After the collapse of the Soviet Union, the two main nuclear powers that remained in the world, namely the United States and the Russian Federation, spent the first years in relative strategic nirvana. The leadership and peoples of both countries had a deceptive impression of peace, guaranteed for many decades. The Americans considered their victory in the Cold War so convincing that they did not allow thoughts of further confrontation. The Russians did not feel defeated and expected to have an equitable and benevolent attitude as a people who voluntarily joined the Western Democratic scale of values. Both those and others were mistaken. Very soon, a civil war broke out 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, seeking to establish complete hegemony that allows it to manage material resources on an all-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 its geopolitical interests. The United States was not ready for this confrontation.
Before and during the war
Even on the eve of World War II, the United States was a peaceful country. The American army was not numerous, and its technical equipment remained quite modest. In 1940, a certain 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 manufacturing. America entered the war, having a powerful air fleet, including an armada of B-17 strategic bombers, Mustang and Thunderbolt long-range fighters, and other examples of beautiful aircraft. By 1944, the US began to use the latest B-29s in the Pacific Ocean, inaccessible to Japanese air defense systems. The US fleet was also impressive, powerful, aircraft-bearing and capable of crushing objects remote from the coast.
American weapons of World War II were supplied to the USSR under the Lend-Lease program, and this concept included dual-use equipment. The excellent Studebaker trucks, the Willis and Doji Three Quarters SUVs were well-deservedly respected by Red Army drivers, and are still remembered with a kind word. The American military weapon, that is, representing a means of direct destruction of the enemy, was estimated not so unambiguously. The AeroCobra fighter, on which the celebrated ace I. Kozhedub fought, possessed truly titanic firepower, excellent maneuverability and unprecedented ergonomics, which, combined with a powerful engine, contributed to the achievement of many air victories. The transport Douglas was also considered a masterpiece of engineering.
Tanks made in the USA were rated rather low, they were obsolete both technologically and morally.
Korea and the 50s
The American weapons of the ground forces of the post-war decade were practically no different from those with which the US army fought against Nazi Germany and militaristic Japan. In fact, they were the same “Shermans”, “Willys”, “Studebakers”, that is, either outdated models of armored vehicles, or excellent transport equipment created by the Detroit auto industry. Another thing is aviation. Having joined the aircraft race, the companies Northrop, General Dynamics, Boeing have achieved a lot, taking advantage of the technological superiority achieved in those years when a fire was raging in Europe (and not only). The largest strategic bomb carrier B-36 in history, not without irony called the Peacemaker, was adopted by the US Air Force. The Saber rocket interceptor was also good.
The USSR soon overcame the lag in the field of fighter aviation, Soviet tanks for decades remained undoubtedly the best in the world, but in many other areas American weapons were superior to Soviet ones. In particular, this concerned the naval forces, which possessed a large tonnage and crushing fire capabilities. And the main factor was nuclear warheads.
The start of the atomic race
The real arms race began after the appearance in the arsenals of the USA and the USSR of a large number of atomic charges and their delivery vehicles to the target. After the vulnerability of piston strategic bombers was convincingly proven in the Korean sky, the parties concentrated their efforts on other methods of delivering nuclear strikes, as well as on technologies for parrying them. In a sense, this deadly ping-pong continues today. At the dawn of the arms race, even such joyful events in the history of mankind as the launch of a satellite and the flight of Gagarin, in the eyes of military analysts, acquired an apocalyptic color. It was clear to everyone that in the event of a major war, American weapons, even the most modern, 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 restraint provided by the guarantee of a retaliatory strike. And the number of warheads was constantly growing, and the tests were held constantly, now in Nevada, now on Svalbard, now near Semipalatinsk, now 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 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 out of fear of the atomic apocalypse, local wars would be impossible . In a way, this was true. American nuclear weapons aimed at large industrial and military areas of the USSR acted on the Soviet leadership as sobering as on J. Kennedy missiles stationed in Cuba. An open military conflict between the two superpowers never happened. But the horror of the inevitable end did not prevent mankind 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 “providing fraternal assistance” to one or another 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, while the allies of the USSR and the USA fought among themselves, analysts had no doubt about the relative parity of the arms systems of the superpowers. In some cases, the domestic defense industry showed superiority overseas. American small arms were inferior in reliability to the Soviet one.
Why the US does not attack the Russian Federation?
Unlike the enterprises of the Soviet and Russian defense industries, the owners of which have always been predominantly state-owned, American arms manufacturing companies are privately owned. Military budgets (or rather, their ratio) indicate that the US armed forces should be the most powerful in the world. The history of recent decades leads to the conclusion that they will inevitably be used against a knowingly weak adversary in the event the American administration is dissatisfied with the policy of a state declared an outcast. The budget of the US Armed Forces in 2014 amounted to an astronomical amount of $ 581 billion. The Russian figure is many times more modest (about 70 billion). It seems that conflict is inevitable. But he is not, and he is not expected, despite serious friction with respect to superpowers. The question arises as to how much the weapons of the American army are better than the Russian. And in general - is it better?
Judging by all indications, the USA does not have superiority (at least overwhelming) at the moment, despite the gigantic amounts of military allocations. And there is an explanation for this. It consists in the main goals and objectives of the American military-industrial complex.
How does the American military-industrial complex work?
It's all about private ownership. American arms manufacturers are interested in ensuring that the basic law of capitalist society is respected, for which His Majesty Profit serves as the main shrine. Technical solutions that require low material costs, even brilliant ones, as a rule, are rejected at the root. The new American weapon must be expensive, technologically saturated, complex, have an impressive appearance so that taxpayers can, after admiring it, make sure that their hard-earned money was not wasted.
While there is no big war, the effectiveness of these samples is difficult to assess (if at all possible). And against an adversary that is technically weak (such as Iraq, Yugoslavia, Libya, or Afghanistan), applying the wonders of technology is generally a win-win. Apparently, the US Army is not going to fight with a strong opponent. At least, it does not conduct technical preparations for an attack in the near future on China, India or Russia. But spending budget funds on promising secret American weapons is a win-win business, but it’s very profitable. The general public is promised hypersonic rockets, fantastic drones. The latter are already there, for example, the “Predator” in strike and reconnaissance versions. True, it is not known how effective they will be in the conditions of counteracting powerful air defense. They were relatively safe over Afghanistan and Libya. The latest invisible interceptors "Raptor" are also not tested in battle, but they are so expensive that even the US budget does not stand up.
The main trend of recent decades
The already mentioned relaxation after the victory in the Cold War prompted a change in the structure of the spending of the US military budget in favor of preparing for a series of local wars planned to achieve a new geopolitical picture that would be beneficial for the USA and NATO. Since the beginning of the 90s, the nuclear threat from Russia has been completely ignored. The weapons of the American army were created taking into account the use precisely in such conflicts, by their nature close to police operations. The advantage was given to tactical means to the detriment of strategic ones. The United States still holds the world championship in the number of nuclear warheads, but most of them are manufactured long ago.
Despite the fact that their service life has been extended (for example, “Minutmen” - until 2030), even the most peppy optimists do not have 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 attempting to create systems capable of intercepting ICBMs and are trying to move them as close to the borders of the Russian Federation as possible.
American missile defense systems
According to the plans of overseas strategists, the most likely adversary 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 fall under a kind of “umbrella”, woven from invisible satellite orbits and radar rays. New American weapons have already been deployed at many bases in Alaska, Greenland, and the British Isles; they are constantly being upgraded. An extensive warning system about a possible nuclear missile strike is based on the AN / TPY-2 radar stations located in Japan, Norway and Turkey, countries that share common borders or are adjacent to Russia. Aegis Early Warning System is installed in Romania. Under the SBIRS program, 34 satellites are being launched into orbit as planned.
Space (both in the literal and figurative sense) space is spent on all these preparations, but their real effectiveness raises certain doubts as to the fact that Russian missiles can overcome the most advanced missile defense systems - both existing and being created, and even planned.
"Trunks" for export
Approximately 29% of the global exports of defense products are American modern weapons. Russia is “on its heels” with its 27 percent. The reason for the success of domestic manufacturers lies in the simplicity, efficiency, reliability and relative cheapness of their products. In order to promote their goods, the Americans have to act in different ways, including using political influence on the governments of importing countries.
Sometimes for the foreign market, simplified and cheapened designs are developed. American small arms are a well-deserved success in many countries, representing in most cases modifications of time-tested and combat experience models that have been in service since the Vietnam War (M-16, M-18 high-speed carbines). The R-226 pistol, Mark 16 and 17 assault rifle and other successful designs are considered the newest “trunks”, but Kalashnikov’s popularity is far from due to their high cost and complexity.
Javelin - American anti-tank weapons
The use of guerrilla combat methods, the complex nature of the theater of modern warfare, and the advent of compact wearable weapons 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 mainly not the superiority of overseas models over Russian ones, it lies in political motives. Recently, RPTK Javelin has gained the greatest popularity in connection with negotiations on their possible deliveries from the USA 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 thousand. How the negotiations will end and whether the deal will take place is still unknown.