, air-based X-101 strategic cruise missile, which is able to strike at distances of 5,000 kilometers (about 3,100 miles),” the president of the Academy of Geopolitical Problems, Konstantin Sivkov, told RIA news agency.
“It also has high-precision ballistic missiles that could strike ground targets, providing they had normal warheads. These are the two main elements of a rapid long-range strike, That is, it can be done now. Basically, existing long-range aviation would be sufficient.”

Another expert suggested that Russia’s air defense systems – which cost considerably less than launches of ballistic missiles to operate – should form the backbone of the country’s response to CPGS.
“To create an adequate aerospace defense system it is important to develop interceptor systems, such as the S-500. It is capable of hitting targets not only in the air but also in near space at an altitude of 200 kilometers above the Earth, which are moving at a speed of up to 8 kilometers per second,” said Igor Korotchenko, editor-in-chief of National Defense magazine.
The unveiling of CPGS has not only bred stiff resistance around the world, but also doubts at home in the US itself. A Carnegie Center study from last year said that the system held some of the same risks as a nuclear attack, and was much more likely to be used. Within the allocated 60-minute time frame, incoming conventional missiles could be mistaken for nuclear warheads, their trajectory could be misunderstood, or they could simply hit the wrong target – all situations that may unleash a rapid response, which Russia and China, at the very least, appear to be very capable of already.

The West is engaged in madness and utter insanity.
Humanity is in the 21st century; we should be exploring the stars beyond our home world together. Instead, powerful men act like unevolved cretins who want to dominate and enslave the peacemakers of the world.
Can it be that humans are not the dominant species on Earth; that in fact we are programmed within our DNA to ultimately destroy ourselves by complete obliteration? It appears so.
LikeLike
The US development of immediate response “global strike” conventional weapons which if implemented are intended to be confused with nuclear weapons, very likely compels a nuclear weapons response from the victim of a CPGS attack.
How does increasing the likelihood of a nuclear response achieve national security for US citizens? Is this initiative not more properly identified as first strike nuclear weapon which may or may not be armed?
Does this weapon not violate the US nuclear detente posture? Is a weapon intended to prevent an effective nuclear response not a very good reason for the attacked party to launch an all out nuclear response against the first strike aggressor?
When is the USA going to stop trying to create a blameless pretext for nuclear war and work to build a resilient peace with and between nuclear powers?
What have the neocons done to diplomacy that they can accept no economic existence and no surviving nation outside the unitary imperial dominion?
Is this CPGS initiative simply another US acquiescence to Zionist brinkmanship?
Is the US intent on embracing the institutionalized insecurity and level of armed fear that characterize the middle eastern Zionist bastion?
M\\
LikeLike
The first strike no mater how small will probably cause a all out reaction from the one being attacked. How much will Putin let go be for he strikes with all he has. Why doesn’t Putin given Nuclear war heads to Syria, it would be a good idea to me or has he? When cornered will he lash out, he has shown restraint to the public, a wise move so when he snaps the world will not judge him negatively .
LikeLike
either a cpgs attack on a nuclear weapons installation, or a retaliation to such an attack will force the attacked to presume a decapitating first strike is underway and the opportunity to evaluate a diplomatic or conventional weapons response will be nil.
So, unless the subject of the cpgs attack is a symbolic old barn, distant from any CC or NW infrastucture, the attack must be considered a first strike for immediate strategic response. Strategic response in the case of China, Russia or Israel means total infrastructure obliteration, 40+% population loss and automatically launching WW3.
For what it’s worth, I think we should just have a lottery to off 25% of each of our populations ensuring that all families of all ranks above captain are included among the lottery selection and see if they can’t find a better solution to launching mutual assured destruction!
Why is living with Russia’s and China’s survival so terrifying to the neocons? Who is going to benefit from mutually assured destruction? Identify those people and then incarcerate them, in the interest of civilization, health, happiness and human survival!
M\\
LikeLike
I believe Russia has space weapons that can take down missiles or site that will try to intercept war heads soon after or before launched. The only thing US has is energy pulse weapons that are have not been tested for there capability. Russia has developed Tesla equipment in the late 50’s to drop planes out of the air. US is on a dangerous road to a bad end at best.
LikeLike