Military Review

How do we treat nuclear weapons? Is this a deterrent factor of aggression or a weapon of attack?

36
Often after the publication of materials related to the concepts of nuclear weapons different countries, stumble on negative, or vice versa, the responses of our readers in assessing weapons systems, in assessing the probability of using nuclear weapons, etc. Oddly enough, but such comments are quite logical. Just because discussions about this are going on at a very serious level today. Specialists, who largely determine the strategy of states in this matter, in the same way confirm or refute the views of opponents.


How do we treat nuclear weapons? Is this a deterrent factor of aggression or a weapon of attack?


Often there are also accusations of anyone, including the author, of incompetence or "Soviet-like" thinking. Like our infallible faith in the newspaper news in USSR. And unwillingness to read primary sources. And what, may I ask, is the modern Internet different from Soviet newspapers? Nothing. There are answers to the questions (any!) Of completely opposite directions. And if you wish, you can always refer exactly to the opinion that you need now. But the conclusions of many to do just forgot how. Just consume the information. And without giving out a new one ...

In one of the publications I wrote about the possibility of Russia's use of nuclear weapons first. Immediately there was a specialist who reproached the author of incompetence. There is no such thing in the Russian military doctrine! Therefore, I will move away from the principle of “read and think for yourself” and explain my position to the supporters of the opponent’s point of view.

"The Russian Federation reserves the right to use nuclear weapons ... in the event of aggression against the Russian Federation with the use of conventional weapons, when the very existence of the state is threatened." And then about the purpose of such a blow: "... inflicting unacceptable damage to the aggressor in any conditions of the situation."

This is a direct text from our military doctrine. So do we have the right to strike with nuclear weapons first or not? And who tries to read, but not think? ..

If we look at the modern world from the point of view of a change in the geopolitical situation, and it’s impossible to argue with the fact that this is happening, then a picture emerges of a revival of the confrontation between the USA and Russia, like the United States and the USSR once were. We, whatever the leaders of our countries say, are being sucked into a new arms race. Including nuclear ...

Somehow it so happened that with the filing of politicians and the media, nuclear weapons became in our heads a purely defensive type of weaponry. "Nuclear deterrence factor" ... And most importantly, most do not even think about whether this is so. From the point of view of common sense, it should be so ... And meanwhile, it suffices to look at the concept of the use of nuclear weapons in those 9 countries that have such weapons so that such confidence disappears.

USA? Since Soviet times, the American military doctrine has allowed the use of such weapons against Russia. As well, the concept of Britain and France as US allies in NATO. But with the Europeans more difficult. Having the concept of use, they have quite limited technical capabilities of attack. According to most experts, the British and French even today possess nuclear weapons, the most relevant to the stated principle of retaliation.

Pakistan? Here, even the question of nuclear weapons as a weapon of retaliation did not stand. It immediately was and remains offensive. And this is simply explained. Pakistan is a likely opponent of India. Consequently, the superiority of the enemy in conventional weapons and manpower must be compensated by something. This "something" and are operational-tactical and medium-range missiles.

DPRK? The nuclear weapons of the country are so limited in number and power, as well as in delivery vehicles, that the only possibility of its application is precisely the first strike. Hit the bases and the fleet USA as well as Japan. Koreans today in the nuclear club play the role of a kind of kamikaze. Hit and die ...

PRC? Until recently, nuclear weapons were really viewed as a counter strike weapon. But with the advent of high-precision non-nuclear systems of long-range destruction with the USA (and with us), the concept has changed. The Chinese will simply have to use nuclear weapons first in case of conflict. Either apply or lose. Such is the alternative.

Russia? I wrote about this above. I think that for those who read, everything fell into place.

India? Officially, the Indians have declared retaining the concept of a weapon of retribution only for non-nuclear states. But in reality, the situation of the Indian nuclear forces is exactly the same as the Chinese. So ...

Well, Israel ... Although officially this country does not have nuclear weapons, everyone knows that it is in the "zagashnik". It is clear that the country is constantly surrounded by potential enemies. The probability of attack is quite large. But there are no nuclear states. Therefore, the use of nuclear weapons Israel will be the first ...

I understand that now in the minds of some readers is happening. How so? But what about the conversations of the presidents of the great powers about nuclear weapons as a deterrent and a guarantee of peace? How can we now take the words about the SNF as guarantors of the prevention of aggression? It turns out that all words are nothing? ..

All members of the "nuclear club" are ready to use nuclear weapons first!

And let's remember what the presidents of countries possessing such weapons say. Literally everything. I will not quote all these statements. Just set out the theses in your own words. So, we can use nuclear weapons to prevent aggression on our country with the use of non-nuclear (!) Forces. See the above quote from our doctrine. Simply put, today all the countries of the “nuclear club” talk about protection against aggression, even if they use nuclear weapons from their side before the start of this aggression! We will attack in order to defend against possible attack. Like that.

By the way, such an approach is not an invention of the politicians of these countries. Any war that takes place on the planet today is always defensive! Anyone! Hitler is probably the last of the heads of state who bluntly declared an offensive, aggressive war.

We entered Afghanistan for what purpose? In order to prevent a possible attack on our southern regions. Americans are in other countries why? Exactly with the same goals. Even a conflict in a neighboring state now, which is already being spoken about all over the world as a civil war, is officially a defensive war! NATO is moving to our borders for defense ...

But back to the concept of using nuclear weapons for defensive purposes. There is one more thing to be aware of. The nuance seems insignificant, but in fact it fits perfectly into the defensive doctrine of the use of strategic nuclear forces. I'm talking about nuclear weapons of various capacities.

Remember the Soviet concept of using nuclear weapons in response to a nuclear attack? The concept, which is largely preserved in the minds of people. In response to the blow of the enemy, we have all the power ... Simply put, we will answer the spit in our direction with a hook to the right. To the enemy after the knockout and did not think to spit with a toothless mouth.

What about today? Even in Soviet times, military and politicians around the world talked about the futility of nuclear war. What is the point of destroying cities and enterprises with nuclear weapons if later they cannot be used? What is the point of such a victory? The destruction of people and territories?

It was then that the concept of a limited nuclear strike appeared. We will beat not on cities and factories, and on army units and divisions. And we will hit not with powerful ammunition, but with low-power charges. Handsomely? Dosed and strictly controlled use of nuclear weapons ...

Today, generally talking about the incredible use of nuclear weapons. For example, for an incoming enemy, low-power ammunition is used. What do you think, why? Not to destroy. Not even to enable their troops to prepare defensive lines. No, nuclear weapons are used in order to "sober up the hot heads" ... That's it! A sort of "pickle" with a hangover.

And if not "sober"? Then the "pickle" is more powerful. And so on until the complete destruction of the "drunkard." The Americans called this concept "limited nuclear war" ...

Remember the American atomic bomb stored at German military bases? B-61-12? Aviation variable charge bomb. Power can be increased or decreased. What application concept is it suitable for? But it’s not clear if NATO starts a war with Russia, uses these same bombs with a small nuclear charge, then we will "sober up"? Raise your hands up and give up? Or vice versa, we use tactical nuclear weapons, and Americans - paws up? Where are the mental health professionals? ..

In general, today it’s stupid to talk about the use of nuclear weapons as a deterrent to aggression. A weapon, no matter how defensive it is, can always be used to attack. Mina - defensive or offensive weapon? Modern air defense and missile defense systems - defensive? There are many such questions.

But there are others. In particular, nuclear specialists from some of the former Soviet republics where have they gone? Will they, given the economic possibilities of modern terrorists, be able to create nuclear weapons for them? And then how will we consider this weapon?

I did not manage to meet the format of a single article. Too many thoughts. Too much is changing today in military affairs as well. It became too dangerous to treat nuclear weapons as a defensive weapon. So to be continued ...
Author:
36 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. corporal
    corporal 14 July 2017 06: 53
    +2
    The purely defensive nuclear weapons were, perhaps, the nuclear mines laid during the Cold War in Western Europe.
    By the way, I won’t be surprised if Russia has to use this concept over time.
    1. Rus2012
      Rus2012 14 July 2017 08: 46
      +1
      Quote: Corporal
      Landmines laid during the Cold War in Western Europe.
      By the way, I won’t be surprised if Russia has to use this concept over time.

      ... for justice, in fact, NFs have never been installed!
      PLACES were selected, prepared ... BUT nothing more!

      And both our "sworn friends" and us.
      Who served in the UR-ah on the Soviet-Chinese border, he knows ...
      1. umah
        umah 14 July 2017 11: 18
        +4
        In general, today it’s silly to talk about the use of nuclear weapons as a deterrent to aggression

        Let's look back: Iraq, Libya, Syria, which do not have nuclear weapons, are in ruins. Iran and North Korea, which have nuclear weapons, continue to exist. So this is definitely a deterrence weapon.
      2. aKtoR
        aKtoR 14 July 2017 16: 56
        +1
        Maybe he knows, but he hardly saw it)))
        Structures for their installation were also prepared in the North Caucasus
    2. siberalt
      siberalt 14 July 2017 11: 27
      +4
      "What is the difference between the Internet and Soviet newspapers ..."? And what is the difference from what was not? request How can you compare the incomparable. Moreover, when there was no Internet, newspapers were published all over the world, as well as now, but what does the Soviet have to do with it? Or the author has nothing more to do, how to chew his own gum? belay
      1. Reklastik
        Reklastik 14 July 2017 12: 39
        0
        In general, it is very unfortunate that you can not complain about the author of the article, otherwise he will first accuse everyone that few people are able to draw conclusions now, and then he brings such a blizzard that he needs to call a doctor. “There are many questions, many changes” - well, let him understand this himself before writing. Well this is not an analysis, it's some kind of smearing with a finger on the glass.
    3. ava09
      ava09 16 July 2017 09: 42
      +5
      Quote: Corporal
      The purely defensive nuclear weapons were, perhaps, the nuclear mines laid during the Cold War in Western Europe.
      By the way, I won’t be surprised if Russia has to use this concept over time.

  2. The brightest
    The brightest 14 July 2017 07: 11
    0
    For answers here, Khrushchev’s cannon reveals the topic particularly well. https://topwar.ru/118041-slovarnyy-zaryad.html
  3. Altona
    Altona 14 July 2017 07: 39
    0
    Defensive and offensive "Status-6". Powerful and invisible.
    1. Voyager
      Voyager 16 July 2017 09: 22
      0
      Status 6 is rather a weapon of retaliation.
  4. Boris55
    Boris55 14 July 2017 08: 10
    0
    The USSR was destroyed not by a nuclear bomb, but by a word. One of them is perestroika, the meaning of which was understood by each in his own way and the country was spread.
  5. Battle Swimmer
    Battle Swimmer 14 July 2017 08: 20
    +5
    TNW is our all, it is not for nothing that we are constantly being pushed to reduce it! If an ICBM is the end to everyone, then tactical charges allow you to solve combined arms problems. Moreover, TNW will need to be applied constantly, so as not to be boring)
    1. domokl
      14 July 2017 08: 59
      +3
      Quote: Battle Swimmer
      TNW is our everything

      A very controversial statement ... Given the location of Russia and the "likely friend". TNW way to the classic war. We have destruction and death of people, and they have everything in chocolate ...
    2. aKtoR
      aKtoR 14 July 2017 16: 57
      +1
      Exactly
  6. Olgovich
    Olgovich 14 July 2017 09: 02
    +5
    The concept of a limited nuclear strike appeared. We’ll not hit the cities and factories, but the army units and units

    I think that there will be no limited nuclear war, and ALL parties will IMMEDIATELY switch to a global nuclear war, because they will be afraid that the enemy will move to a higher level first.
    And the first has a huge advantage.
    And history has given such a right-Russia.
    1. Brother Fox
      Brother Fox 14 July 2017 11: 11
      +2
      Quote: Olgovich
      I think that there will be no limited nuclear war and ALL parties will IMMEDIATELY switch to a global nuclear war, because they will be afraid that the enemy will go to a higher level first.

      Are you seriously?! It turns out the brains of a man is useless? One must imagine what nuclear war is. It is one thing to discuss nuclear weapons, another to use it.
      1. Astoria
        Astoria 14 July 2017 12: 11
        +1
        It turns out the brains of a man is useless?
        - Brother Fox - people themselves are not judged laughing
        1. Brother Fox
          Brother Fox 14 July 2017 12: 29
          +1
          Quote: Astoria
          - Brother Fox - people themselves are not judged

          I didn’t mean the author of the comment and he thinks he can answer for himself, but do you see my own poison no longer able to swallow? The fact of the matter is that anyone can spit saliva and throw out anger, but think ...
          1. Astoria
            Astoria 14 July 2017 12: 43
            +1
            Brother Fox - people are not judged by themselves laughing
    2. Bastinda
      Bastinda 14 July 2017 16: 34
      +1
      Why fight? You can buy everything, go to the store, and buy something made in Russia. Without the participation of the West? We have already been made ... Putin is just continuing.
  7. Starik72
    Starik72 14 July 2017 09: 56
    0
    Nuclear weapons are weapons of destruction of the civilization of earthlings, whoever uses it, first or in return! As I understand this question raised. Sincerely.
  8. Kostadinov
    Kostadinov 14 July 2017 10: 34
    0
    Nuclear weapons are real weapons of the world. The demonstration that there is a nuclear weapon reliably restrains any aggressor.
    The first work of the aggressor will establish that the victim does not have nuclear weapons.
    In all examples of Vichy, nuclear weapons will be used in response to aggression, or rather they will not be used because the aggressor understands this.
  9. Kostadinov
    Kostadinov 14 July 2017 10: 45
    0
    Quote: Olgovich
    And the first has a huge advantage

    The first not only has no advantages, but the risk for it is many times greater than in a nuclear war with the use of strategic forces.
    If his first blow hits the already mines, then he lost the war.
  10. g1washntwn
    g1washntwn 14 July 2017 11: 18
    +1
    Rhetorical questions. Everything is much simpler:
    Any weapon is an attack weapon.

    But why are you attacking, to protect your home or to rob a stranger - that's another question.
  11. Brother Fox
    Brother Fox 14 July 2017 11: 39
    +1
    "Do you use nuclear weapons first?" Suppose we discard thoughts of a nuclear disaster, which still will not make it possible to present the picture that will manifest itself during a nuclear war. But we reason as if we already had experience. Hiroshima is not at all what to take as its basis. What will be the consequences? What story will we leave to our descendants? "We destroyed our enemies in a cruel and brutal way, but we had the right to do so." No one has the rights to this! This should be decided by everyone, not someone, focusing on the American aggressors, and most do not need this nuclear war: people, civilians, children live on earth. Will our descendants then live with this? "Our ancestors saved the world from the American threat by first incinerating the planet," they will think so. Fascists, in comparison with those who use nuclear weapons will be just robbers. The only thing that needs to be done is to turn to your mind and begin disarmament, and for Russia it will be quite natural, as for the peacemaker of the planet. Where is the world? Where is life Why war? The author is not reproaching you for this, the topic is hot and needs to be discussed, but you need to come in from the point of view of nobility.
    1. Astoria
      Astoria 14 July 2017 12: 08
      +5
      Nuclear weapons are perhaps the only way to stop the third world war, and until there is nothing new that could replace it - any talk about disarmament and peacekeeping is not worth the paper on which they are written.
      1. AUL
        AUL 14 July 2017 17: 38
        +1
        The only thing that needs to be done is to turn to your mind and begin disarmament, and for Russia it will be quite natural, as for the peacemaker of the planet.
        Eco brought you, Brother Fox! Well, let's say, they destroyed all their nuclear weapons. Totally zero. And what, peace and grace at once? Yeah, shchazz! Do you think we will pull the usual, non-nuclear war against the NATO bloc? Unfortunately no. I think no one will argue with this, except for juvenile misery. What about Japan’s claim to the islands? Also, after all, he will not trample alone if something happens. And the oil views of China on our Siberia? By and large, non-nuclear war is a competition of economies, and in this regard we are far from the first place. Therefore, nuclear disarmament is beyond our means!
        Good must be with fists! (C)
        1. Brother Fox
          Brother Fox 14 July 2017 18: 02
          +1
          You know what the pessimist usually says: “I won’t do anything, I won’t succeed!”, And the optimist answers him: “Do you try!”, What remains between them, I think you will guess. I know that no one will run to disarm, but mind you, no one even talks about it! Of course, there is a threat from all sides, and what is the only way out - war? And I thought we were reasonable (Homo Sapiens), at least we think so. If there were strong leaders, we would have put things in order long ago. keeping people at bay is beneficial.
          1. AUL
            AUL 15 July 2017 08: 14
            +2
            Of course, there is a threat from all sides, and what is the only way out - war? And I thought we were reasonable (Homo Sapiens), at least we think so.
            So, so that war does not happen and you need to have an argument that cannot be refuted! And counting on the rationality of Homo Sapiens is at least naive. The history of mankind is the history of wars!
  12. Old26
    Old26 14 July 2017 17: 42
    +2
    Quote: umah
    In general, today it’s silly to talk about the use of nuclear weapons as a deterrent to aggression

    Let's look back: Iraq, Libya, Syria, which do not have nuclear weapons, are in ruins. Iran and North Korea, which have nuclear weapons, continue to exist. So this is definitely a deterrence weapon.

    First, Iran does not have nuclear weapons.
    In-2. Yes, Iraq and Libya are in ruins, but do you really think that if the potential aggressor has the political will to destroy the DPRK, then the presence of two dozen nuclear weapons will be a brake that will prevent aggression against the DPRK from occurring? After all, not the "aggressor" will suffer, but its "allies." The same is with Libya and Iraq. the maximum that Iraq had was somewhat modified Soviet operational-tactical missiles. Moreover, the maximum that they could cover is Israel. the "initiator" of aggression remains out of reach. Iran is the same. True, the missile forces are somewhat more powerful, they can cover Western Europe, including France. But again, not the "most important thing."

    So here we can really say that nuclear weapons are a tool to solve their own problems, of primary importance, and not just weapons of deterrence. It becomes a weapon of deterrence only if the carriers of a country can not only "reach" the "aggressor", but inflict such damage on it so that the victory of the other side would become a Pyrrhic one. And only two countries can do this. Russia and the USA. In relation to each other, this weapon is deterrence.

    Everything else is IMHO the usual verbal husk about the "cooling off of hot heads" through limited point punches. Well, if it is one, not a nuclear state, then it is possible. What if the coalition? Which one will include a pair of nuclear states, even if not of the first magnitude? Does anyone believe that such targeted strikes will stop aggression and that such a war will not develop into a full-scale one?

    Quote: Altona
    Defensive and offensive "Status-6". Powerful and invisible.

    And invisible, because in fact it is a fake.
  13. gladcu2
    gladcu2 14 July 2017 18: 26
    +1
    I am not a professional historian, I could be wrong.

    For 300 years Russia has not waged aggressive wars. Entrance to Afghanistan, oddly enough it may be for the author, but it was friendly help. And so the political bureau actually saw it.

    Even tsarist Russia entered the First World War as a guarantor of the world. Remember who created the court in The Hague. This Russia created, as a court, excluding a military solution to the issue.

    Based on this point of view, Russia gains an undeniable advantage in the case of the use of nuclear weapons solely for the purpose of protection. And an advantage, both in delivering an attractive blow, and in choosing targets for defeat. But if it’s serious, then first of all the goals will be mainly objects of the economy.

    Russia does not wage aggressive wars. While in power is about the communist leadership. I want to say that GDP works for balance and equilibrium in society, and this is the Communist idea. But everything can change, as the economic system dictates politics. Capitalism is the most aggressive form of economy.
    1. Black5Raven
      Black5Raven 15 July 2017 15: 52
      0
      Quote: gladcu2
      Russia has not waged wars of conquest for 300 years

      One word - Finnish yes
      1. Aleksandr12
        Aleksandr12 17 July 2017 11: 18
        0
        Finland bit off a piece from Russia into a civilian one. Therefore, revenge was inevitable. A plus to the war was that Finland was very negative about the Bolsheviks and did not hide it. This cannot be called a purely war of conquest. A pre-emptive strike was struck on enemy territory with the movement of borders smile At one time, Ivan Vasilievich thus took Kazan smile and Catherine Crimea hi
  14. iouris
    iouris 14 July 2017 20: 41
    0
    Nuclear weapons should be treated like the last grenade.
  15. nnz226
    nnz226 14 July 2017 22: 07
    +1
    Without nuclear weapons, we would have been bombed into democracy! It should be borne in mind that in the beginning of the 90, thanks to the rule of the drunk Borka, the fat Yegorushka, and the infamous redhead, the Russian armed forces represented (according to the donkey IA) "a miserable sight! A heartbreaking sight!" And only the fear of "Satan" and others like them slowed down the "democratic impulses of the" civilized "(???) Western world" ...
  16. Kostadinov
    Kostadinov 17 July 2017 15: 40
    0
    Quote: Old26
    First, Iran does not have nuclear weapons. In-1. Yes, Iraq and Libya are in ruins, but do you really think that if the potential aggressor has the political will to destroy the DPRK, then the presence of two dozen nuclear weapons will be a brake that will prevent aggression against the DPRK from occurring?

    1. Iran does not have nuclear weapons but has everything necessary for its very rapid production and eats delivery vehicles to the target if Iran is attacked.
    2. Besides aggression, the aggressor’s political will must destroy the DPRK’s political will: a) an unknown number (from ten to several hundred) of nuclear strikes in the territory of their troops, allies and their own territory is accepted b) they spend most of their nuclear potential even will not have time to destroy a large part of the underground structures and withdraw from the DPRK war for at least 1-2 years c) reconcile with the proliferation of nuclear weapons in such states as Iran, Syria, Cuba, Venezuela, Lebanon (Hezbola) and so on.