Is it difficult to cross the red line? Then let's move this "line"?
Today there is no person who would not be interested in politics to one degree or another. Just because politics is more and more interested in us. Whether we want it or not, but the confrontation between the two nuclear powers, the United States and the DPRK, is spoken on television, media reports speak to companies. Someone with caution, someone dismissive, someone with a mockery. But the topic is really serious.
Any sane person understands that in the case of the use of nuclear weapons, humanity will move to a completely new type of relationship. The horror that the Japanese experienced in 1945 year is not perceived today by horror. Just one of the "horror stories" that modern film distribution issues in large numbers every year. And footage chronicles, in which we see the results of the work of atomic bombs, for most of it is the movie. And, like any movie, the event will end. And then we will go all the same street. Let's go to your familiar world. We will do the usual things. Educate children and grandchildren. In the real world nothing will change ... Cinema ...
And the heads of those who are directly connected with nuclear weapons have a strong opinion that this weapon will never be applied. There are no idiots, especially among those who understand the destructive power of these weapons. Humanity, the pinnacle of the development of the living is not Earth! It will not allow self-destruction! Therefore, a strange name stuck for nuclear weapons - "Doomsday weapon". And the hope of the human mind received a different formulation, the "red line". The line that will never cross ...
For a long time, nuclear weapons are used more as a political weapon. A weapon that perfectly "cools the hot heads of hawks." Therefore, the development of these munitions went in one direction. Power leveling and development of delivery systems. “Doomsday Weapons” should be powerful and, when applied, deprive the enemy of the possibility to continue the war. The results of the application were considered, for the most part, by the damaging factors. By the ability to destroy military infrastructure and troops in foreign territory. A "response" to such an impact should give the machine. All sorts of "dead hands" and stuff. There was no opportunity to do it with “living hands” ...
Today, in the light of the confrontation between the United States and the DPRK, they began to consider a completely different version. The use of nuclear weapons by one of the parties, no matter what, will automatically cause irreparable damage to third countries. It is doubtful of course that the threats of the Koreans are feasible. Guam missiles are unlikely to reach, not to mention the main territory of the United States. And American missiles? Will they fly to the DPRK? And what about the other two nuclear powers? The damaging factors of a nuclear explosion will not only destroy Koreans, but also "affect" Russians in the Far East and Chinese in the border regions. Should we answer? Destroy the USA?
Be that as it may, the US military is also thinking about this issue. It's one thing North Koreans, the other Chinese and Russian. And Americans are very afraid of hitting their own country. Anyone. For Americans of war, the usual tele picture is more likely than killing people and destroying cities. And they must be somewhere far away. In Europe. In Asia. In Africa ... America as a "sacred cow." Inviolable.
Recently, a conference was held at the Mitchelov Aerospace Research Institute, at which exactly these issues were discussed. It is no secret that in private, such discussions have been going on for a long time. Moreover, they were conducted not only in the United States, but also in other nuclear countries. The weapon is expensive, but it cannot be used. And I want ... In order to save. Instead of hundreds of billions of dollars in the Iraq campaign, one could manage with hundreds of millions ... Economy.
The conference would not even be mentioned in the media if it were not for the fact that such private discussions for the first time reached the official level. For the first time, official representatives of the American army spoke about the use of nuclear weapons in a “new way”. And quite a high level. The Deputy Head of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Paul Selva.
"If the only thing we can offer the US president is a super-powerful weapon with a high level of indiscriminate defeat, then there is essentially nothing to offer the president."
I allow myself to retell the General’s speech in the “conclusive mode”. Just point by point.
The United States must return to the middle of the last century and begin developing low-power (like those used in Hiroshima and Nagasaki) nuclear weapons. The army should have ammunition of various capacities in order to be able to respond quickly to emerging threats from non-nuclear states. And in order that their use does not cause a response in the "nuclear" neighbors, it is necessary to develop and adopt new rules and instructions for the use of "low-power" nuclear weapons.
"There must be will, military equipment and the possibility for their use. Without this, no deterrence is possible."
So, we have a fundamentally new approach on the part of the American command to the use of nuclear weapons. Now we are not talking about the very possibility of using. Now we are talking about the "new rules" and "new approaches." And all this “dish” is “seasoned” with ordinary words about the containment of China and Russia. True, in light of the recent statements by Trump, Iran and North Korea have also fallen into this company.
In Western countries, at the suggestion of the United States, the idea has long been established that a modern, high-tech, high-precision, and other "high" weapon is the guarantor of the rapid defeat of any enemy. For example, just look at the former brotherly country. "Idol" in the form of "Javelina" and other American "toys" there has long been the subject of universal worship. Most believe that as soon as the supply of these complexes begins, the war will end quickly.
That is why the average person has a completely reasonable thought. And why don't nuclear warheads be put on this most advanced weapon? After all, the blow will be inflicted, for example, on an underground bunker. Bomb arrived. Break through the shelter. Blew up inside. Destroyed the enemies and ... everything. On the surface, nothing will happen. And if you hit the enemy ships in the same way? Babahnul inside and the ship infected with radiation went to the bottom of the sea ...
It seems to me that it was on this opinion that General Selva decided to play. Support for such an approach to nuclear weapons is guaranteed not only by ordinary people, but also in Congress. American politicians always remember future elections. And in this situation, President Trump will be forced to consider this issue. Moreover, it will resolve the issue positively. Money for research in this area will be allocated. The army will receive another batch of modern weapons.
How to respond to us? And is it worth reacting to such statements at all? Alas, but it is necessary to react. Precisely because they are made by people quite knowledgeable and possessing power.
Imagine a hypothetical situation. The United States strikes a small-capacity nuclear weapons on our ally, with whom we have an agreement on mutual assistance. They just destroyed a city, a province or some small area. There simply destroyed military units. And radioactive contamination does not particularly threaten our territory. So what? Start the "last war"? Or do not care about all contracts and pretend that we "do not see the need to intervene in a local conflict"? I even present the headlines in this case. "Is planet Earth worth the city of N ...".
Nuclear countries have already changed the world. And they didn’t notice in their own ambitions that it continues to change without their participation. If not stronger. We "did not notice" the appearance of nuclear weapons in some countries. One of the main claims against the DPRK is “the creation of nuclear weapons” that violates international treaties. And why there were no such claims to Pakistan or India? Why did Israel quietly do this?
Today we saw a completely wild idea just recently. Nobody shouts about the speech of the official representative of the Pentagon. The military require nuclear weapons, which will be applied without destroying the entire social, political and economic infrastructure. Do not threaten to use, and apply. Just like another type of conventional ammunition. That’s all.
And then a simple question arises. And what about small countries? And how right is the North Korean leader, who at an accelerated pace creates his nuclear weapons? Is there any guarantee for such "babies" to remain in this world as states? What will be left of Cuba if the United States applies tactical nuclear weapons on its territory? And what will remain of any state in the Baltics if we apply there? What will be left of most European countries? After all, this is just tactical nuclear weapons! Only...
The "red line" that has kept the peace for so many years can be "moved" by the efforts of the United States. What I noticed, naturally, was also noticed by those who, as a matter of duty, dealt with defense issues in Russia, China, India, Israel and other nuclear countries. And small countries are thinking.
Probably, we are entering a new stage of historical development. Closer and closer "the use of bows and stone axes." Those who will be able to survive beyond the new "red line" ... On the stage of the "world theater" a "gun on the wall" appeared ... Interestingly, someone has calculated what the "act of the play" is now.
Any sane person understands that in the case of the use of nuclear weapons, humanity will move to a completely new type of relationship. The horror that the Japanese experienced in 1945 year is not perceived today by horror. Just one of the "horror stories" that modern film distribution issues in large numbers every year. And footage chronicles, in which we see the results of the work of atomic bombs, for most of it is the movie. And, like any movie, the event will end. And then we will go all the same street. Let's go to your familiar world. We will do the usual things. Educate children and grandchildren. In the real world nothing will change ... Cinema ...
And the heads of those who are directly connected with nuclear weapons have a strong opinion that this weapon will never be applied. There are no idiots, especially among those who understand the destructive power of these weapons. Humanity, the pinnacle of the development of the living is not Earth! It will not allow self-destruction! Therefore, a strange name stuck for nuclear weapons - "Doomsday weapon". And the hope of the human mind received a different formulation, the "red line". The line that will never cross ...
For a long time, nuclear weapons are used more as a political weapon. A weapon that perfectly "cools the hot heads of hawks." Therefore, the development of these munitions went in one direction. Power leveling and development of delivery systems. “Doomsday Weapons” should be powerful and, when applied, deprive the enemy of the possibility to continue the war. The results of the application were considered, for the most part, by the damaging factors. By the ability to destroy military infrastructure and troops in foreign territory. A "response" to such an impact should give the machine. All sorts of "dead hands" and stuff. There was no opportunity to do it with “living hands” ...
Today, in the light of the confrontation between the United States and the DPRK, they began to consider a completely different version. The use of nuclear weapons by one of the parties, no matter what, will automatically cause irreparable damage to third countries. It is doubtful of course that the threats of the Koreans are feasible. Guam missiles are unlikely to reach, not to mention the main territory of the United States. And American missiles? Will they fly to the DPRK? And what about the other two nuclear powers? The damaging factors of a nuclear explosion will not only destroy Koreans, but also "affect" Russians in the Far East and Chinese in the border regions. Should we answer? Destroy the USA?
Be that as it may, the US military is also thinking about this issue. It's one thing North Koreans, the other Chinese and Russian. And Americans are very afraid of hitting their own country. Anyone. For Americans of war, the usual tele picture is more likely than killing people and destroying cities. And they must be somewhere far away. In Europe. In Asia. In Africa ... America as a "sacred cow." Inviolable.
Recently, a conference was held at the Mitchelov Aerospace Research Institute, at which exactly these issues were discussed. It is no secret that in private, such discussions have been going on for a long time. Moreover, they were conducted not only in the United States, but also in other nuclear countries. The weapon is expensive, but it cannot be used. And I want ... In order to save. Instead of hundreds of billions of dollars in the Iraq campaign, one could manage with hundreds of millions ... Economy.
The conference would not even be mentioned in the media if it were not for the fact that such private discussions for the first time reached the official level. For the first time, official representatives of the American army spoke about the use of nuclear weapons in a “new way”. And quite a high level. The Deputy Head of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Paul Selva.
"If the only thing we can offer the US president is a super-powerful weapon with a high level of indiscriminate defeat, then there is essentially nothing to offer the president."
I allow myself to retell the General’s speech in the “conclusive mode”. Just point by point.
The United States must return to the middle of the last century and begin developing low-power (like those used in Hiroshima and Nagasaki) nuclear weapons. The army should have ammunition of various capacities in order to be able to respond quickly to emerging threats from non-nuclear states. And in order that their use does not cause a response in the "nuclear" neighbors, it is necessary to develop and adopt new rules and instructions for the use of "low-power" nuclear weapons.
"There must be will, military equipment and the possibility for their use. Without this, no deterrence is possible."
So, we have a fundamentally new approach on the part of the American command to the use of nuclear weapons. Now we are not talking about the very possibility of using. Now we are talking about the "new rules" and "new approaches." And all this “dish” is “seasoned” with ordinary words about the containment of China and Russia. True, in light of the recent statements by Trump, Iran and North Korea have also fallen into this company.
In Western countries, at the suggestion of the United States, the idea has long been established that a modern, high-tech, high-precision, and other "high" weapon is the guarantor of the rapid defeat of any enemy. For example, just look at the former brotherly country. "Idol" in the form of "Javelina" and other American "toys" there has long been the subject of universal worship. Most believe that as soon as the supply of these complexes begins, the war will end quickly.
That is why the average person has a completely reasonable thought. And why don't nuclear warheads be put on this most advanced weapon? After all, the blow will be inflicted, for example, on an underground bunker. Bomb arrived. Break through the shelter. Blew up inside. Destroyed the enemies and ... everything. On the surface, nothing will happen. And if you hit the enemy ships in the same way? Babahnul inside and the ship infected with radiation went to the bottom of the sea ...
It seems to me that it was on this opinion that General Selva decided to play. Support for such an approach to nuclear weapons is guaranteed not only by ordinary people, but also in Congress. American politicians always remember future elections. And in this situation, President Trump will be forced to consider this issue. Moreover, it will resolve the issue positively. Money for research in this area will be allocated. The army will receive another batch of modern weapons.
How to respond to us? And is it worth reacting to such statements at all? Alas, but it is necessary to react. Precisely because they are made by people quite knowledgeable and possessing power.
Imagine a hypothetical situation. The United States strikes a small-capacity nuclear weapons on our ally, with whom we have an agreement on mutual assistance. They just destroyed a city, a province or some small area. There simply destroyed military units. And radioactive contamination does not particularly threaten our territory. So what? Start the "last war"? Or do not care about all contracts and pretend that we "do not see the need to intervene in a local conflict"? I even present the headlines in this case. "Is planet Earth worth the city of N ...".
Nuclear countries have already changed the world. And they didn’t notice in their own ambitions that it continues to change without their participation. If not stronger. We "did not notice" the appearance of nuclear weapons in some countries. One of the main claims against the DPRK is “the creation of nuclear weapons” that violates international treaties. And why there were no such claims to Pakistan or India? Why did Israel quietly do this?
Today we saw a completely wild idea just recently. Nobody shouts about the speech of the official representative of the Pentagon. The military require nuclear weapons, which will be applied without destroying the entire social, political and economic infrastructure. Do not threaten to use, and apply. Just like another type of conventional ammunition. That’s all.
And then a simple question arises. And what about small countries? And how right is the North Korean leader, who at an accelerated pace creates his nuclear weapons? Is there any guarantee for such "babies" to remain in this world as states? What will be left of Cuba if the United States applies tactical nuclear weapons on its territory? And what will remain of any state in the Baltics if we apply there? What will be left of most European countries? After all, this is just tactical nuclear weapons! Only...
The "red line" that has kept the peace for so many years can be "moved" by the efforts of the United States. What I noticed, naturally, was also noticed by those who, as a matter of duty, dealt with defense issues in Russia, China, India, Israel and other nuclear countries. And small countries are thinking.
Probably, we are entering a new stage of historical development. Closer and closer "the use of bows and stone axes." Those who will be able to survive beyond the new "red line" ... On the stage of the "world theater" a "gun on the wall" appeared ... Interestingly, someone has calculated what the "act of the play" is now.
Information