Military Review

To counter a nuclear attack bunkers and Russian help "dead hand"

48
To counter a nuclear attack bunkers and Russian help "dead hand"For the first time in several decades, the United States has been concerned with how much Russia's leadership is able to “survive a nuclear strike.” Of course, all such information relates to the highest state secrets - and yet some assessments of how able Russia is to withstand the use of nuclear weapons. weapons, quite possible.


US intelligence and the Strategic Command of the country's Armed Forces (STRATCOM) are assessing the ability of the leadership of Russia and China to "survive the nuclear strike," Bloomberg said on Monday.

The analysis, conducted at the request of the US Congress, was begun even before Donald Trump assumed the presidency. Then this idea was supported by the leaders of both the Republican and the Democratic parties, expressing a lack of confidence in the Russian authorities and concern about China’s growing confidence in its military power. The analysis will include "the location and description of underground communications of political and military importance", - transfers RIA "News».
However, on Friday, Trump also ordered the Pentagon to prepare a new document, the Nuclear Policy Review, to guarantee the state of its nuclear deterrent forces at the proper level, so that these tasks overlap. It is noteworthy that earlier Trump warned about the possibility of lifting the sanctions against Russia in exchange for a bilateral agreement on the reduction of nuclear weapons.

The life support system of up to three months

The president of the Academy of Geopolitical Problems, Colonel General Leonid Ivashov reminded the newspaper VIEW that as early as the beginning of the 1970s, “when the American threat hung over the USSR, we created the Perimeter system (in the West it was called the“ Dead Hand ”). This is a system of a duplicate command post that would give the launch command directly to the missiles according to a given program, even if the top leadership of the country was killed. ”

As you know, at the beginning of 1970, China’s leadership seriously feared a nuclear war with the Soviet Union. “As for the capabilities of China’s anti-nuclear defense, under Mao there was no serious defense,” notes Ivashov. “The Chinese simply built shelters for members of the politburo, and even for the municipal government.”

In 1981 was only taken over as US president, Ronald Reagan received a report from the CIA director about the ability of the Soviet people and the government to survive as a result of catastrophic climate change in the world, as well as a nuclear attack, recalls Ivashov.

“The Americans considered that the USSR is the most stable state in this respect, especially such regions as Siberia, Altai, Kazakhstan. Therefore, then Reagan decided on the 10-year program for the destruction of the USSR. The question of a preventive nuclear strike with the subsequent resettlement of Americans into our territories was considered. They found weak spots. Our intelligence became aware of this, and we began to rapidly build shelters for workers and leaders, especially under General Secretary Andropov. The Grotto system (bunkers) appeared for the political leadership, including in the Moscow region - for the leadership of the Armed Forces, ”the colonel general said.

In 1983, Reagan received a new report that said that the Soviet strategic management system was more stable than the American one. As Ivashov noted, the Americans built entire underground cities in case of a nuclear attack. “Then they came to the conclusion that it was not a nuclear war or war as such that should be waged against the USSR, but to destroy the country with the help of“ soft power. ” I do not rule out that such studies are conducted regularly as part of a nuclear review, ”the expert says.
He recalled that the development of the Soviet system of protection against a nuclear strike in Russia began under President Boris Yeltsin. According to him, the system was created not only for management, “oligarchs have already been registered there”. Then "a lot was done" under Vladimir Putin - "in particular, life support systems were upgraded for up to three months." According to the general, after the nuclear review of 2000, the Americans adopted the concept of a fast global strike, as a result of which they essentially stopped upgrading strategic nuclear weapons, “but focused on the concept of a high-precision strike followed by the use of nuclear tactical means. At the same time, the program of the global missile defense system was adopted. ”

“According to the results of the last review, Trump will report. Perhaps the adoption of significant measures against the control system of Russia. I think it will not be a disarming nuclear strike, because for the time being we can respond with something. But it can be a cyber-shock on management systems, on the financial and banking system, and on other vital areas. Plus, the Americans will develop robotic technology. We'll see, ”summarized Ivashov.

10 nuclear strikes against Russia

The head of the Center for Military Forecasting, Anatoly Tsyganok, recalled that the CIA, the Pentagon and other American intelligence services had been monitoring the situation in the USSR since the 1950s. “Before 1961, the United States planned to strike at 10 main facilities in Russia. Among them: Moscow, Novosibirsk, Tyumen, Sverdlovsk (now - Yekaterinburg). But after 1961, the question of whether to strike was simply not the case. Already then it became known that in the USSR there is a system that, regardless of who puts a nuclear strike on its territory, strikes a retaliatory nuclear strike on the aggressor, ”Tsyganok told the newspaper VZGLYAD.

He expressed confidence that the initiator of such a test was not the new US president. “Everyone understands the danger of nuclear war. It should be borne in mind that on Earth only the United States and Russia have 90% of nuclear bombs and equipment, ”the expert reminded, adding that information about such inspections is being sent to the press about every five years when American intelligence agencies are trying to find more threats from Russia .

The head of military policy sector and the economy RCI Ivan Konovalov also recalls that the survival of the country's leadership in normal times is provided in full, however, a potential aggressor might try to strike a sudden blow at a time when a large part of the manual will be in an unprotected place.
“All nuclear powers, especially the leading ones, have corresponding life support systems for statesmen if the scenario develops along a critical path. But the effectiveness of a nuclear strike may largely depend on where the country's leadership will be at the moment. For example, if someone decides to strike, when will the Olympics open? Or, for example, the anniversary of the Allied landings in Normandy, where the heads of several states gather. Imagine that at this moment a blow is struck there, ”Konovalov told the newspaper VIEW.

the-horizon location

Former deputy commander-in-chief of the Russian Air Force, retired Lieutenant General Aytech Bizhev, in a conversation with the newspaper VIEW, stated that the country's anti-missile shield also provides reliable protection to the leadership. “There is an anti-missile defense system, a missile attack warning system. Not a single movement of the strategic nuclear forces of the opposing side, not a single training start-up can be disregarded by the Air and Space Forces of the Russian Federation, ”said Bizhev.

“Accident and suddenness are one hundred percent excluded. The work of the engines of strategic missiles is already fixed. Why pre-announced areas of exercise? To warn neighboring countries, so that they do not think that the fighting begins. Israel once launched missiles from submarines without warning. We immediately fixed it, and Russia immediately demanded to clarify what was happening, - said Bizhev. - Triple control. We have a rocket attack warning system - over-the-horizon location. Plus, all this is duplicated by the orbital group in space. "

Moscow underground

Data on bunkers for the country's leadership in the event of a nuclear war are classified as military and state secrets. All secret bunkers and even cities are supervised by the FSB and the Main Directorate of Special Programs of the President of Russia. However, some objects of the Soviet era in recent years have been declassified, in particular some “secret metro” stations, including the so-called Brezhnev bunker or GO-42 on Taganka in Moscow, which now has a museum. The object was conceived as an anti-nuclear refuge for the first persons of the USSR. The bunker, located at a depth of more than 50 meters, was commissioned in 1956, but by that time it was decided to build another shelter for the leadership of the country, and the command post of the far aviationwhich operated there until 1986. It is also known that under the buildings of the Ministry of Defense and the Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces there are also multi-story underground structures, but they are not accessible to outsiders.

The scant information about bunkers leaked to the press from the declassified KGB archives. For example, in the metropolitan area of ​​Ramenki, between Moscow State University and Udaltsov Street, there was an underground city for 15 thousand people. It had its own system of electricity, sewage, water supply and air. 60 kilometers from Magnitogorsk is the mountain resort of Abzakovo, in the mountain Yamantau is the underground residence of the president and the military headquarters. At the same time, the official status of Yamantau is a repository of state values.
Author:
Originator:
http://www.vz.ru/politics/2017/1/30/855636.html
48 comments
Ad

Subscribe to our Telegram channel, regularly additional information about the special operation in Ukraine, a large amount of information, videos, something that does not fall on the site: https://t.me/topwar_official

Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. Mavrikiy
    Mavrikiy 1 February 2017 05: 53
    +8
    Data on bunkers for the country's leadership in case of a nuclear war are classified as military and state secrets
    Bunkers are good, and bomb shelters are better. It is time to remove all bomb shelters from misuse, nationalize and restore. The people were thrown under the bombs.
    1. 210ox
      210ox 1 February 2017 06: 18
      +2
      The leadership will survive the blow, it is certain. The rest are not. Most of the shelters, unfortunately, will not be able to be restored. It may be possible in the capitals, but in the provinces, it is already impossible for us, the construction of new shelters.
      Quote: Mavrikiy
      Data on bunkers for the country's leadership in case of a nuclear war are classified as military and state secrets
      Bunkers are good, and bomb shelters are better. It is time to remove all bomb shelters from misuse, nationalize and restore. The people were thrown under the bombs.
      1. Andrey Yuryevich
        Andrey Yuryevich 1 February 2017 13: 30
        +6
        Quote: 210ox
        The manual will survive the blow, it is certain. The rest are not
        what for? go kicking radioactive ashes, and wait when you decompose? and underground, the meaning of "live"? and how much will you stretch? Once again, why?
      2. NordUral
        NordUral 1 February 2017 13: 54
        +11
        And it’s better to restore the Americans’ conviction that attacking us is very painful, but better - deadly for them. It's better than digging in like moles.
        1. Talgat
          Talgat 4 February 2017 17: 09
          0
          Quote: NordUral
          than digging in like moles


          It’s necessary not to "dig in - but simply remove everything important from the enemy

          The flying time for Moscow when hitting US atomic forces from the north is small

          Why not follow the advice of our ANAS and place the capital of the Eurasian Union in Astana? Let the Moscow bureaucrats come - we’ll build a new ruble for them.
        2. Volzhanin
          Volzhanin 6 February 2017 18: 11
          0
          Quote: NordUral
          And it’s better to restore the Americans’ conviction that attacking us is very painful, but better - deadly for them. It's better than digging in like moles.

          Exactly! For any person who possesses at least the rudiments of the brain, it is completely obvious that the damage from a nuclear war for Russia will be incomparably less than for America and geyropa. And smaller by several orders of magnitude!
          Well kudy break, DB? Russia and Russians are practically the only ones who can survive the nuclear conflict! These are so obvious things even for any hedgehog.
    2. To be or not to be
      To be or not to be 1 February 2017 09: 40
      +6
      What a nuclear war. Around the world, nuclear power plants and life-threatening production.
      Hitting them is death. JEROSIMA AND NAGASAKI. There are still consequences.
      What bunkers and bomb shelters.? In a nuclear war, a white sheet. Wrap up and stretch out.
      On the subject of secrecy, about spare PUs of senior management and districts - a secret for grandmothers. at the market selling seeds.
      1. Palch
        Palch 1 February 2017 15: 32
        +4
        To be or not to be - HEROSIMA is it probably from the word HERO ???
    3. max702
      max702 1 February 2017 13: 50
      +3
      Quote: Mavrikiy
      Bunkers are good, and bomb shelters are better. It is time to remove all bomb shelters from misuse, nationalize and restore.

      The point is not the slightest! DOES NOT SAVE! The sense of the fact that several tens of thousands will survive and why? What will they do then? How to revive civilization? Oleg Tarmashi has a cycle "Ancient" there is a lot of nonsense, but the nuclear apocalypse is described wonderfully so it will be! Except for a happy ending, because there is no such technology and is not expected .. So truly the living will envy the dead .. So there is no point in investing ohrenitelnye funds in bunkers and bomb shelters .. Stalin had the idea to build all new cities by no more than 200 the population (for any production is more than enough) so that with our area of ​​the country there will be maximum dispersion and a lower concentration of the population and means of the national economy, but this concept is not possible under capitalism since the infrastructure is very expensive with this type of construction .. This would be a real answer on the concept of "quick strike" (stupidly not enough weapons), and in the case of global kneading with the use of strategic nuclear forces, nothing will save the planet! it will be impossible to live on it even after tens or even hundreds of thousands of years ..
      1. Mavrikiy
        Mavrikiy 1 February 2017 16: 44
        +5
        So I say. Less need to read all nonsense. Oleg Tarmashi has a cycle "Ancient" there is a lot of nonsense, but the nuclear apocalypse is described wonderfully so it will be! DEFEATIST. Except for a happy ending,
        "Do business, people, business!" (Rosenbaum)
        “Will you reap, but this bread?” Thanks to such a philosophy, our ancestors survived and gave us life. And do not think that we got the coolest.
        1. max702
          max702 1 February 2017 22: 37
          0
          Quote: Mavrikiy
          Thanks to this philosophy, our ancestors survived and gave us life. And do not think that we got the coolest.

          So times have changed! Our ancestors with the planet Earth could not do anything with all their desire! And here we are easily! And yes, we didn’t get the coolest, we have everything ahead .. But after us there will be nothing to get and no one ..
  2. Uncle lee
    Uncle lee 1 February 2017 05: 54
    +19
    Chubais, Gaidar, Gref and the company caused damage to the country comparable to the losses in the Second World War! And do not need any nuclear weapons!
    1. Normal ok
      Normal ok 1 February 2017 18: 29
      0
      Quote: Uncle Lee
      Chubais, Gaidar, Gref and company

      Interestingly, it is this company 100% but has places in the bunkers.
      1. Vadim237
        Vadim237 1 February 2017 20: 45
        +1
        They, each with its own individual bunker, are full of children in Russia who build custom-made shelters.
        1. your1970
          your1970 5 February 2017 14: 16
          0
          and why? and then? did they survive? and drinking water bye-bye, rainfall is radioactive and acid, the sun has not been visible for at least ten years, it’s very cold again, the firewood is radioactive, oil / gas is inaccessible ...
  3. aszzz888
    aszzz888 1 February 2017 06: 19
    0
    The Chinese simply built shelters for members of the Politburo, and even for the municipal leadership. ”


    There is still a network of numerous tunnels and catacombs in the rocks. A nuclear bomb is not taken.
  4. rotmistr60
    rotmistr60 1 February 2017 07: 14
    +1
    Isn’t it easier instead of digging deeply and for a long time just trying to live in peace? And the United States still does not meddle in sovereign countries with its deceitful "democracy."
    1. novel66
      novel66 1 February 2017 09: 38
      +3
      I would like to, but some are humbling something, are we peaceful, but have not heard of any plan for our blow to the United States, but in the box?
    2. Vadim237
      Vadim237 1 February 2017 20: 49
      0
      “But it’s not easier, instead of digging deeply and for a long time just trying to live in peace” Of course, only nature itself can strike, abruptly than nuclear war — an asteroid, comet, supervolcano explosion — Chelyabinsk with a meteorite was lucky.
  5. Knowing
    Knowing 1 February 2017 07: 29
    0
    There will be no winners in the event of a nuclear strike, everyone should understand this. Trace: some Americans are simply trying to prove their need as a structure. IMHO.
    1. Uncle lee
      Uncle lee 1 February 2017 08: 20
      +4
      The USA is pushing the idea that somewhere out there a little pobahubaet and that's it, and they will sit behind their puddle! And do not be afraid of nuclear weapons!
      BUT !!! After the use of nuclear weapons on Earth, there will be no winners!
      1. Vadim237
        Vadim237 1 February 2017 20: 51
        +3
        There will be many winners on Earth - in other countries, islands and continents - they will quickly adapt to new life. And new world superpowers will appear.
  6. Mar.Tirah
    Mar.Tirah 1 February 2017 08: 31
    +13
    I began my service in the most dangerous direction of a missile strike, namely in Chukotka. In the first echelon of missile defense. Our connection was given only 15 minutes. The launch of a rocket from Alaska was five minutes. Our task was simply to warn Moscow. For e
    And that was a lot of work with satellites and the radar station. And in our direction we can repel as much as we can, with a retaliatory strike RSD10 Pioneer ((it’s 15Zh45, the factory name of the product, it’s SS-20 “Saber”) on command. Gorbachev with us began to surrender his homeland. To protect the United States. You need to return the bases there, so as not to tremble in the bunkers. Let them tremble, and consider bomb shelters.
    1. Simple
      Simple 1 February 2017 12: 47
      +2
      Quote: Mar. Tira
      I started my service in the most dangerous direction of a missile strike, namely in Chukotka ..... A missile arrives from Alaska for five minutes.

      you confuse something ... In Alaska, only the 2 base of the US Air Force (Joint Base Elmendorf-Richardson for example) + the missile defense base in Fort Greeley (but it seems to be with 1994)
      More precisely:
      Elmendorf, US Air Force headquarters in Alaska, F-15 aircraft (at that time).
      Shemaya-16 Air Force Observation Squadron.
      Kodiak missile base.
      Fort Grills-PRO.
      Gakhon is something very secretive, like an NSA or something.
      Fairbanks Air Force.
      Ladd Air Force.
      Eyemon Air Force.
      Ayelson-Air Force.
      Cold Bay Navy.
      Dutch Harbor Navy.
      Cold Navy Bay.
      Fort Richardson near Engrich. US Military Police Skier Courses.
      FBI offices in cities.


      What missiles are there "flying to the USSR / Russia"?

      Kodiak Launch Complex?
      The decision to build it was made in July 1991 (the "Pioneers" were gone). The first experimental launch of the rocket from the cosmodrome took place on November 5 1998 of the year.
      Total 5 launches up to 2014
      Minuteman III missile launch pad positional areas: abandoned and operational (ibid. MX)

      By and large, the US does not need ICBMs there.

      UPRN USA- yes.


      Quote: Mar. Tira
      And in our direction we can repel as much as we can, with a retaliatory strike RSD10 Pioneer ((aka 15ZHNUMX, the factory name of the product, it is also SS-45 “Saber”) on command.

      SS-20 - The Storm of Europe
      an operation was being prepared (BY USTINOVA INITIATIVE) to transfer to the Anadyr region and deploy the Pioneer RSD-10 there, which would threaten the northwestern, western US states, Alaska and the Aleutian Islands, along with all the radars controlling the northwestern missile direction, and nuclear submarine base near Seattle.

      1983 year - the USSR agreed to eliminate all its medium-range missiles being reduced in the European part of the country, and not to relocate them to the East, and generally expressed its readiness to have in Europe no more than 140 PU RSDs, less than in Great Britain and France.

      military unit 75414 - Object “C” Anadyr-1 (Magadan-11)?
      3 pcs RSD-10 "Pioneer"?
      In my opinion, bloggers are confused
      http://zavodfoto.livejournal.com/5027295.html
      they have there everywhere MAZ-547 (Temp-2С)
      laughing
      "Seven Commanders." author - former general director of the PGRK OU GSH RV general Kazydub


  7. cedar
    cedar 1 February 2017 09: 54
    +2
    Quote: Uncle Lee
    The USA is pushing the idea that somewhere out there a little pobahubaet and that's it, and they will sit behind their puddle! And do not be afraid of nuclear weapons!
    BUT !!! After the use of nuclear weapons on Earth, there will be no winners!


    I agree. "The living will envy the dead ..."
    1. V.ic
      V.ic 1 February 2017 10: 36
      +1
      Quote: cedar
      "The living will envy the dead

      "And do not rush to bury us,
      And we still have things to do here.
      We have children at home
      Yes, and just wanted to live ... "
      V. Shakhrin "Take your time ..."
    2. Vadim237
      Vadim237 1 February 2017 20: 53
      +1
      Living in bunkers - they will not envy the dead, they will live on, in the new environmental conditions.
  8. Prince of Pensions
    Prince of Pensions 1 February 2017 11: 03
    0
    Bunkers and Dead Hand
    Why not Dead Body? Or "In the back of a black man"?
    1. ssergn
      ssergn 1 February 2017 14: 46
      0
      Because everyone is dead, but from her all of a sudden. Answer
  9. Mar.Tirah
    Mar.Tirah 1 February 2017 13: 27
    +1
    Quote: Just
    Quote: Mar. Tira
    I started my service in the most dangerous direction of a missile strike, namely in Chukotka ..... A missile arrives from Alaska for five minutes.

    you confuse something ... In Alaska, only the 2 base of the US Air Force (Joint Base Elmendorf-Richardson for example) + the missile defense base in Fort Greeley (but it seems to be with 1994)
    More precisely:
    Elmendorf, US Air Force headquarters in Alaska, F-15 aircraft (at that time).
    Shemaya-16 Air Force Observation Squadron.
    Kodiak missile base.
    Fort Grills-PRO.
    Gakhon is something very secretive, like an NSA or something.
    Fairbanks Air Force.
    Ladd Air Force.
    Eyemon Air Force.
    Ayelson-Air Force.
    Cold Bay Navy.
    Dutch Harbor Navy.
    Cold Navy Bay.
    Fort Richardson near Engrich. US Military Police Skier Courses.
    FBI offices in cities.


    What missiles are there "flying to the USSR / Russia"?

    Kodiak Launch Complex?
    The decision to build it was made in July 1991 (the "Pioneers" were gone). The first experimental launch of the rocket from the cosmodrome took place on November 5 1998 of the year.
    Total 5 launches up to 2014
    Minuteman III missile launch pad positional areas: abandoned and operational (ibid. MX)

    By and large, the US does not need ICBMs there.

    UPRN USA- yes.


    Quote: Mar. Tira
    And in our direction we can repel as much as we can, with a retaliatory strike RSD10 Pioneer ((aka 15ZHNUMX, the factory name of the product, it is also SS-45 “Saber”) on command.

    SS-20 - The Storm of Europe
    an operation was being prepared (BY USTINOVA INITIATIVE) to transfer to the Anadyr region and deploy the Pioneer RSD-10 there, which would threaten the northwestern, western US states, Alaska and the Aleutian Islands, along with all the radars controlling the northwestern missile direction, and nuclear submarine base near Seattle.

    1983 year - the USSR agreed to eliminate all its medium-range missiles being reduced in the European part of the country, and not to relocate them to the East, and generally expressed its readiness to have in Europe no more than 140 PU RSDs, less than in Great Britain and France.

    military unit 75414 - Object “C” Anadyr-1 (Magadan-11)?
    3 pcs RSD-10 "Pioneer"?
    In my opinion, bloggers are confused
    http://zavodfoto.livejournal.com/5027295.html
    they have there everywhere MAZ-547 (Temp-2С)
    laughing
    "Seven Commanders." author - former general director of the PGRK OU GSH RV general Kazydub



    Well, I’ve taken it all and revealed it! Tell you in detail where I was, preferably with the location of the unit with photographs, missile divisions, cover zones? Years of service, in this or that position? Who was the commander of the anti-aircraft missile division, the Garrison. Ask not to be shy? By the way, among the VO visitors there is one person who served there just at the end of the 60s on R-14. I echoed with him
    1. your1970
      your1970 5 February 2017 14: 19
      +1
      and what is the secrecy? if there is nothing for at least 30 years?
  10. NordUral
    NordUral 1 February 2017 13: 49
    +1
    “All nuclear powers, especially the leading ones, have corresponding life support systems for statesmen if the scenario develops along a critical path. But the effectiveness of a nuclear strike may largely depend on where the country's leadership will be at the moment. For example, if someone decides to strike, when will the Olympics open? Or, for example, the anniversary of the Allied landings in Normandy, where the heads of several states gather. Imagine that at this moment a blow is struck there, ”Konovalov told the newspaper VIEW.

    Learn from Comrade Stalin - ride less and chat less.
  11. CYBERNINJA
    CYBERNINJA 1 February 2017 14: 03
    +1
    Deal ... What’s the point? Who will need contaminated land then? What to do with it? Wait? Why wait? Nuclear weapons, God forbid, of course, can only be used by a devil worshiper.
    1. V.ic
      V.ic 1 February 2017 15: 08
      +1
      Quote: CYBERNINDJA
      Nuclear weapons, God forbid, of course, can only be used by a devil worshiper.

      ... in USA there is even a .atana temple and a site is available ...
  12. Glory1974
    Glory1974 1 February 2017 20: 10
    +3
    In fact, nuclear war does not have great catastrophic consequences. According to the research of modern scientists, a conflict with the use of 1-2 of hundreds of nuclear strikes will be completely painless for humanity. Yes, some areas will become uninhabitable for a short time. Remember Hiroshima and Nagasaki - large cities where people live normally after nuclear explosions.

    In the middle of the 80's, in order to form public opinion in both the USSR and the West, an informational throw was made that in the event of a nuclear conflict there would come a "nuclear winter" and then a "nuclear summer" and the whole planet would die out. Films were shot, for example, Letters of a Dead Man, and after that disarmament began, and in simple terms, the surrender of the positions of the Soviet Union.
    At the moment, in the west, the possibility of a limited nuclear conflict is being considered, possibly using tactical nuclear weapons.
    1. Vadim237
      Vadim237 1 February 2017 21: 00
      +1
      In the future, nuclear will be replaced by isomeric charges, hypersonic missiles and planning blocks and pure hydrogen bombs - where hydrogen synthesis will be carried out with the help of a powerful electric pulse, work in the USA has been going on for several years.
    2. Odysseus
      Odysseus 2 February 2017 03: 11
      +3
      Quote: glory1974
      In fact, nuclear war does not have great catastrophic consequences. According to the research of modern scientists, a conflict with the use of 1-2 hundred nuclear strikes will be completely painless for humanity.

      The first sensible comment. The perestroika myths turned out to be surprisingly tenacious. Probably because even late Soviet propaganda spread them.
      Even by the standards of the 80s, the notorious death of mankind was a myth, and even now, when the arsenals were left crumbs to listen to the fact that "after a nuclear war there will be nothing" is simply ridiculous.
      By the way, one of the few strategic advantages of even modern Russia is that it is very vulnerable to nuclear weapons. Here we certainly have the most advantageous position of all the significant countries of the world.
    3. your1970
      your1970 5 February 2017 14: 31
      0
      in fact, nuclear war does not have great catastrophic consequences. According to the research of modern scientists, a conflict with the use of 1-2 hundred nuclear strikes will be completely painless for humanity. Yes, some areas will become uninhabitable for a short time. - you see, for Russia, the death of Moscow / St. Petersburg / Sverdlovsk / Samara / Saratov / Novosib
      Irska is already a complete disaster, simply because we will lose 40 million people in these cities. This is approximately 1/3 of the labor force and population of the country. After that - we can be taken with bare hands, without even fighting. We are not China - therefore it is critical for us.
      And it’s absolutely unimportant / suitable / some areas will not be suitable for life, we simply will have SOMEONE to live there ... even if we knock out all the major US cities, there will still be at least 250 million ...
      And this is not a horror story .....
      1. Glory1974
        Glory1974 5 February 2017 17: 10
        0
        You see, for Russia, the death of Moscow / St. Petersburg / Sverdlovsk / Samara / Saratov / Novosib
        Irska is already a complete disaster


        You are absolutely right. But this is a disaster for us, not for our enemies. The thing is that the rest of the world will not perish. Therefore, a nuclear conflict is quite possible.
  13. Captain Nemo
    Captain Nemo 1 February 2017 22: 06
    +1
    I’ll tell you a secret. For a year now, the state of the bomb and other shelters has been revised and instructions issued to the balance-holders on putting them in order.
    1. Vadim237
      Vadim237 2 February 2017 00: 17
      0
      And what will this revision give? There is no money for the restoration of hundreds of thousands of shelters, all over Russia - one hell.
  14. gaudin
    gaudin 2 February 2017 09: 01
    0
    Quote: Odyssey
    Even by the standards of the 80s, the notorious death of mankind was a myth, and even now, when the arsenals were left crumbs to listen to the fact that "after a nuclear war there will be nothing" is simply ridiculous.

    If after Chernobyl alone there were so many problems, then what about the explosions of 100-200 warheads? Yes, the whole earth is evenly covered with radioactive dust, even those areas that have not been hit.
    1. Glory1974
      Glory1974 2 February 2017 11: 34
      0
      If after Chernobyl alone there were so many problems, then what about the explosions of 100-200 warheads?


      A nuclear strike is not as dangerous as a nuclear power plant explosion.
      Example: Hiroshima and Nagasaki - people didn’t leave there, they lived permanently. Chernobyl - you can’t live.
  15. gaudin
    gaudin 2 February 2017 14: 25
    0
    Quote: glory1974
    Example: Hiroshima and Nagasaki - people didn’t leave from there, they lived permanently.

    Those who survived are still being treated for radiation sickness. All industrial facilities, ports, etc. will be the main targets for the defeat, but about the nuclear plants in general I am silent. The goal of atomic strikes to drive the country into the Stone Age, people themselves will die out of the lack of food, electricity, water and sewage
    1. Glory1974
      Glory1974 5 February 2017 16: 59
      0
      Those who survived are still being treated for radiation sickness.


      The last survivors, they are called "habomai" in Japan - an atomic person, die at the age of 80-90 years. I do not know from radiation sickness or from old age.
    2. Glory1974
      Glory1974 5 February 2017 17: 07
      0
      The goal of atomic strikes to drive the country into the Stone Age, people themselves will die out of the lack of food, electricity, water and sewage


      To bomb in the Stone Age, nuclear strikes are not required. Look at Yugoslavia, Libya.

      All industrial facilities, ports, etc. will be the main targets for the defeat, but about the nuclear plants in general I am silent.


      A nuclear station can be hit by a cruise missile, the result will be the same.
      The point is that with a high-altitude detonation of nuclear weapons (and this is the most effective detonation), a very small focus of radioactive contamination of the area is formed. Such an explosion will not be critical for residents in the sense of radiation, in the sense of destruction, yes.
      In the explosion of a nuclear power station, on the contrary, a very large radioactive contamination, with which it is extended in time and poorly predicted. Therefore, the detonation of nuclear power plants is an order of magnitude more dangerous than a nuclear explosion.
  16. Darth Revan
    Darth Revan 2 February 2017 21: 38
    +1
    Quote: glory1974
    In fact, nuclear war does not have great catastrophic consequences. According to the research of modern scientists, a conflict with the use of 1-2 of hundreds of nuclear strikes will be completely painless for humanity. Yes, some areas will become uninhabitable for a short time. Remember Hiroshima and Nagasaki - large cities where people live normally after nuclear explosions.

    In the middle of the 80's, in order to form public opinion in both the USSR and the West, an informational throw was made that in the event of a nuclear conflict there would come a "nuclear winter" and then a "nuclear summer" and the whole planet would die out. Films were shot, for example, Letters of a Dead Man, and after that disarmament began, and in simple terms, the surrender of the positions of the Soviet Union.
    At the moment, in the west, the possibility of a limited nuclear conflict is being considered, possibly using tactical nuclear weapons.


    That's right. All these horror stories were invented thirty or forty years ago ...
  17. g1washntwn
    g1washntwn 6 February 2017 09: 41
    0
    The Americans are now actively working to make the JBF less "dirty." What this threatens everyone perfectly understands. This reduces the psychological barrier to its use, and therefore increases the risk of its mass use. What is alarming, they are not going to give up their global attacks, although they predict the inevitable and very incomparable damage. It seems that they are even ready for such a "exchange of pieces." And here it becomes clear such a "concern for the environment" - the "chosen elite" does not plan to live in the United States, it does not require much, the expeditionary-occupying forces will cope with any country in the relatively clean southern hemisphere. Therefore, I would do in the opposite direction - the strategic nuclear forces containment should be very, very “cobalt” so that no one would have the feeling that there was a chance to survive somewhere with retaliation.
    And bomb shelters are a relic of conventional weapons, almost all of them will fall under the blows if not the first wave, then the second or third are already guaranteed. At the root of the US strategy is the extermination of the population of the territories of interest to them with resources, which is why the “concern for the environment” is applied both with the use of nuclear weapons and with new measures to reduce the population of “natives” by non-military methods.