Military Review

Russia against NATO. The role of aircraft carriers in nuclear conflict

486



Recently, an extremely interesting article appeared on BO - "Dear Khrushchev or how dangerous for Russia will be American aircraft carriers". The conclusions boiled down to the fact that, taking into account modern detection systems and with the availability of the latest Russian cruise missiles, it has the ability to reliably protect its shores from the attacks of AUG. Express a different point of view on this issue.

It should be recognized that the conflict between the United States and the Russian Federation is extremely unlikely, and if it comes to military action, then most likely it will be a conflict between the Russian Federation and NATO. Such a military conflict can occur in two forms - nuclear or nuclear-free.

Unfortunately, “on the Internet” constantly have to deal with remarks on the theme “They will attack us, and we are the whole world in dust!” Alas ... Neither the Russian nor the American arsenal has long been enough to turn this very world into dust . For example, according to the US Department of State data on the implementation of START-3 from 1 in January 2016, the US has 762 deployed nuclear warhead carriers, Russia has 526. The number of warheads on deployed carriers from the US - 1538, from Russia - 1648. But it is only on deployed. According to other sources, the US has 1642 deployed and 912 canned warheads; Russia has 1643 and 911, respectively. Roughly speaking, and we. and the Americans are capable of delivering a one-time strike using roughly 1500-1600 warheads (according to other sources, the United States is weaker - on the order of 1400 warheads) and ... what does this mean? Alas, for the Russian Federation - nothing good.

Our country has approximately 1100 cities. Of course, the destruction of some of them by one standard 100 CT warhead will be small, but nonetheless. As for the United States, they have about 19 000 cities. And to hit them all by hitting 1600 with warheads is completely impossible. And besides ... there won't be their 1600. It never happens that absolutely all missiles will start normally - some percentage of failures will still happen. Perhaps not all strategic missile submarines will be able to strike - someone may die before they have time to shoot. Something will reflect the US missile defense system, not that the author seriously believed in the ability to repel ballistic missile attacks, but here are some cruise missiles launched from strategic missile carriers, they can "win". It is unlikely that even all this taken together will select a large percentage, but it should still be understood - some part of our CU still does not reach the enemy.

With the explosion of the warhead of the megaton class, in 10 kilometers from the epicenter no more than 5% of the population there will die. True, another 45% should receive injuries of various severity levels, but this is only if the blow hits the unsuspecting citizens. But if they are ready and take even the simplest measures of protection, then the losses will be significantly, if not even multiple, reduced. And we have far from all of the 1600 warheads - the megaton class, there are times weaker in 10, and there are many of them.

Radioactive infection? It is worth noting that the Japanese after the nuclear explosions in Hiroshima and Nagasaki began to restore and settle these cities after some two or three years. Yes, of course, the consequences were - for example, an abnormally high level of leukemia (exceeding the norm at least twice), but still the infection did not threaten the death of the society located in its very center. The Japanese estimate the scale of environmental contamination in Chernobyl at least 100 times the effects of the Hiroshima bomb blast. And it should be borne in mind that thermonuclear munitions, under certain conditions, give a not too significant environmental contamination.

Nuclear winter? In the USA, USSR, France, Great Britain and China, at least 2060 tests of atomic and thermonuclear charges, including in the atmosphere - 501 test, were carried out. It cannot be said that the world did not notice this at all, but no consequences, at least as close to fatal ones, have come.

In other words, having spent all our strategic nuclear potential deployed today, we are not that world - we are not even bold about the United States. We will cause the most terrible losses, destroy a significant number of the urban population - yes. We liquidate most of the industrial potential - of course. Rejecting development in the region of Central African countries - perhaps even though this is no longer a fact.

“The whole world is in the dust” is from the times of the USSR. When we didn’t have 2550-2600 warheads, but 46 000 (FORTY SIX THOUSANDS) - then - yes, we really could have “sown” the territory of the USA, and, probably, all of Europe, if not to the complete destruction of any intelligent life, something very close to that. Now - alas, we do not have such power. For a long time, we have no opportunities for the USSR to use only thermonuclear power to wipe the United States, Europe and NATO’s military potential together from the ground.



At the same time, we ourselves, if the Americans choose our cities as a priority goal, will find ourselves in an extremely difficult situation. The vast majority of the urban population will perish. In essence, our losses are unlikely to exceed those of the United States, but we need to understand that they have significantly more cities and population than we do, and they will suffer losses of equal size than we do. 326 million people live in the USA, it is more in 2,22 times than in the Russian Federation. But having an approximate parity in the warheads, we cannot expect to inflict more damage to the Americans in 2,22 times.

We can strike, from which tens of millions of Americans will die at once, and as many more - subsequently, from injuries, diseases, infections and as a result of the destruction of the infrastructure of their country. And we ourselves, having received a “full-scale answer”, do not die out at all until the last person. We will simply remain on the ashes of a once great country in the face of Europe consolidated and untouched by nuclear fire. It is not in our interest, so some nuclear weapons probably will be spent on defeating military targets on the European continent. And this, again, weakens our blow to the United States.

But ... If our position in a nuclear conflict is obviously worse than that of the United States, then this does not mean that the United States is doing well. The fact is that the United States apparently also does not have the possibility of using only nuclear weapons to destroy both the human, industrial and military potential of the Russian Federation.

Cruise missiles do not cope well with disabling modern airfields. And if you spend on them nuclear ammunition, then ... well, yes, we are not the RSFSR with its approximately 1450 civil airfields. We still have about 230 order left, and after Serduk reforms from the 245 military, only 70 remained in operation, but ... But these are already 300 airfields, which require at least 300 warheads for their destruction. And how many are there really? Could it be that the insidious Russians on sly restored a part of the previously abandoned airfields? Or maybe not too abandoned? Maybe only canned? And waiting in the wings? Maybe so, and maybe some sort, and how to check for sure? CIA? No, there is not enough to climb on instagrams and “VKontakte”, Jen Psaki also fails, it’s necessary to work here, and James Bond remained in 20-th century films ...

And the location of the ground forces? They also need to be taken out of the game. Well, how will the Russians, who already have nothing to lose anyway, take, and give up on an excursion to the English Channel? Who will stop them? Bundeswehr? Pardon me, in 1985 it was the Bundeswehr with a capital "B", consisting of 12 divisions, including 6 tank, 4 motorized infantry, one mountain infantry and one airborne. Despite the fact that the number in peacetime was 75% of the staff, and the staff in the tank division then consisted of as many as 24 thousand people (that is, in fact, it is a tank corps). And there were also the “Heimatschutz” territorial troops in the amount of 12 brigades and 15 regiments, which, although they were squadron and had no more than 10% of the standard number in peacetime, but a full set of heavy weapons awaited them in warehouses. The Bundeswehr had 7 thousand tanks, 8,9 thousand infantry fighting vehicles and armored personnel carriers, 4,6 thousand guns, mortars and MLRS, from the air they were supported by a thousand aircraft ... And now - what? Three divisions, and on all - as many as 244 tanks, of which 95 are combat-ready, 44 are for modernization, 7 are for certification (whatever that means) and 89 are "conditionally out of order" and cannot return to it due to lack of spare parts ...



The ground troops of the Russian Federation - this, of course, is also far from the USSR, but ...

In addition, our army has a small deck of trump cards in its sleeve, which is called "tactical nuclear weapons" (TNW). The modern brigade of the Russian Federation in the offensive is unpleasant in itself, but when this brigade at any moment can shoot out with ammunition, kilotons of commercials at five, and not one ... But, if there is absolutely nothing to lose, the Rosgvardians themselves can back up. With its own armored personnel carriers, artillery and helicopters. They would, in an amicable way, also somehow be excluded from the system of equations before the start of the conflict. And command posts? Air defense and missile defense? And the intelligence system, all these over-the-horizon radar and so on? Naval bases? Tactical and strategic nuclear weapons storage sites, because we don’t have all of them deployed and the United States is completely undesirable for them to go into action? Stocks of conventional weapons, so that there was nothing to arm reservists? And transportation junctions and interchanges?

And again - it must be remembered that not all US warheads reach the territory of our country. For American missiles, the same laws apply as for ours — it doesn’t start up at all, it doesn’t reach as many for technical reasons, and Russian missile defense systems intercept it. And after all, for the American generals it’s not even bad, but another thing - to defeat the most important goals, the number of attacking warheads will have to be duplicated, which entails an increased expenditure of nuclear weapons.

If you spend nuclear weapons on all of this, then the destruction of the industrial potential of the Russian Federation will not so much. And if you send a blow to the destruction of cities and industries, the Russian Federation will be able to maintain a fair military potential.

Of course, as we said earlier, the US nuclear arsenal is by no means confined to a “first strike weapon.” Americans have both undeployed nuclear weapons and TNW (mostly in the form of free-fall bombs). And, for example, they can, by sending a blow to strategic forces to defeat stationary targets, “finish” our armed forces with undeployed warheads and tactical nuclear forces. But for this, they themselves will need to maintain a certain military potential at our borders.

In other words, even the US and NATO will not be able to do with nuclear weapons alone to completely crush the Russian Federation. They will also need the massive use of conventional weapons - we are talking about aviation, cruise missiles, they will need ground troops and everything else that is usually used in wars by "conventional" weapons.

A nuclear war in the present conditions is by no means the end of all existence, and it does not at all rule out further hostilities with conventional weapons.

And then the question arises. And what role can a US aircraft carrier play in a nuclear war?



By common thought - colossal. The fact is that strategic nuclear weapons have one peculiarity - they are intended for stationary purposes with known coordinates. They cannot hit aircraft carriers that have gone to sea. Well, let's imagine a situation: the world is on the verge of a nuclear war. The Americans put their aircraft carriers into the sea - not all ten, of course, because part of their ships will be under repair and in the event of a quickly sparked conflict they simply will not have time to put into service. For example, out of ten American aircraft carriers only six can go out to sea. But these six aircraft carriers are forced to the top by airplanes - the atomic aircraft carrier is quite able to carry off 90 airplanes, and even more. Of course, at the same time he will not be able to fight, having turned, in fact, into air transport, well, nothing more is required of him.

Carriers go out into the ocean ... and get lost in its expanses.

And then there is Armageddon. Both we and the United States use nuclear arsenals to the fullest. We are in a more vulnerable position, but let us assume that we have succeeded. And we attacked not only the territory of the United States, but also managed to cover the main military targets in Europe with a nuclear strike. Including the enemy's air base before the planes located there had time to disperse.

What is the result? Military vehicles of the Russian Federation and NATO suffered the hardest damage. A significant part of both our and NATO military potential burned down in an atomic flame. And at this moment, those six US nuclear aircraft carriers emerge from the sea haze. With five hundred and forty aircraft on board.

Come on - only airplanes. It is no secret that airplanes require maintenance, the most unassuming of modern machines "ask" 25 man-hours of technical work for each hour of flight. These are special tools, trained people, etc., but all this is on American aircraft carriers. But in Europe, whose military bases were subjected to nuclear strikes, none of this may not be.

Many authors have written, write and will write that the military potential of American aircraft carriers is not too great against the background of the power of the Western Air Force. And this is definitely the case. But they absolutely do not take into account the fact that in a full-scale nuclear conflict the potentials of the Air Force will suffer the hardest damage, but aircraft carrier aviation can be saved. We have neither reconnaissance means capable of quickly identifying enemy aircraft carriers in the expanses of the world's oceans, nor weapons capable of destroying them there. The ideas that “we will see them through Google Maps and dash“ Satan ”” are wonderful, if you do not take into account that the correction of the flight of ballistic missiles is carried out using astrocorrection. And in order to change the coordinates of the impact, it is necessary to calculate and prescribe the reference positions of the stars so that the rocket can navigate through them in flight, and this is a very difficult and, most importantly, slow task, which completely excludes the possibility of attacking moving targets. It is also clear that no one will sow the megaton class warheads hundreds of square kilometers of sea space, hoping to hit the area of ​​the approximate location of the enemy aircraft carrier. This is because, in the case of Armageddon, the Russian Federation will face the fact that the number of targets to be hit is several times higher than the number of available strategic warheads.

It is possible that the Russian Federation has accumulated enough non-nuclear high-precision weapons, and using TNW to the fullest in Armageddon, we will be able to neutralize a significant part of the military potential of NATO in Europe. But we are definitely unable to disable the European (and even more so - the American) aerodrome network. In Germany alone, there are 318 airfields with hard surface. Turks have 91, France have 294, and all over Europe have their 1882. In the United States, their 5 054.

Of course, one of the main objects of nuclear strikes will be port cities in order to prevent the transfer of anything from the United States to Europe. But the United States is quite capable of dispersing and preserving the bulk of transport aviation on its own territory, and then ...

Then, on the arrival of aircraft carriers to the European shores, their planes will fly to the airfields that survived after Armageddon. Fuel and ammunition can be supplied both from European stocks and from the Metropolis, i.e. from the United States through transport aviation. Repair and maintenance will be carried out directly on aircraft carriers, located somewhere far away from the fighting.



Yes, with the described “scenario”, US aircraft carriers will not enter into battle with any adversary at all. They will play the role of air transport at the first stage of the conflict, and aircraft workshops at its subsequent stages. But here, five hundred combat aircraft capable of conducting combat operations AFTER Armageddon will most likely prove to be an ultimatum argument in the opposition of the Russian Federation and NATO. It is very likely that we will have nothing to protect against this threat. Moreover, as already mentioned above, a significant part of the US TNW represents free-fall aerial bombs.

Of course, the above-described method of using aircraft carriers is completely utilitarian and extremely far from any heroics. And yes, someone can laugh: “Mighty lords of the seas as a floating masterpiece ?!”. But the main thing in the war is not beautiful postures, but victory, and, under certain conditions, aircraft carriers in the conditions of a modern full-scale nuclear-missile conflict are quite capable of giving it.

But there is one more nuance.

Perhaps the nuclear retribution of the Russian Federation will not cast the United States into the stone age, but the economic losses of the "hegemon" will be so great that the status of a superpower will have to be forgotten for a very long time, if not forever. The economic power of the United States will be undermined. But if the Americans at the same time retain the naval potential, which allows them to unconditionally control sea transportation (and, accordingly, the foreign trade of the world, since 80% of its cargo turnover just goes by sea), then they will be able to stay in their rank, if not at the expense of economic, but at the expense of military force.

Or does someone think that such an approach is immoral and unacceptable for the United States?

To be continued ...
Author:
486 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. ADmA_RUS
    ADmA_RUS 24 November 2017 06: 55 New
    13
    The author got out of his sphere of competence and does not even want to think. Why destroy cities? This is the logic of the Anglo-Saxons. This makes no sense. Cities without electricity, water and food will quickly die out themselves, without destruction.
    I can advise you to study the relationship of test nuclear explosions and earthquakes. And how active and dormant volcanoes will react to increased sysmic activity. Think about what will happen to factories that use toxic substances when they are completely or partially destroyed. And like a cherry on a cake. To calculate how many nuclear power plants there are, and how much “nastiness” will pour out of each during its destruction.
    Or read the memoirs of Academician Sakharov. He has some interesting suggestions there.
    1. Rurikovich
      Rurikovich 24 November 2017 07: 14 New
      17
      The author only expresses his point of view on a particular problem, and even more so, it is based on assumptions. request And if it is given in the context of proof of the need for a certain type of weapon, it has the right to exist. Academics have their own views on the world, ordinary people have their own. And this does not mean that the point of view of the academicians is undeniable.
      The article on the argumentation of the existence of aircraft carriers, and it seems to me, is quite normal, the more the author does not try to say something, but draws quite logical conclusions, albeit hypothetical hi
      1. ADmA_RUS
        ADmA_RUS 24 November 2017 08: 03 New
        +3
        And I expressed mine. What's next?
        1. The comment was deleted.
    2. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      24 November 2017 08: 47 New
      +8
      Quote: ADmA_RUS
      The author got out of his sphere of competence and does not even want to think

      Boldly!:)
      Quote: ADmA_RUS
      Why destroy cities? This is the logic of the Anglo-Saxons. This makes no sense. Cities without electricity, water and food will quickly die out themselves, without destruction.

      It remains only to find out where energy, water and food disappear. Old man Hottabych will arrive, in a blue helicopter, or what?
      Can you tell me how many stations in the US generate electricity? About 8000. Of these, 1300 are hydroelectric power stations. How do you destroy them with 1600 warheads? Each cut into 5 parts? :)))
      Quote: ADmA_RUS
      I can advise you to study the relationship of test nuclear explosions and earthquakes.

      Communication is practically absent
      Quote: ADmA_RUS
      And how active and dormant volcanoes will react to increased sysmic activity.

      No way. For volcanoes, this is complete pooh, our atomic energy
      Quote: ADmA_RUS
      Think about what will happen to factories that use toxic substances when they are completely or partially destroyed.

      Nothing. As a matter of fact, if a plant or a factory is in the zone of a nuclear explosion, then there are 2 options - either it will be destroyed or not. If not, then later this plant can be restored, regardless of any harmful emissions.
      Quote: ADmA_RUS
      And like a cherry on a cake. To calculate how many nuclear power plants there are, and how much “nastiness” will pour out of each during its destruction.

      There are 62 nuclear power plants in the USA. And how much disgust will fly out ... there is a feeling that it is much less than in the same Chernobyl, because with an external atomic strike a significant part of the "disgusting" will be annihilated
      Quote: ADmA_RUS
      Or read the memoirs of Academician Sakharov. He has some interesting suggestions there.

      There is. One trouble - his proposals will not work.
      1. Alex_59
        Alex_59 24 November 2017 09: 28 New
        +8
        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
        Nothing. As a matter of fact, if a plant or a factory is in the zone of a nuclear explosion, then there are 2 options - either it will be destroyed or not. If not, then later this plant can be restored, regardless of any harmful emissions.

        In our city, when a Boeing fell in which General Troshev died, the hamsters had a version that the evil basmachi wanted to send this plane to the oil refinery, and that supposedly the plane falling into the oil refinery would cause such an explosion that it would destroy the millionth city 70 km long)))))) ))))) Blondes were in a panic.
        The people simply do not know that at this refinery every six months something plows. And everyone is alive. ))))))))
        1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
          24 November 2017 10: 20 New
          +6
          Quote: Alex_59
          The people simply do not know that at this refinery every six months something plows.

          good drinks
        2. ZVO
          ZVO 25 November 2017 20: 50 New
          +1
          Quote: Alex_59

          The people simply do not know that at this refinery every six months something plows. And everyone is alive. ))))))))


          Some "people" apparently forgot about Bhopal ...
      2. dog breeder
        dog breeder 24 November 2017 09: 38 New
        +3
        Ah ah ah! Let's go give up! Whoever has time first, that barrel of jam and a wagon of cookies!
        1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
          24 November 2017 10: 19 New
          +6
          Quote: dog breeder
          Ah ah ah! Let's go give up!

          The article was actually about aircraft carriers, if that. But you give up if you need to :)
          1. dog breeder
            dog breeder 24 November 2017 10: 44 New
            +3
            No, we need something else. It’s just that over the past three days, you and your kind are playing war games. One gets the impression that the smartest ones are in VO, and in the RF Ministry of Defense they are sitting, to say the least, suckers. If everything is so regrettable with the Russian armed forces, why do not the brave Yankees march along our streets? Perhaps your analysis is painfully one-sided and does not take into account many other details? Why did Russia, having a pre-losing outcome in the Apocalypse, nevertheless got involved in Syria, and has good results, despite all the obstacles posed by the coalition? Well, and separately about the aircraft carriers, I think, and this factor was taken into account by our military. And as regards the Third World War, which you described in frighteningly defeatist colors, I don’t think that the Congress or the White House have such hot heads to start something that does not guarantee the USA victory, which simply might not be. For nobody.
            1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
              24 November 2017 11: 15 New
              +9
              Quote: dog breeder
              If everything is so regrettable with the Russian armed forces, why do not the brave Yankees march along our streets?

              Because you yourself gave this an answer
              Quote: dog breeder
              I don’t think that in Congress or the White House there are so hot heads to start something that does not guarantee the USA victory, which simply might not be. For nobody.

              It’s just that you apparently didn’t give yourself the trouble to think over what you said.
              In order to start a war, one initial condition is necessary, namely: peace, the best of the pre-war. War should bring some profit, otherwise it is meaningless. NATO is stronger than the Russian Federation and can defeat the Russian Federation in the war, while the United States will not be destroyed by our nuclear potential. But at the same time, the United States will rake in such losses that they will have a pyrrhic victory, because they won’t get a better world than the pre-war. They are now a superpower, and after the Apocalypse they will cease to be such, most likely. This eliminates all the buns from the death of the Russian Federation.
              Quote: dog breeder
              Perhaps your analysis is painfully one-sided and does not take into account many other details?

              Quote: dog breeder
              Well, and separately about the aircraft carriers, I think, and this factor was taken into account by our military.

              Does the phrase "constructive criticism" say something to you? There is something to argue on the merits - the bardzo is simpler, and if not, if you, without any analysis, “think that the factor has been taken into account” - well, questions of faith are sacred to me, I don’t discuss them :)))
              And about the fact that "everything is taken into account in the Defense Ministry" ... Even in the USSR, the Chinese factor was taken into account in this way - during staff exercises, all our troops were multiplied by 10. Naturally, there really weren’t and couldn’t be, but otherwise case staff exercises did not make sense
              1. Serg65
                Serg65 25 November 2017 11: 12 New
                +2
                hi Belatedly of course, but welcome and accept Andrey, congratulations for the article! And the article is not in your style! bully Looks like nerves passed laughing
                Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                In order to start a war, one initial condition is necessary

                laughing Andrei, to start a war for the Americans, you need only one condition, namely the sale component of the elite of the country that America wants to attack!
                1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                  25 November 2017 12: 56 New
                  +2
                  Quote: Serg65
                  Belatedly of course, but welcome and accept Andrey, congratulations for the article! And the article is not in your style!

                  Well, why? It's just that I have different approaches to writing analytics of bygone days and to the current situation :))))
            2. Serg65
              Serg65 25 November 2017 11: 05 New
              +3
              Quote: dog breeder
              It’s just that over the past three days, you and your kind are playing war games

              what There is an option to play in the sandbox or in the Cossacks robbers ... oh no - this is war again!
              Quote: dog breeder
              One gets the impression that the smartest ones are in VO, and in the Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation they sit

              laughing and how do some on VO differ from those in Moscow? Both those and those have officer ranks, and those and those graduated from the same schools! The amount of information? So the amount of information is a momentary and very volatile thing, while it has little effect on the concept of using strategic weapons!
              Quote: dog breeder
              Perhaps your analysis is painfully one-sided and does not take into account many other details?

              What specific details do you mean? The fact that AUG is difficult to detect in the open ocean is a true truth! Even in the heyday of the Soviet Navy, the Americans, under a cap of Soviet intelligence, managed to break away from tracking, when moving an AUG to 600 miles per day - is it easy to detect? What other details need to be considered? Vulnerability of a space intelligence system?
              Quote: dog breeder
              If everything is so regrettable with the Russian armed forces, why do not the brave Yankees march along our streets?

              Hmm, the campaign red color greatly disables your ability to comprehend what you read?
              Quote: dog breeder
              And about the third world, which you described in frighteningly defeatist colors

              bully And here you are right! There will be no third world war! The United States has already tested its main weapon in Russia twice in the 20th century - money and mind you, both applications were successful wink
      3. UVB
        UVB 24 November 2017 10: 43 New
        +3
        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
        Can you tell me how many stations in the US generate electricity? About 8000. Of these, 1300 are hydroelectric power stations. How do you destroy them with 1600 warheads? Each cut into 5 parts? :)))

        For incapacitation of power systems it is not at all necessary to destroy power plants! Remember the massive outages in the USA, Canada, Mexico and how much effort it took to restore work. And this is from natural factors, in the absence of destruction.
      4. Alexey RA
        Alexey RA 24 November 2017 10: 46 New
        +4
        Greetings! hi
        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
        It remains only to find out where energy, water and food disappear. Old man Hottabych will arrive, in a blue helicopter, or what?
        Can you tell me how many stations in the US generate electricity? About 8000. Of these, 1300 are hydroelectric power stations. How do you destroy them with 1600 warheads? Each cut into 5 parts? :)))

        Hehe hehe ... and if you recall all damaging factors of a nuclear explosion?
        I suggest:

        No need to physically destroy the generating capacity. When a nuclear strike is carried out, a side effect will be a strike on electricity distribution networks, and most importantly, on consumers of that energy (and communication networks). How many percent of consumer and industrial electronics and electricians are protected from EMP? And it will be impossible to quickly restore the same distribution system - this is not an ordinary failure, but mass physical burnout.
        Now imagine the life of an ordinary city without electricity ... belay
        1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
          24 November 2017 11: 15 New
          +3
          Quote: Alexey RA
          No need to physically destroy the generating capacity. When a nuclear strike is carried out, a side effect will be a strike on electricity distribution networks, and most importantly, on consumers of that energy (and communication networks). How many percent of consumer and industrial electronics and electricians are protected from EMP?

          Well, without TVs and microwave ovens you have to live :))))
          1. Alexey RA
            Alexey RA 24 November 2017 11: 30 New
            +6
            Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
            Well, without TVs and microwave ovens you have to live :))))

            Without all perishable products (for industrial refrigerators will also be covered). No cars. Without computers. Without Internet. No connection. No electric lighting.
            In doubt - water supply and sewerage. More precisely, the integrity of everything that the wires are connected to or that includes electrics / electronics is in question.
            In general, we take St. Petersburg on Black Friday Blackout (but also without cars) and try to live in this for at least a week. smile
            1. Alex_59
              Alex_59 24 November 2017 12: 56 New
              +6
              Quote: Alexey RA
              In doubt - water supply and sewerage.

              On this point, the Russian Federation is not victorious, because we still have the fitter Vasily, who is a little crazy from the hangover and the realization of his high mission, and they have all kinds of electronic control units and executive stepper motors.
              1. Dashout
                Dashout 1 December 2017 10: 58 New
                +3
                Quote: Alex_59
                we still steer a locksmith Vasily, a little stunned by the hangover and the realization of his high mission, and they have all kinds of electronic control units and executive stepper motors.

                This is so, but the pressure is provided by the pumps! Without electricity, an unconditional shutdown of water supply and sewage will occur.
            2. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
              24 November 2017 16: 05 New
              +3
              Quote: Alexey RA
              Without all perishable products (for industrial refrigerators will also be covered).

              This is far from a fact :) As far as I know, EMP is not at all so omnipotent, and comprehensive, despite the fact that it minimizes shielding from it (it is clear that it depends on the distance from the explosion)
              1. Alexey RA
                Alexey RA 24 November 2017 18: 19 New
                +3
                Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                As far as I know, EMP is not at all so omnipotent, and comprehensive, despite the fact that it minimizes shielding from it (it is clear that it depends on the distance from the explosion)

                Saves. Provided that all electronic / electrical elements and cables are shielded or filters are installed on all inputs of unshielded cables.
                But all this will help a little when a completely unshielded power substation physically burns out. And even shielded circuits will be powered from nowhere. smile
                I recall that in one of the issues of the still Soviet ZVO, the issue of protection against electromagnetic radiation was considered in great detail.
          2. Rurikovich
            Rurikovich 24 November 2017 18: 38 New
            +2
            Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
            Well, without TVs and microwave ovens you have to live :))))

            It’s bad to read by candlelight - vision sets wink drinks
            1. Alexey RA
              Alexey RA 24 November 2017 18: 52 New
              +2
              Quote: Rurikovich
              It’s bad to read by candlelight - vision sets

              And if you read in the light of your own body? After the finish of the NBC, there will definitely not be any problems with this. smile
        2. Vadim237
          Vadim237 24 November 2017 20: 40 New
          +1
          In the realities of experimentally confirmed EMI, I was unable to derive the car ignition system 46 times out of 53.
      5. AlexKP
        AlexKP 24 November 2017 12: 10 New
        +7
        The main conglomerations in the United States are on the Atlantic and Pacific coasts. Therefore, the need to cover the entire US area makes no sense. When striking against these conglomerations, up to 70 percent of the population and almost the entire administrative resource will be out of order. There will be no centralized management and aircraft carriers at best will be able to become the core of pirate artels.
      6. NEXUS
        NEXUS 24 November 2017 13: 21 New
        +6
        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
        Boldly!:)

        Well, your conclusions are much bolder. The mistake of those who declare ...
        Unfortunately, "on the Internet" constantly have to deal with remarks on the topic "They will attack us, and we - the whole world in ruin!" Alas ... Neither the Russian nor the American arsenal has long been enough to turn this very world into dust.

        It is not true. You are considering a nuclear conflict between Russia and NATO. I will not begin to recall that besides the Russian Federation and NATO, there are China, India, Pakistan and Israel, which also have a nuclear arsenal and in the nuclear conflict it is very doubtful that these countries will stand aside.
        The question is different. You take a nuclear bilateral conflict and this is your grossest mistake. Why do ideologists of the theory that a nuclear conflict does not lead to an apocalypse and the destruction of all life on earth do not take into account the THIRD PARTY OF THE CONFLICT-THE PLANET? Or is there a reinforced concrete belief in your mind that the Earth will calmly watch how it is being shredded by nuclear weapons? The planet has much more destructive means at its disposal than nuclear weapons and it will use them at the time of the outbreak of a nuclear war, which means that the results and consequences of such a war, taking into account the planet’s response, must be multiplied by millions, if not billions of times.
        1. Alex_59
          Alex_59 24 November 2017 13: 48 New
          11
          Quote: NEXUS
          in addition to the Russian Federation and NATO, there are China, India, Pakistan and Israel, which also have a nuclear arsenal and in the nuclear conflict it is very doubtful that these countries will stand aside.

          Chinese to Pakistanis, Indians and Israelis: She, men, watch how Russians and NATO are fucking. Cool! Why, let's, too, wall to wall! Who is the last - that loshara! laughing
          I wonder if the RF vs OTAN starts, how can you motivate the same Indians to start frolic too? Pure herd feeling? Laugh.
          1. NEXUS
            NEXUS 24 November 2017 13: 54 New
            +5
            Quote: Alex_59
            Chinese to Pakistanis, Indians and Israelis: She, men, watch how Russians and NATO are fucking. Cool! Why, let's, too, wall to wall! Who is the last - that loshara!

            That is, turning on the brain is not fate? wassat Nuclear missile strikes will be carried out in such a way as to cause maximum harm to the enemy, which means that they will hit nuclear power plants, chemical plants, hydroelectric power stations, dams, etc. ... and of course the consequences of such strikes will not go beyond the borders of states at all. laughing Remember Chernobyl with the subsequent wind towards Europe and so on ... and there only one power unit was covered with a copper basin.
            1. Alex_59
              Alex_59 24 November 2017 14: 13 New
              +7
              Quote: NEXUS
              That is, turning on the brain is not fate?

              After your proposal to beat volcanoes, the desire to "turn on the brain" is clearly addressed to the wrong place)))))))))))))))
              Quote: NEXUS
              Remember Chernobyl with the subsequent wind towards Europe and so on ... and there only one power unit was covered with a copper basin.

              Well, they blew up Russian nuclear power plants in the United States. Good. What kind of rabid gopher after this event will force Israel or Pakistan to fire its nuclear weapons? For what and for whom? So, to keep the conversation going?
              1. NEXUS
                NEXUS 24 November 2017 14: 20 New
                +3
                Quote: Alex_59
                After your proposal to beat volcanoes, the desire to "turn on the brain" is clearly addressed to the wrong place)))))))))))))))

                And where in my post did you find a phrase about the sentence "to hit the volcano"? So who needs to turn on the brain, and at the same time rub their eyes?
                Quote: Alex_59
                Well, they blew up Russian nuclear power plants in the United States. Good. What kind of rabid gopher after this event will force Israel or Pakistan to fire its nuclear weapons? For what and for whom? So, to keep the conversation going?

                The mattresses will hit us, as well as the British and French ... and if you forget, then we have a fairly long border with China. And the consequences of nuclear strikes near the border with China, well, in no way cross the border with it. wassat At the same time, it is very self-confident to state that in a nuclear conflict, someone will exchange nuclear strikes, both of intercontinental missiles and tactical missiles with nuclear warheads. But it is, to maintain a meaningless conversation.
                We won’t ... any volcano can wake up not from a direct hit by a nuclear BG. Any nuclear explosion is accompanied by a subsequent earthquake. It is enough that a couple of three charges exploded near the volcano so that it wakes up.
                1. Alex_59
                  Alex_59 24 November 2017 14: 25 New
                  +3
                  Quote: NEXUS
                  the consequences of nuclear attacks near the border with China, well, in no way cross the border with it.

                  Who in the Far East will the Americans wet the nuclear weapons? Birobidzhan, as a key center of the Russian defense?
                  Quote: NEXUS
                  And where in my post did you find a phrase about the sentence "to hit the volcano"?
                  Below:
                  Quote: NEXUS
                  I'm not talking about the fact that in the center of North America there is the largest super volcano, which, in the event of a nuclear bombing, will wake up and wake up its other brothers around the world ... and then I will ask you-And what in this case will remain only from the USA, but from the entire American mainland?

                  good
                  1. NEXUS
                    NEXUS 24 November 2017 14: 27 New
                    +2
                    Quote: Alex_59
                    Below:
                    Quote: NEXUS
                    I'm not talking about the fact that in the center of North America there is the largest super volcano, which, in the event of a nuclear bombing, will wake up and wake up its other brothers around the world ... and then I will ask you-And what in this case will remain only from the USA, but from the entire American mainland?

                    And where is it about "beat the volcano"? lol IN THE CASE OF THE NUCLEAR BOMBING OF THE US TERRITORY! So understandable? wassat
                    1. Alex_59
                      Alex_59 24 November 2017 14: 41 New
                      +2
                      Quote: NEXUS
                      IN THE CASE OF THE NUCLEAR BOMBING OF THE US TERRITORY! So understandable?

                      The essence is the same. I don’t care about the volcano for your bombing)))) And to his other brothers in the world ...
                      1. NEXUS
                        NEXUS 24 November 2017 14: 48 New
                        +3
                        Quote: Alex_59
                        The essence is the same. I don’t care about the volcano for your bombing)))) And to his other brothers in the world ...

                        Yeah ... did he tell you that personally?
                        Given the cyclical nature of the Yellowstone eruptions, the Geological Society of America initially assumed that the volcano would explode no earlier than 20 thousand years later. However, recent events have forced scientists to change their minds. At first they said that the eruption will happen within 75 years, and now many agree that the event can happen in the coming years. These assumptions have objective reasons:

                        In the rivers and lakes of the national park, the water temperature has risen significantly, reaching a boiling point in some places. Geysers intensified, including large ones that had slept for more than 100 years.
                        Each year, more than 60 tremors occur in Yellowstone. If earlier earthquakes occurred at a depth of 10-30 km, now it is from 5 to 10 km. According to the nature of the earthquakes, we can conclude that the so-called “seismic nails” appear in the caldera - vertical shocks that contribute to the appearance of tears and cracks.
                        Recently, residents of neighboring settlements began to notice that bison and deer are fleeing from the park, and, as you know, animals are keenly aware of the approaching catastrophes.
                        The soil in the caldera area is constantly rising. Information about its rise is carefully hidden.
                        The appearance of Helium-4 gas, which usually occurs on other volcanoes shortly before the eruption, was recorded in different parts of the park.
                        In the caldera of the volcano, aggressive magma movement is observed, the seismic sensors readings are off-scale from time to time.
                        Seismic activity markedly increased around the world, volcanoes began to erupt in Asia, South America, on the Pacific Ring of Fire.
                        In April 2016, Part of the bottom of Yellowstone Lake rose 30 meters and continues to grow.
                        Seismic activity in the United States and North America does not stop. The tectonic vibration that began after the Ecuadorian earthquake begins to bear its first fruits. The lake located not far from the supervolcano, in which a fault had recently appeared with escaping underground gases, began to change again.

                        Well, what can you call for example a person who will shoot at an anti-tank mine, saying, She will not explode.? wassat
                      2. Cherry Nine
                        Cherry Nine 24 November 2017 19: 45 New
                        +3
                        Quote: NEXUS
                        many agree that the event could happen in the coming years

                        Do not understand. But what about the collapse of the dollar? What about public debt? Is this all canceled? And so many conversations were ...
                  2. NN52
                    NN52 24 November 2017 15: 58 New
                    +8
                    Alekh 59
                    In the Far East, for example, a plant in Komsomolsk-on-Amur and a Su 35 base.
                    Yelizovo in Kamchatka.
                    For instance....
                    1. Serg65
                      Serg65 25 November 2017 11: 36 New
                      +2
                      Quote: NN52
                      In the Far East, for example, a plant in Komsomolsk-on-Amur

                      what With the prevalence of east winds in the area, what harm would a nuclear explosion do to China? I don’t ask about Kamchatka wink
            2. CTABEP
              CTABEP 24 November 2017 14: 20 New
              +3
              Yeah, and when the Indians blow the radioactive dust away from the Indians, they flare up with righteous anger and deliver a dozen or two nuclear strikes. Well, to not only fall asleep with dust, but also to catch axes with fifty. In such a conflict, it would be logical to just wait, retaining its potential, and not interfere in other people's showdowns with a nuclear dagger naked.
      7. CTABEP
        CTABEP 24 November 2017 14: 17 New
        +2
        And at chemical plants, by the way, too, all the rubbish is annihilated with a close hit of a nuclear charge.

        Although the article gives a little fiction (the very possibility of a global nuclear war, IMHO, is now near zero), the logical reasoning is correct, thanks to the author for an interesting look from an unexpected angle. We look forward to continuing.
      8. Setrac
        Setrac 24 November 2017 23: 55 New
        +4
        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
        Boldly!:)

        And truthfully. A few points - population density and building density in the United States are four times higher, respectively, the loss will be proportionally greater.
        The US is more urbanized and its cities more dependent on outside supplies.
        In addition, you are very mistaken in the calculation of cities. They have any farm already a city - "city", and we have Tyumen - the capital of villages.
        During the big scribe, the collapse of the infrastructure will be the most dangerous.
        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
        Can you tell me how many stations in the US generate electricity? About 8000.

        You draw the facts to the conclusions you need, most of the electricity is released at large power plants, which are few, and with your approach, every muscle flashlight can be called a power station.
        1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
          25 November 2017 08: 58 New
          +3
          Quote: Setrac
          And truthfully. A few points - population density and building density in the United States are four times higher, respectively, the loss will be proportionally greater.

          Sorry, but I have quoted these numbers 100500 times. In the 295 largest US cities, 89 million or 27% of the total US population lives. And in our 170 large cities live 51% of the population of the Russian Federation
          In the USA, 172 million live in cities from 2,5 to 100 thousand people. And 64 million - in settlements less than 2,5 thousand people. Therefore, the arguments about the high urbanization of the United States are a little stretched to the globe
          1. Setrac
            Setrac 25 November 2017 13: 28 New
            +2
            Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
            Sorry, but I have quoted these numbers 100500 times. In the 295 largest US cities, 89 million or 27% of the total US population lives. And in our 170 large cities live 51% of the population of the Russian Federation

            Enough of a fuck already, hesitated a hedgehog. Learn a comparative analysis, an ignoramus damn it, you compare millions with percentages.
            Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
            In the USA, 172 million live in cities from 2,5 to 100 thousand people. And 64 million - in settlements less than 2,5 thousand people. Therefore, the arguments about the high urbanization of the United States are a little stretched to the globe

            This is not reasoning, but statistics. The truth is that twice as many people live in the USA on half the territory, the population density ratio is one to four, there are more cities in Russia, but American cities are larger and denser populated, take an interest in how many urban agglomerations have “them” and “us”.
            You are trying to turn the truth upside down.
    3. tlauicol
      tlauicol 24 November 2017 09: 01 New
      +4
      75% of the electric power in the USA is CHP - 3-5 heating plants per average city cannot be strangled with commercials and hundreds of cities. About the effect of nuclear weapons on seismic activity - this is, yes, very funny - but nothing more
      1. Setrac
        Setrac 25 November 2017 00: 39 New
        0
        Quote: Tlauicol
        75% of US electricity is CHP

        A TPP is not a hydroelectric power station, it needs to constantly deliver fuel, and you have all the transport nodes covered with nuclear weapons.
        1. tlauicol
          tlauicol 25 November 2017 06: 12 New
          0
          did you read the article? how many barrels do we have? also on ALL transport nodes warhead stock?
          1. Setrac
            Setrac 25 November 2017 13: 49 New
            0
            Quote: Tlauicol
            did you read the article? how many barrels do we have? also on ALL transport nodes warhead stock?

            In most cases, the industrial and demographic center and transport hub are one geographical place.
            1. tlauicol
              tlauicol 25 November 2017 18: 20 New
              0
              In the “majority of cases”, bombs will be enough for 15-20 such centers or for 20-30 million Americans. This is the main idea of ​​the article.
              1. Setrac
                Setrac 25 November 2017 18: 25 New
                0
                Quote: Tlauicol
                In the “majority of cases”, bombs will be enough for 15-20 such centers or for 20-30 million Americans. This is the main idea of ​​the article.

                One hundred warheads per one "center" - not too much?
                1. tlauicol
                  tlauicol 25 November 2017 18: 31 New
                  0
                  But what, airfields and other warriors will not be bombed at all? at least a bomb left on the city
                  1. Setrac
                    Setrac 25 November 2017 18: 34 New
                    0
                    Quote: Tlauicol
                    But what, airfields and other warriors will not be bombed at all? at least a bomb left on the city

                    It is physically impossible to achieve one hundred percent result with massive use. Not one warhead will reach anyone, but someone will be burned out in several passes.
                    1. tlauicol
                      tlauicol 25 November 2017 18: 41 New
                      0
                      even with one hundred percent result, the vast majority of US residents and the vast majority of us survive - what is the dispute?
                      1. Setrac
                        Setrac 25 November 2017 21: 07 New
                        0
                        Quote: Tlauicol
                        even with one hundred percent result, the vast majority of US residents and the vast majority of us survive - what is the dispute?

                        You could not prove this, with a fourfold larger area of ​​the population and the loss will be four times greater in the United States.
    4. avt
      avt 24 November 2017 10: 24 New
      +2
      Quote: ADmA_RUS
      The author got out of his sphere of competence and does not even want to think. Why destroy cities? This is the logic of the Anglo-Saxons.

      wassat bully The campaign commentator is not like
      Quote: ADmA_RUS
      its competence
      in general, I didn’t fit into any competencies, from the word — in general, in terms of knowing why and how the Weapon of Mass Destruction was actually intended. I didn’t even enter into the “competence” of understanding this very term I just quoted. bully
      Quote: Rurikovich
      The author only expresses his point of view on a particular problem,

      what Worse! bully Mountain-a-ah-azdo worse! Here attentively we read this passage
      Many authors have written, are writing and will write about the fact that the military potential of American aircraft carriers is not too great against the background of the might of the air forces of Western countries.
      wassat Yes, the author still swung at our Oleg Kaptsov! bully В
      Quote: Rurikovich
      Arguments for the existence of aircraft carriers

      HERETIC! Let him repent and write a repentant article about the armor tomorrow! bully
      1. Alexey RA
        Alexey RA 24 November 2017 10: 47 New
        +4
        Quote: avt
        HERETIC! Let him repent and write a repentant article about the armor tomorrow!

        Or about "Zamvolte". And even better - about the armored Zamvolte! smile
        1. avt
          avt 24 November 2017 12: 51 New
          +1
          Quote: Alexey RA
          Or about "Zamvolte". And even better - about the armored Zamvolte!

          wassat It’s bitter to me ... How dare Az sinful to forget about ,, designed by the pests ,, Freeze! ”I’ll go drink some drops of valerian bully
          1. Rurikovich
            Rurikovich 24 November 2017 18: 42 New
            +3
            Quote: avt
            I'll go drink some drops of valerian

            "Russia doesn’t understand,
            until 0,5 is drunk.
            And if you drink 0,5
            that thing seems not tricky ...
            And if you understand more deeply -
            already need a liter " wink
            1. Serg65
              Serg65 25 November 2017 11: 45 New
              +3
              hi Приветствуем!
              Quote: Rurikovich
              And if you understand more deeply

              good Bravo!!! A wonderful psycho-theoretical description of the Russian character !!!
              drinks for the theory !!!
          2. Serg65
            Serg65 25 November 2017 11: 41 New
            +2
            hi Приветствуем!
            Quote: avt
            I'll go drink some drops of valerian

            crying That's what Andrei Nikolayevich brought the underwater world to! Solder a large white shark with a valerian !!!!! crying
        2. Rurikovich
          Rurikovich 24 November 2017 18: 40 New
          0
          Quote: Alexey RA
          Or about "Zamvolte". And even better - about the armored Zamvolte!

          Yes, on the "Zamvolte" cofferdam (albeit unarmored) Oleg was stumped laughing yes
    5. belovur
      belovur 24 November 2017 15: 42 New
      0
      Only activity is not from a famous female organ, but "seismic"! laughing
  2. Rurikovich
    Rurikovich 24 November 2017 06: 57 New
    +7
    I agree with the author - whatever they say about the aircraft carriers, they are mobile airfields for aviation. It doesn't matter if they are expensive or not, effective or not, vulnerable or not. In this case, this is an additional trump card in your pocket with your own, albeit small in comparison with the land base, resource, but allowing you to influence the situation during the conflict as a whole. And you have to reckon with him. Of course, modern means of reconnaissance and search are unlikely to be so irrevocably allowed to get lost in the vast Akiyan air group led by an aircraft carrier, but imagine that today's Russia is not the USSR with its 260 nuclear submarines. And KOH is very deplorable for the Russian Navy - the economy, go with it.
    So an aircraft carrier is not some kind of super-expensive toy, but quite a serious thing that can bring a headache to the enemy in any conflict, atomic or non-nuclear.
    Greetings, Andrey Nikolaevich! drinks hi
    1. Per se.
      Per se. 24 November 2017 08: 19 New
      +1
      Quote: Rurikovich
      So an aircraft carrier is not some kind of super-expensive toy, but quite a serious thing that can bring a headache to the enemy in any conflict, atomic or non-nuclear.
      I would like to add to this that the role of aircraft carriers in the "prevention of war", by stopping local conflicts, solving them in their favor, as well as in the "pre-launch state" for the period of danger, is even more important than in the nuclear war itself such
    2. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      24 November 2017 08: 49 New
      +3
      Quote: Rurikovich
      Greetings, Andrey Nikolaevich!

      Hello to you, dear Rurikovich!
      Quote: Rurikovich
      Of course, modern means of reconnaissance and search are unlikely to be so irrevocably allowed to get lost in the vast Akiyana air group led by an aircraft carrier

      Yes, in general, easy. Even during the times of the USSR, we did not particularly count on their escort in the ocean
      1. Rurikovich
        Rurikovich 24 November 2017 20: 13 New
        +1
        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
        Yes, in general, easy. Even during the times of the USSR, we did not particularly count on their escort in the ocean

        Maybe you are right. what
        Although, in principle, the A-50 and coastal aviation can determine the location near their shores, in the distance it will be problematic yes Even quite. The hope for satellites is also very small. We need maneuvering satellites with surveillance equipment in many ranges, capable of changing orbits and hanging over one area. That today is almost fantastic, because even if they are, they need a whole group.
        So with that
        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
        Of course, modern means of reconnaissance and search are unlikely to be so irrevocably allowed to get lost in the vast Akiyana air group led by an aircraft carrier

        I hurried yes
        I allow myself a short remark on today's topic ...
        I ran through all the comments here about the difficult working day, which was held in constant contemplation of the phone screen with a counting down to the end of work mode, periodically interrupted by solving complex sudoku ....
        And I thought that all these disputes about the damage from a nuclear strike do not include a psychological effect for the population. And this, in my opinion, is an important detail. Even rumors of some kind of natural disasters gave rise to very unpredictable reactions of people up to looting, robberies, outbreaks of violence, murders. They, in turn, are able to make a huge amendment to civil defense plans. The Katrina example is indicative. Therefore, it will be very conditional to say that 1500 warheads will not be enough to harm the enemy. For even a dozen warheads that destroyed a large metropolis can lead to a change in the general structure of the state with the ensuing consequences. Or to rally society, which in the case of the United States, built in the last 50-70 years on the policy of individualism of the individual due to the economic model, is very problematic. So either we will discuss certain models without many introductory conflicts, or we will need a supercomputer to calculate all the consequences in different conditions ....
        Everything is relative, colleague. request
        PS For example, take Germany sample 41st. They calculated all the nuances, but did not take into account the human factor of a society built on completely different values.
        So in the comments to your wonderful article - the human factor is not taken into account at all smile And this is a very significant introductory. To my mind hi
        1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
          24 November 2017 23: 13 New
          +4
          Quote: Rurikovich
          So in the comments to your wonderful article - the human factor is not taken into account at all

          Understand:))))
          But you see what’s the matter - a lot depends on the introductory ones. The fact is that the general mood of society (including in the USA) will depend on “how did you get to such a life” Because if Armageddon happened due to the wrong oil price, this is one thing, but if “Get up, the country is huge "is something completely different. I admit, I see poorly how we could get to Armageddon, so I just take it for granted - it happened.
          But if so, then psychological sketches ... do not come out :)))
          But there is a nuance. You write
          Quote: Rurikovich
          The Katrina example is indicative.

          But if there was a thread there was a freelance Texas town - everything could have been different. First of all, the rural population will survive in Armageddon, but I have no doubt about the strength of mind and body and the moral stability of the Rednecks.
          1. Rurikovich
            Rurikovich 24 November 2017 23: 35 New
            0
            Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
            therefore, I just take it for granted - he - happened.

            As an introduction to the forecast - yes
            Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
            But if so, then psychological sketches ... do not come out :)))

            what - means, crossed out for simplification wink
            Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
            But if there was a thread there was a freelance Texas city - everything could have been different

            Noncha has written a lot of books and has already shot films and series about the post-apocalyptic world, including the post-nuclear one, which doesn’t really predict how it would have happened no because of the high probability of error due to the same mass of probable input into the forecast, affecting the final result. If you believe in the cohesion of the rural population of America, I’m not very. Therefore, my forecast may be more pessimistic than yours for Americans .
            Again, my friend, everything is relative smile
            And so personally to me the train of your thoughts, in principle, is understandable drinks hi
            PS. In such articles where probable scenarios can be played out, some restrictions on introductory ones need to be introduced. Then for many it will become more clear what the author proceeded from. yes Personally, my opinion repeat
          2. Cherry Nine
            Cherry Nine 24 November 2017 23: 40 New
            +2
            Quote: Rurikovich
            They calculated all the nuances.

            They climbed headlong and made mistakes.
            Quote: Rurikovich
            general state device with the ensuing consequences

            That's right.
            Now there is exactly one Western state, the existence and physical survival of the population of which is disputed, although less than 50 years ago. This is Israel. The level of its effectiveness in the military sphere is more or less clear. The military power of the United States, transformed in the same spirit, is hard to imagine.
            Quote: Rurikovich
            on personality individualism politics

            This is just nonsense. The level of civil solidarity in the United States, and, in particular, patriotism (in its correct sense), is by record the standards of the West.
            I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands, one Nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

            Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
            fortress of mind and body and the moral stability of the "redneck" I have no doubt.

            PLAN HOW TO BEAT THE OMERICA !!!!

            RED ALL KILL, BLUE ALL LEAVE. They will cry and repent, and after a week they will breathe, because some gender psychologists do not even know how to unload the humanist.
            1. Rurikovich
              Rurikovich 25 November 2017 00: 07 New
              0
              Quote: Cherry Nine
              They climbed headlong and made mistakes.

              The one who does nothing is not mistaken. They calculated the whole operation, but lost without considering the human factor. yes
              Quote: Cherry Nine
              The level of civil solidarity in the United States, and, in particular, patriotism (in its correct sense), is by record standards of the West.

              Poking a star-striped flagpole near each house and putting your hand on your chest while playing the hymn does not mean being a patriot. Because such patriots happened that they would rather break into the dug-out bomb shelters than voluntarily, WITHOUT THE CALL, go to defend their homeland. For we pay taxes and the army should protect us.
              This is purely my personal subjective opinion. hi
              Quote: Cherry Nine
              PLAN HOW TO BEAT THE OMERICA !!!!

              Yes, no Omeryk should be defeated. The time will come - they themselves will fall apart. yes Another thing that business can do before this request
              1. Cherry Nine
                Cherry Nine 25 November 2017 00: 15 New
                0
                Quote: Rurikovich
                Because such patriots happened that they would rather break into the dug-out bomb shelters than voluntarily, WITHOUT THE CALL, go to defend their homeland. For we pay taxes and the army should protect us.

                Have you been to Israel?
                Normal people, my friend, do not protect the homeland. They protect their home and their family. This can be done in two ways: to take weapons or to dump in Australia, the notorious nuclear ashes will not reach there. The question is what the Americans will choose. It is believed that, despite the efforts of the progressive public, especially 2008-2016, they will definitely choose the first one. And there is an opinion that every single citizen of Russia who has this opportunity (1-2 million of them) will definitely choose the second.
                Quote: Rurikovich
                They calculated the entire operation, but lost without taking into account the human factor

                The ideas of living space in the east and racial superiority did not allow the development of an acceptable political solution.
                1. Rurikovich
                  Rurikovich 25 November 2017 07: 42 New
                  0
                  Quote: Cherry Nine
                  And there is an opinion that every single citizen of Russia who has this opportunity (1-2 million of them) will definitely choose the second.

                  Well, the family is not without an ugly person wink hi
                  Quote: Cherry Nine
                  Normal people, my friend, do not protect the homeland. They protect their home and their family.

                  I will not argue. Each nation (people) has its own views on some issues of life within their own country, in accordance with the conditions in which they live. Therefore, to predict how this or that nation (people) will act is a very difficult matter. And we can talk about a particular case based on our knowledge and preferences. Because such a dispute is meaningless. We have democracy according to the rules of the site (relative), therefore no one forbids me to speak out either
                  Quote: Cherry Nine
                  The ideas of living space in the east and racial superiority did not allow the development of an acceptable political solution.

                  All questions to the Germans yes
                  Quote: Cherry Nine
                  Have you been to Israel?

                  I was not and I am not going to hi
                  I live there and raised in a place that lives according to its laws and moral principles, formed in a historical way. At least everything suits me hi And the concept of patriotism in me is built on the basis of historical recent experience and my own views on imposed from outside the rule wink
    3. Serg65
      Serg65 25 November 2017 12: 01 New
      +3
      Quote: Rurikovich
      Of course, modern means of reconnaissance and search are unlikely to be so irrevocably allowed to get lost in the vast Akiyana air group led by an aircraft carrier

      Andrei, even the famous US-A satellite (the Legend system) blinked in the middle of the 80's AUG - which suddenly appeared off the coast of Kamchatka!
      1. Cherry Nine
        Cherry Nine 25 November 2017 12: 42 New
        +1
        Quote: Serg65
        he blinked in the mid-80s AUG - which suddenly appeared off the coast of Kamchatka!

        Fleetex-82. There was an AUS of 2 AUGs, Midway and Enterprise. On the other hand, if Midway was lost, then Enterprise was known.
        1. Serg65
          Serg65 25 November 2017 12: 53 New
          +3
          Quote: Cherry Nine
          Fleetex-xnumx

          Separation from the ship, OSNAZ, silence on the air, favorable weather conditions .... and panic in one of the houses in Bolshoi Kozlovsky Lane recourse . This is the most famous separation of Aug from tracking, and even those that are more modest and cannot be counted on the fingers !!!
      2. Rurikovich
        Rurikovich 25 November 2017 18: 17 New
        +1
        Quote: Serg65
        Andrei, even the famous US-A satellite (the Legend system) blinked in the middle of the 80's AUG - which suddenly appeared off the coast of Kamchatka!

        Then I admit my incompetence !!!!! hi drinks No options !!!!
  3. sesame
    sesame 24 November 2017 06: 57 New
    +4
    19000 of cities - how are people distributed among these cities? Something tells me that 50% of the population is concentrated in no more than 20 cities.
    1. Alex_59
      Alex_59 24 November 2017 08: 33 New
      +7
      Quote: sezam
      19000 of cities - how are people distributed among these cities? Something tells me that 50% of the population is concentrated in no more than 20 cities.

      At the place of our command, I would take the 15 of the first American cities on the list and sow them with the available BG extremely tightly. 1600 BG with us. Well, let 30% not start. So flew 1100. Some of them will intercept missile defense, even 200 pieces. Fly 900. 900 / 15 = 60 warheads per city.
      We take our long-suffering New York. The area of ​​its most urbanized center is 40x40 = 1500 km2. 1500 km2 / 60 BG = 25 km2 per warhead. Those. one warhead falls into the square 5x5 km. An 150 CT warhead creates a lunar landscape within a radius of one kilometer, and a landscape a la "stalingard" within a radius of 2,5 km.
      I think that New York can safely say goodbye with such a dense sowing of BG.
      And this is New York, the largest city, and the rest needs even less BG. You can really cover the cities of 25. Where about 40 million people live. Formally, this is not an apocalypse of course. But how to live further after this is decidedly not clear. As the saying goes, "the living will envy the dead."
      1. AlexKP
        AlexKP 24 November 2017 12: 22 New
        +1
        And what kind of 150 ct?
        1. AlexKP
          AlexKP 24 November 2017 12: 23 New
          +1
          It seems to be less than 1 MT. In the Strategic Rocket Forces no.
          1. Vadim237
            Vadim237 24 November 2017 20: 43 New
            +2
            Now in the Strategic Missile Forces, warheads range from 200 to 350 kilotons in bulk.
        2. Alex_59
          Alex_59 24 November 2017 13: 00 New
          +3
          Quote: AlexKP
          And what kind of 150 ct?

          Typical RGCH IN. Yars will have either 6x150, or 3x300 Kt. Megaton is "Poplar". "Topol" soon will not remain.
          And generally speaking. Megaton warhead in our problem has more minuses than pluses, because the damage caused to it is not 6 times stronger than from 150 CT, but only two times.
          1. Cherry Nine
            Cherry Nine 24 November 2017 19: 54 New
            0
            Quote: Alex_59
            Typical RGCH IN. Yars will have either 6x150, or 3x300 Kt. Megaton is "Poplar". "Topol" soon will not remain.

            Speaking of which. And on W53 back will the enemies have time to rearm? I really want the W53 namely, 9 Mt. And another B41 is a must. 25 Mt.
            1. Vadim237
              Vadim237 24 November 2017 20: 45 New
              +2
              Bombs B53 and monsters Mk 41 are no longer all disposed of.
              1. Cherry Nine
                Cherry Nine 24 November 2017 23: 49 New
                0
                Quote: Vadim237
                Bombs B53 and monsters Mk 41 are no longer all disposed of.

                That’s why I say, "rearm back." To die like that with music.
      2. 3danimal
        3danimal 1 December 2017 15: 44 New
        0
        Quote: Alex_59
        I think that New York can safely say goodbye with such a dense sowing of BG.

        In one film, the phrase sounded: "Washington will not have time to plunge into the ashes, as hell begins in Moscow." It is important to keep this in mind. And then the United States will never be the first to start such a war.
        And the subsequent war will go with conventional weapons and tactical UBCs. The remnants of air defense will be suppressed (the forces are very unequal) and the defeat of all large formations is only a matter of time .. Worst of all, under such conditions, the population will probably not receive humanitarian assistance (aggressors, after all). And the losses from hunger and chaos will be very great. China, I’m sure, will not stand aside and pick up all the necessary sections of the territory (on the other hand, Russia did the same, taking advantage of the weakness of the Chinese bleeding from the war in the 19th century). And it will be very logical and profitable on his part.
    2. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      24 November 2017 09: 01 New
      +4
      Quote: sezam
      19000 of cities - how are people distributed among these cities? Something tells me that 50% of the population is concentrated in no more than 20 cities.

      Send your “something” that tells you to learn the materiel. In the 20 largest cities in the United States, just over 33 million people live, i.e. 1/10 of the US population.
      But, for example, in settlements of less than 2500 people live above 64 million Americans
      1. EvilLion
        EvilLion 24 November 2017 09: 33 New
        +1
        https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A1%D0%BF%D0%B8%
        D1%81%D0%BE%D0%BA_%D0%B3%D0%BE%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%B4%
        D0%BE%D0%B2_%D0%A1%D0%A8%D0%90_%D1%81_%D0%BD%D0%B
        0%D1%81%D0%B5%D0%BB%D0%B5%D0%BD%D0%B8%D0%B5%D0%BC
        _%D0%B1%D0%BE%D0%BB%D0%B5%D0%B5_100_%D1%82%D1%8B%
        D1%81%D1%8F%D1%87_%D0%B6%D0%B8%D1%82%D0%B5%D0%BB%
        D0% B5% D0% B9

        Read the first 15 and do not write nonsense.

        N / a for 2500 people a scientific and industrial base is not provided, in principle.
        1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
          24 November 2017 10: 21 New
          +4
          Quote: EvilLion
          Read the first 15 and do not write nonsense.

          It was from there that he counted. Did the calculator ban you?
      2. NEXUS
        NEXUS 24 November 2017 13: 33 New
        +4
        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
        But, for example, in settlements of less than 2500 people live above 64 million Americans

        Not a single sensible military leader in Russia will make a decision to slaughter nuclear weapons in cities by cities! This is pointless and ineffective from the word at all. What will happen to the United States if rockets arrive at nuclear power plants, dams, chemical plants, hydroelectric power stations, and so on? Ever wonder? I'm not talking about the fact that in the center of North America there is the largest super volcano, which, in the event of a nuclear bombing, wakes up and wakes up its other brothers around the world ... and then I will ask you-And what in this case will remain only from the USA, but from the entire American mainland?
        1. Greenwood
          Greenwood 24 November 2017 13: 55 New
          +1
          Quote: NEXUS
          I'm not talking about the fact that in the center of North America there is the largest super volcano, which, in the event of a nuclear bombing, wakes up and wakes up its other brothers around the world ... and then I will ask you-And what in this case will remain only from the USA from the entire American mainland?
          If you count on the apocalyptic consequences of the awakened Yellowstone, then it turns out you can not bomb the west coast of the United States, but hollow directly on the volcano.
          1. NEXUS
            NEXUS 24 November 2017 13: 57 New
            +3
            Quote: Greenwood
            If you count on the apocalyptic consequences of the awakened Yellowstone, then it turns out you can not bomb the west coast of the United States, but hollow directly on the volcano.

            Yellowstone is that grenade with which it is not necessary to play not for us not mattresses. In the event of his awakening, it will not seem to anyone on the whole planet, including us. And given the fact that he will almost certainly wake up other smaller volcanoes and smaller volcanoes, and not only on land, it turns out an oil painting.
          2. Vadim237
            Vadim237 24 November 2017 20: 47 New
            +3
            Unfortunately, the volcano will be on the drum - even though you put the entire strategic missile forces arsenal there, the supervolcano will not explode from this.
        2. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
          24 November 2017 14: 42 New
          +4
          Quote: NEXUS
          Not a single sensible military leader in Russia will make a decision to slaughter nuclear weapons in cities by cities! This is pointless and ineffective from the word at all. What will happen to the United States if rockets arrive at nuclear power plants, dams, chemical plants, hydroelectric power stations, etc.?

          In the discussion, I have already cited figures. If you can hit some 1600 US power stations with 8000 warheads, good luck!
          1. NEXUS
            NEXUS 24 November 2017 14: 55 New
            +2
            Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
            In the discussion, I have already cited figures. If you can hit some 1600 US power stations with 8000 warheads, good luck!

            That is precisely what you and adherents like you — THAT ANYTHING WILL NOT HAPPEN — do not take into account the planet’s response from the word at all. The question is, what will happen if the Sakharov project (whether it is Status-6 or any other project) is put into practice by blowing up megaton charges along a fault near the US coast? As well, what will happen if some kind of explosion or a series of nuclear explosions wakes Yellowstone? As well as to the question, what will happen if the volcanoes of Kamchatka wake up from a nuclear bombing and that’s all? Can you predict this development?
            Or will you stand stubbornly on the fact that the planet will not react at all to the fact that it is being hammered by nuclear weapons?
            1. Alex_59
              Alex_59 24 November 2017 15: 33 New
              +3
              Quote: NEXUS
              Or will you stand stubbornly on the fact that the planet will not react at all to the fact that it is being hammered by nuclear weapons?

              Exactly! bully
              No, I willingly believe that if you land a dozen megaton charges on a volcano, it will wake up. Yes, even more than that, I'm sure of that at 100%! But then ... He wakes up and I'm sorry, dirtied their pasture to all nearby farmers, drowned in a lava a couple of cows and gapeous squirrels. Perhaps even a couple of villages will burn. Someone crushed by a fallen tree. Trump expresses condolences. This is all terrible, no doubt.
              Of course, it saddens me to take into account the volcanoes of Kamchatka. Okay, there is Yellowstone, somewhere in the center of the country, and there is already something in full swing, we have hopes for it. What about Kamchatka volcanoes? I imagine their expression "faces" when they begin to crumble with warheads - "AND US FOR WHAT? WTF ???"
              1. NEXUS
                NEXUS 24 November 2017 15: 48 New
                +2
                Quote: Alex_59
                He will wake up and forgive, dirtied their pasture to all nearby farmers, drown a couple of cows and gapeous squirrels in lava.

                What can be said about this? lol Well, you understand ...
                Here's for you to understand what will happen, for example, the eruption of the Tambora volcano ... and this volcano is simply a dwarf in comparison with Yellowstone.

                Enlighten and more such frank nonsense do not write.
                1. tlauicol
                  tlauicol 25 November 2017 06: 19 New
                  0
                  it is believed that Tambor was woken up by the explosion of 100 barrels of gunpowder laughing

                  P.S. Do not disgrace you already with these volcanoes
            2. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
              24 November 2017 18: 02 New
              +3
              Quote: NEXUS
              The question is, what will happen if the Sakharov project (whether it is Status-6 or any other project) is put into practice by blowing up megaton charges along a fault near the US coast?

              Nothing. Apparently, Sakharov was mistaken. By the way, he was going to undermine 100 Mt charges. And where are they? :))))
              1. NEXUS
                NEXUS 24 November 2017 18: 29 New
                +2
                Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                Nothing. Apparently, Sakharov was mistaken

                I consider our further conversation unpromising. I have no more questions. hi
              2. xtur
                xtur 25 November 2017 15: 11 New
                +1
                > Nothing. Apparently, Sakharov was mistaken.

                Sakharov was very skilled physicist, creator of a thermonuclear bomb. And you are an accountant. In your case with us there is a confrontation between the haberdashery and the cardinalwhere the haberdasher is not Sakharov, and the cardinal is not you.

                > By the way, he was going to undermine 100 MT charges. And where are they? :))))

                but from now on in more detail - do you already have all the necessary forms of admission?
        3. alex86
          alex86 24 November 2017 22: 03 New
          0
          Quote: NEXUS
          Not a single sensible military leader in Russia will make a decision to slaughter nuclear weapons in cities by cities! This is pointless and ineffective from the word at all.

          Generally speaking, the peaceful policy of the USSR (and of Russia as successors) implied a retaliatory nuclear strike, for which the point is to strike at cities (by the way, for some reason here the population and enterprises are considered to be located in different places - in fact, where the enterprises - there is the population, and vice versa). The idea of ​​the inevitability of a retaliatory strike on the cities was (and is) that democratic slobbers would not want to put their population at risk (who will vote for them later) - this is not China, which is only relieved by reducing the load on the soil (according to Zhvanetsky ), or Russia, which has never stood behind the price - and the fact that the missiles were aimed specifically at cities was not only not hidden, but also emphasized.
      3. g1v2
        g1v2 24 November 2017 15: 27 New
        +3
        Well, in modern times, of course, neither the USA nor us will destroy. But if my memory serves me right, the Yankees had a list of about 100 strategic goals on the territory of the USSR, the destruction of which would throw us back to the Stone Age. The United States itself will have less territory. Plus, the main industrial and technological centers are arranged quite tightly. And to cover just them is quite real. It makes no sense to bomb every airfield. There are too many of them, and if you wish, you can take off from even pieces of tracks. The main US critical points are on the coasts. These are the old 13 colonies, Texas and the west coast (primarily California). And immediately comes to mind "status 6". With radioactive long-term pollution of the coasts, the United States sharply cringes in its capabilities. Of course, there are a lot of people in the center, but recently these states are not in vain called a rust belt. The number of targets in the center of the United States is severely limited. A significant number of warheads will also be spent on the coast. On the west coast, a zone of serious tectonic activity, including impacts in that area, will not go unambiguously. Plus there is the possibility of launching special ammunition from apl. All they need is they get. request
        Well, about aug. And what prevents us from striking them with special ammunition from a decent distance from a submarine or strategic bomber without entering their air defense zone? One strategist counts as one carrier. X102 range - 4500 km. The carrier is not included in the air defense zone, that is, it can go to the alternate aerodrome and shoot again. Let 1-2 missiles with special units break through. Even if they don’t sink the aircraft carrier, at best a box with burnt electronics, demolished antennas and aircraft from the deck will remain from it. And in the island of an aircraft carrier hardly anyone will survive. request
        The truth is also not expecting anything good with the crowded population in the European part of the Russian Federation. BUT THERE ARE SERIOUS CHANCE FOR THAT THE MOSCOW PRO AND AIR DEFENSE AREA will intercept enough missiles to Moscow and Moscow Region with their industry and this building

        survived. Mattresses have the same limitations as ours. And they will have to decide - or concentrate enough missiles to break through the Moscow region and destroy the country's governing center, or to less protected and dispersed targets on the ninth land. They have not enough warheads for everything. And we are not as vulnerable from a geographical point of view as they are. request
        1. Vadim237
          Vadim237 24 November 2017 20: 52 New
          +1
          The USA has the easiest way out - to build up a group of radar, satellites and missile defense systems, each year there will be more and more of them, their task is to minimize the consequences of our massive strike on the territory of the USA.
        2. Serg65
          Serg65 25 November 2017 12: 18 New
          +2
          Quote: g1v2
          And what prevents us from striking them with special ammunition from a decent distance from a submarine or strategic bomber without entering their air defense zone?

          AUG speed on average +/- 25 knots, missile arrival time +/- 2 hours, during which time AUG will move to 93 km! From here the question is, what effect will a nuclear explosion have on AUG?
    3. albert
      albert 24 November 2017 22: 47 New
      0
      You can add bacteriological and viral weapons to the Doomsday scenario. After the exchange of nuclear strikes, no agreements will be respected, so "die like that with music."
    4. arkadiyssk
      arkadiyssk 25 November 2017 10: 34 New
      0
      Wrong tells you. In the United States, 100 million are concentrated in 15 cities and their suburbs. Cities above 100 thousand in total - 300 pcs. The problem is different. In the US, such a town has a full airport and public services. And here we have appendages of the regional center, without the ability to live independently.
  4. komvap
    komvap 24 November 2017 07: 47 New
    +4
    The whole story is based on the incorrect assumption that aircraft carriers can "hide" from a potential enemy.
    Carriers are the easiest way to track your location.
    In the event of the onset of an unlimited nuclear conflict, they will be destroyed first of all and with a 100 percent result.
    Aircraft carriers are needed only for countries that pursue a colonial (nowadays veiled by pathetic demagogy) policy, for intimidation and punishment of obviously weak, unrequited opponents. This is what the current Americans are doing, taking over the baton from the British.
    Russia has no tasks for the use of aircraft carriers.
    The experience of Kuznetsov’s Syrian campaign demonstrated this perfectly.
    I hope there will be no adventures with the construction of aircraft carriers (as well as other large (more than 8000 naval ships)) in Russia.
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      24 November 2017 09: 03 New
      +7
      Well, as always - a set of crackling slogans, without the slightest justification. And why am I not surprised?
      Start simple
      Quote: komvap
      Carriers are the easiest way to track your location.

      Well, tell us in all the chilling details how you are going to track them
      1. NEXUS
        NEXUS 24 November 2017 13: 49 New
        +3
        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
        Well, tell us in all the chilling details how you are going to track them

        Easy ... for example radar subson ...
        1. Alex_59
          Alex_59 24 November 2017 14: 16 New
          +4
          Quote: NEXUS
          Easy ... for example radar subson ...

          After a nuclear attack))))))))))))))))
          Violation of the laws of physics is prosecuted in physics - warning! )))))))))))))))))))
          1. NEXUS
            NEXUS 24 November 2017 14: 32 New
            +3
            Quote: Alex_59
            After a nuclear attack))))))))))))))))
            Violation of the laws of physics is prosecuted in physics - warning! )))))))))))))))))))

            All the same, the proposal to turn on the brain did not reach you ... wassat
            We look at what question I answered ...
            Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
            Well, tell us in all the chilling details how you are going to track them

            My answer was ..
            Quote: NEXUS
            Easy ... for example radar subson ...

            And where does the nuclear attack? lol
            1. Alex_59
              Alex_59 24 November 2017 14: 42 New
              +2
              Quote: NEXUS
              And where does the nuclear attack?

              Have you read the article?
              1. NEXUS
                NEXUS 24 November 2017 15: 15 New
                +2
                Quote: Alex_59
                Have you read the article?

                You read Andrei’s dispute with Komvap and my answer to Andrei’s question ... you need to wipe your eyes at least sometimes.
        2. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
          24 November 2017 14: 40 New
          11
          Quote: NEXUS
          Easy ... for example radar subson ...

          And what is a sunflower? Radar Sunflower is able to make out someone at a distance of 450 km from its location. And I assure you wherever you place this Sunflower in the territory of the Russian Federation, it will not be able to scan the ocean.
          Just because the ocean is a little wider than 450 km. 100 meters, approximately laughing
          1. NEXUS
            NEXUS 24 November 2017 15: 13 New
            +3
            Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
            And what is a sunflower? Radar Sunflower is able to make out someone at a distance of 450 km from its location. And I assure you wherever you place this Sunflower in the territory of the Russian Federation, it will not be able to scan the ocean.

            Seriously? Nothing, that this is an over-the-horizon radar and "sees" it not at 450 km, but at a greater distance (there were figures under 3000 km)?
            And it is precisely geared towards tracking marine targets. laughing
            And what you are talking about 450 km is the export version of Sunflower.
            An aircraft carrier is effective only when the radius of its wing reaches the targets of the adversary. The question is, if the AOG will be discovered beyond 1500 km from our shores, what kind of efficiency is the aircraft carrier in question, with a radius of its wing of 800 km?
            1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
              24 November 2017 16: 11 New
              +4
              Quote: NEXUS
              Seriously? Nothing, that this is an over-the-horizon radar and "sees" it not at 450 km, but at a greater distance (there were figures under 3000 km)?

              "Caught" or "Sees"? And you thought the size of the ocean? Yes, at least the Atlantic? :)))) Is there anything more than 5,5 thousand km from New York to London?
              Quote: NEXUS
              a survey, if the AOG is detected beyond 1500 km from our shores, what kind of efficiency is the aircraft carrier in question, with a radius of its air wing of 800 km?

              The answer is, before discussing the article, you need to read it.
              Where is there even a word about AUG strikes? :)
              1. NEXUS
                NEXUS 24 November 2017 16: 18 New
                +3
                Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                "Caught" or "Sees"? And you thought the size of the ocean? Yes, at least the Atlantic? :)))) Is there anything more than 5,5 thousand km from New York to London?

                The issue of the effectiveness and appropriateness of the AUG is on the agenda. The sense of an aircraft carrier dangling somewhere in the Atlantic applies to us? M.
                Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                The answer is, before discussing the article, you need to read it.
                Where is there even a word about AUG strikes? :)

                Dear Andrey, I read the article, and it is unfortunate that you did not hear my question. At the same time, they did not answer my main question to you, as to the author of the article- WHY YOU TAKEN THAT THERE WILL BE ONLY TWO FORCES IN THE NUCLEAR CONFLICT, AND YOU DO NOT ACCOUNT THIRD PLANET FORCE? All your other arguments are interesting, but not important, because they are based on the assertion that a nuclear conflict in itself is, albeit unpleasant, but not destructive for all life on the planet.
                1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                  24 November 2017 18: 05 New
                  +3
                  Quote: NEXUS
                  The issue of the effectiveness and appropriateness of the AUG is on the agenda. The sense of an aircraft carrier dangling somewhere in the Atlantic applies to us? M.

                  He then approaches Europe and the planes fly from it to the continent, and he himself anchors where the thread is in a more or less suitable place and is engaged exclusively in the repair of aviation :)))
                  Quote: NEXUS
                  WHAT DO YOU TAKE THAT ONLY TWO FORCES WILL BE IN THE NUCLEAR CONFLICT, AND THE THIRD PLANET FORCE WILL NOT BE ACCOUNTED BY YOU?

                  Yes there will be nothing. Our nuclear efforts are fie, they won’t create any earthquakes and cannot. This is the same as a fly trying to mount Everest.
                  1. NEXUS
                    NEXUS 24 November 2017 18: 33 New
                    +3
                    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                    He then approaches Europe and planes fly from him to the continent,

                    Yeah ... they land directly on the glass surface of the desert, after the blows of the Iskanders, Caliber, and so on ... straight dreams, dreams ... did you try to write fantastic novels?
                    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                    Our nuclear efforts are fie, they won’t create any earthquakes and cannot. This is the same as a fly trying to mount Everest.

                    Well, yes ... or for example with a stupid expression on his face, hammering into an anti-tank mine with a hammer. Fun, but not for long. Before you declare this, you would familiarize yourself with the opinions of scientists who understand this more than yours.
                    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                      24 November 2017 19: 29 New
                      +3
                      Quote: NEXUS
                      Yeah ... they land directly on the glass surface of the desert, after the blows of the Iskanders, Caliber, and so on ... straight dreams, dreams ... did you try to write fantastic novels?

                      We take the article and read :))))
                      In Germany alone, there are 318 paved airfields. The Turks - 91, France - 294, and all in Europe there are 1882. In the United States there are 5 054.

                      So yes, you can certainly try to destroy the airfield network of Europe ... but this is where our strategic nuclear weapons will end.
                      Quote: NEXUS
                      Before you declare this, you would familiarize yourself with the opinions of scientists who understand this more than yours.

                      You are here
                      http://army-news.ru/2016/08/yadernye-straxi-mnimy
                      ei-nastoyashhie-chast-2 /
                    2. Cherry Nine
                      Cherry Nine 24 November 2017 20: 00 New
                      +1
                      Quote: NEXUS
                      Before you declare this, you would familiarize yourself with the opinions of scientists who understand this more than yours.

                      On this particular issue (and on the global climate as a whole), scientists need to be treated very carefully.
                      1. NEXUS
                        NEXUS 24 November 2017 20: 21 New
                        +2
                        Quote: Cherry Nine
                        On this particular issue (and on the global climate as a whole), scientists need to be treated very carefully.

                        Do you want to check whether they were right or not?
                      2. Cherry Nine
                        Cherry Nine 24 November 2017 23: 53 New
                        0
                        Quote: NEXUS
                        Do you want to check whether they were right or not?

                        I do not want to check. Therefore, an extra terrible tale does not bother me at all.
                        However, under the conditions specified by the top starter, it does not have the slightest significance.
        3. Serg65
          Serg65 25 November 2017 12: 22 New
          +2
          Quote: NEXUS
          Easy ... for example radar subson ...

          Range detection of only 450 km! Those. AUG to remove 500 km we will not see!
      2. Setrac
        Setrac 25 November 2017 00: 27 New
        0
        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
        Well, tell us in all the chilling details how you are going to track them

        Through the eyes.
        You do not take into account that Russian ships also have nuclear weapons.
        1. Serg65
          Serg65 25 November 2017 12: 32 New
          +2
          Quote: Setrac
          You do not take into account that Russian ships also have nuclear weapons

          And how will nuclear carriers keep track of these nuclear weapons?
          1. Setrac
            Setrac 25 November 2017 13: 29 New
            0
            It will be constantly located nearby
            1. Serg65
              Serg65 25 November 2017 13: 41 New
              +2
              Quote: Setrac
              It will be constantly located nearby

              good How? Yes, none of your business! It will be said, then it will be !!! laughing
              1. Setrac
                Setrac 25 November 2017 13: 51 New
                0
                Quote: Serg65
                How so?

                Simple - on the ships accompanying the AUG, the Americans have only ten of them.
                Quote: Serg65
                Yes, none of your business!

                This is the business of sailors.
                Quote: Serg65
                It will be said, then it will be !!!

                Amen.
                1. Serg65
                  Serg65 25 November 2017 14: 03 New
                  +2
                  Quote: Setrac
                  Simple - on the ships accompanying the AUG, the Americans have only ten of them

                  bully Do you often play sea battle?
                  1. Setrac
                    Setrac 25 November 2017 15: 27 New
                    0
                    Quote: Serg65
                    Do you often play sea battle?

                    Once played in childhood, but what does it have to do with it?
                    I remember that the USSR had project 68 bis cruisers, which had one task - to accompany the enemy AUGs.
    2. Skeptic
      Skeptic 24 November 2017 09: 36 New
      +1
      Quote: komvap
      Carriers are the easiest way to track your location.
      In the event of the onset of an unlimited nuclear conflict, they will be destroyed first of all and with a 100 percent result.

      How? Aircraft carrier covers export no worse than Moscow "concrete" rings.
      1. Setrac
        Setrac 25 November 2017 00: 29 New
        0
        Quote: SkepticCynic
        How? Aircraft carrier covers export no worse than Moscow "concrete" rings.

        Ha no worse? So the vaunted American air defense did not intercept the North Korean missile over Japan?
        1. arkadiyssk
          arkadiyssk 25 November 2017 10: 40 New
          0
          Because the USA has no means in the region of Japan to intercept missiles in the middle part of the trajectory. Now, if the missile aimed at Korea in Japan - Patriot, SM-6, THAAD would work there. On an average trajectory, they can only be intercepted on their shores using the GBI
          1. Setrac
            Setrac 25 November 2017 13: 29 New
            +1
            Quote: arkadiyssk
            Because the USA has no means in the region of Japan to intercept missiles in the middle part of the trajectory. Now, if the missile aimed at Korea in Japan - Patriot, SM-6, THAAD would work there.

            And not a single praised Aegis destroyer nearby is simply not true.
    3. avt
      avt 24 November 2017 10: 30 New
      +3
      Quote: komvap
      flocking is the easiest location-tracking target.

      bully Sorry! It is unfortunate that the Soviet military leadership did not know about this! bully
      Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
      Well, tell us in all the chilling details how you are going to track them

      Yes, you are a sadist, my friend! ETOGES he needs to move the mouse with his hand, knock on the clave, while working as a search engine. And then I tapped it into an easy comment, caught a small portion in the rating, since there are no minuses, and the driver will look at it with an asterisk. And you offer him to move his brain in search of knowledge about how and with what forces and means in the USSR, “easily” the AUG was monitored and what forces were planned to be destroyed.
      1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
        24 November 2017 11: 32 New
        +6
        Quote: avt
        Yes, you are a sadist, my friend!

        And the rapist. Responding to comments similar to what komvap wrote, I feel like a maniac who has abused a youngster. Brrrrr!
    4. Serg65
      Serg65 25 November 2017 12: 20 New
      +2
      Quote: komvap
      Carriers are the easiest way to track your location.

      what Have you personally tried to follow the aircraft carrier?
      Quote: komvap
      The experience of Kuznetsov’s Syrian campaign was perfectly demonstrated

      what And what did this experience show you?
  5. SPACE
    SPACE 24 November 2017 07: 48 New
    +8
    As for the United States, they have about 19 000 cities

    In the USA there are about 10 cities of million people and about 20 cities in the region of 500 000 people. What for all these cities knows only to bomb the silk-driver. The most significant targets will be attacked, where the main industrial potential is concentrated, by the way, it is not even necessary to bomb the US ground forces, it is enough to destroy naval bases and major ports, without this, America will not be able to live on its continent. Plus, the densely populated and population density is orders of magnitude higher; the main industrial and military potential is concentrated on the coasts. Based on this, it is logical to assume that the warhead of the same power, the United States will cause the most damage.
    Regarding the effectiveness of an aircraft carrier in the post nuclear era, it’s ridiculous in general, the impression is that the Russian “patriots” of the American aircraft carrier fleet have no reason to cling to justifying their presence in the United States, so they are trying to invent any frank mess. How much resource is enough for one aircraft carrier? How many hours, sorties, bombs, objects? In addition, the aircraft carrier alone is generally a complete zero, and the ships included in the AUG require fuel. At the same time, one should not forget that after exchanging nuclear weapons, the sea, including the underwater component of the Russian fleet, will survive, similarly to aircraft carriers .... In short, the article is not serious and very childishly naive.
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      24 November 2017 09: 14 New
      +5
      Quote: SPACE
      The most significant targets, where the main industrial potential is concentrated, will be attacked.

      (laughing) please specify the geography :))) Where is it specifically concentrated and how many warheads will it take to destroy it?
      Quote: SPACE
      By the way, even the US ground forces do not need to be bombed, it is enough to destroy naval bases and major ports

      In the United States, you forgot to add. And what will you do with the fact that the Americans will transfer to the continent before the conflict?
      Quote: SPACE
      How much resource is enough for one aircraft carrier? How many hours, sorties, bombs, objects?

      What I like about the majority of opponents of aircraft carriers is the complete inability to go beyond once learned mantras
      The article is written
      Then, on the arrival of aircraft carriers to the European shores, their planes will fly to the airfields that survived after Armageddon. Fuel and ammunition can be supplied both from European stocks and from the Metropolis, i.e. from the United States through transport aviation. Repair and maintenance will be carried out directly on aircraft carriers, located somewhere far away from the fighting.

      Which word is not clear to you? The aircraft carrier in the format I proposed is a repair workshop, there are PEOPLE and EQUIPMENT for servicing aircraft. And all supply comes from other sources.
      Quote: SPACE
      silkworm

      You learned to be rude, it's good. You still have to master reading :)
      1. Alexey RA
        Alexey RA 24 November 2017 11: 08 New
        +5
        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
        (laughing) please specify the geography :))) Where is it specifically concentrated and how many warheads will it take to destroy it?

        As I understand it, some are urging to bomb China. smile
        1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
          24 November 2017 11: 33 New
          +2
          Quote: Alexey RA
          As I understand it, some are urging to bomb China.

          In-in :))))
        2. arkadiyssk
          arkadiyssk 25 November 2017 10: 46 New
          +1
          In the event of a nuclear war between the Russian Federation and the USA, others will do this: Israel will prefer to finish off Iran, because his US ally has weakened, India will prefer to finish off the Packs, etc. And China will prefer to balance both the remnants of the Russian Federation and the remnants of the United States, which would quietly gain a foothold on top of the world.
      2. saturn.mmm
        saturn.mmm 24 November 2017 11: 44 New
        +2
        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
        Which word is not clear to you? The aircraft carrier in the format I proposed is a repair workshop, there are PEOPLE and EQUIPMENT for servicing aircraft. And all supply comes from other sources.

        They use the potential of their satellites and 800 foreign military bases, even they don’t need to transfer planes to ground airfields, they will surround Russia with a tight ring and will methodically finish concentrating strikes in one place or another with the help of aircraft carriers and the rest of their fleet, there is still a large submarine component , as it is frivolous in Russia belong to the fleet.
        1. MadCat
          MadCat 25 November 2017 03: 05 New
          +1
          Quote: saturn.mmm
          as it is frivolously in Russia belong to the fleet.

          propaganda is frivolous, so much has happened to hush up and print nonsense about missiles that have no analogs in the world, which in one fell swoop all like banging ready and ready, the military is well aware of the capabilities of its fleet and potential enemy.
      3. SPACE
        SPACE 24 November 2017 12: 14 New
        +2
        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
        (laughing) please specify the geography :))) Where is it specifically concentrated and how many warheads will it take to destroy it?

        (Crying) crying Pity people, it is the objects, half of the industry are located in the northeast of the United States and few in Atlanta, Houston, San Francisco and Los Angeles, near 20 large ports. Total 20 largest cities, 20 largest ports, about a hundred largest industrial and military facilities, nuclear power plants, factories, mining enterprises, 150-200 facilities on average, two to three warheads 100-500 CT, all 500-600 warheads, will transfer America for years three hundred back to the past. And still remains ...
        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
        In the US, you forgot to add. And what will you do with the fact that the Americans will transfer to the continent before the conflict?

        I didn’t forget, I just didn’t reach Europe, is it necessary? Your question is wrong, not what to do with them, but what will they do? And yes, Europe is still useful ...
        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
        What I like about the majority of opponents of aircraft carriers is the complete inability to go beyond once learned mantras

        Yeah, did you manage to go beyond, reason or senility? It’s just that such a flight of fancy is unavailable to you as many lol "aircraft carrier remaster" is strong, this is new wassat
        1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
          24 November 2017 13: 34 New
          +3
          Quote: SPACE
          Altogether, 20 largest cities, 20 largest ports, about a hundred of the largest industrial and military facilities, nuclear power plants, factories, mining enterprises, 150-200 objects on average, two or three warheads of 100-500 kt, a total of 500-600 warheads, will transfer America for years three hundred back to the past. And still remains ...

          Well, at least not “20 cities”, already cheers :)))
          Unfortunately no. What you described will knock out their most significant enterprises, but nothing more. In the USA in 2001 there were 144 ferrous metallurgy plants, the automobile industry was located in 150 cities, etc.
          Quote: SPACE
          "aircraft carrier remaster" is strong, this is new

          Yes, your training manual did not fit :))))
      4. _Efiop_
        _Efiop_ 26 November 2017 22: 59 New
        +2
        100 tons somewhere in the middle of the Mediterranean Sea so-so remmaster:
        1) Vulnerability. (They are hard to find when they plow the expanses of the ocean, and do not stand on a raid off the coast).
        2) There are no conditions for rembaza. (they are not adapted for this easier in a rotten hangar with high ceilings on land with a cranes, and not in a clamped hold)
        3) How do they drag a malfunctioning fighter there on the bruises? (Oh, the fighter broke, let him drag the base onto the carrier carrier, drag it on the bumps, dismantled the engine of the khan, where did he get insanity to take it from land again? I did not hear)

        On the issue of military use, I will see how, after a nuclear conflict, some kind of smart admiral drags the AUG into Black (2 straits with a probability of 99% they will remain in them) or the Baltic (shallow without the possibility of maneuver) sea and maybe right into the Arctic (far from bases supply, there are no icebreaking opportunities).
        With a combat radius of 500-600 km, at least some kind of efficiency is only the Pacific coast of the Russian Federation.(and there, as you know, the main population, weapons and production are concentrated)))))) banter)
        1. Alexey RA
          Alexey RA 29 November 2017 10: 16 New
          +2
          Quote: _Efiop_
          2) There are no conditions for rembaza. (they are not adapted for this easier in a rotten hangar with high ceilings on land with a cranes, and not in a clamped hold)

          You are talking about AB from some parallel reality. smile
          Here is the area for repair and maintenance of aircraft engines on the Hayke:

          They even have the opportunity to arrange an engine run - for this the engine is installed on a special stand in the aft part of the AB.
          1. _Efiop_
            _Efiop_ 2 December 2017 15: 09 New
            +1
            Something tells me that in the room in the photo, one 1/3 of the engine takes up more than 1-3 aircraft for repair not to place. Now look at the normal land repair shops that are harder to detect and destroy. Duck, explain to me why the hell, an aircraft that needs repair needs to be dragged on a carrier at sea on a wharf, then dragged parts from land to land to repair 1-3 aircraft in this mini-workshop, and then distilled them back.
            They can be repaired there in limited quantities and with a heavy load on logistics. It’s easier in the first hangar that you find, go find it.
            + An aircraft carrier standing on a roadstead 10-20km from the coast is another target. But you probably say, go look for my repair aircraft carrier in the middle of the Atlantic - duck behind it is a train from escort and supply ships and also ships with broken planes, others with spare parts, etc. only full will guess.
    2. saturn.mmm
      saturn.mmm 24 November 2017 10: 01 New
      +1
      Quote: SPACE
      including the underwater component of the Russian fleet ....

      And what is there currently on the move against the American submarine component?
    3. Alexey RA
      Alexey RA 24 November 2017 12: 30 New
      +4
      Quote: SPACE
      By the way, even the US ground forces do not need to be bombed, it is enough to destroy naval bases and major ports, without this in isolation America will not be able to live on its continent.

      Please specify - without which US imported goods will not be able to live on their continent?
      Quote: SPACE
      How much resource is enough for one aircraft carrier? How many hours, sorties, bombs, objects?

      Given the floating rear, AB resources will be enough for a long time. A floating rear in the threatened period will be withdrawn from the bases 100%.
      The scenario with the destruction of the floating rear of the fleet is theoretically feasible only in the case of a sudden first strike by the Russian Federation in the United States.
      Quote: SPACE
      In addition, the aircraft carrier alone is generally a complete zero, and the ships included in the AUG require fuel.

      Again the floating rear.
      Quote: SPACE
      At the same time, one should not forget that after the exchange of nuclear weapons, similarly to aircraft carriers, the sea, including the underwater component of the Russian fleet, will survive ...

      The underwater component of the Russian fleet is the ICAPL and the Soviet-built SSGN. Which it is high time to replace. You don’t even need to attack our submarine fleet - just wait 10 years. sad
      1. SPACE
        SPACE 24 November 2017 12: 47 New
        0
        Quote: Alexey RA
        Please specify - without which imported goods the USA will not be able to live on its continent?

        You before the attack or after ?;)
        Quote: Alexey RA
        Again the floating rear.

        Well, yes, as in the movie "Water World")))
        1. Alexey RA
          Alexey RA 24 November 2017 14: 45 New
          +1
          Quote: SPACE
          You before the attack or after ?;)

          After.
        2. Alex_59
          Alex_59 24 November 2017 15: 03 New
          +2
          Quote: SPACE
          Well, yes, as in the movie "Water World")))

          https://www.navysite.de/ships.htm
          Your Auxiliary Vessels Section
  6. DesToeR
    DesToeR 24 November 2017 08: 04 New
    +1
    The effect of synergy was not taken into account while hitting 3000 warheads.
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      24 November 2017 09: 04 New
      +5
      Quote: DesToeR
      The effect of synergy was not taken into account while hitting 3000 warheads.

      I try to take into account what is, but I do not see the synergistic effect of 3 warheads scattered across two continents
  7. Alex_59
    Alex_59 24 November 2017 08: 17 New
    +8
    In other words, having spent all of our strategic nuclear potential deployed today, we are not that peace — we will not even dare to ruin the United States.
    Andrey, do not be like Kaptsov. No need to take a propaganda stamp and try to refute it reasonably. Nobody has been planning the whole world for a long time. This is a chatter. But we can do "unacceptable damage" for sure. And such that no one wants to live in the USA. That makes sense. The damage should be such that those who decide to attack the Russian Federation or not understand that after a retaliatory strike it will be easier for them to establish a new state in Antarctica than to restore something here. And we can do this damage.
    In fact, it is unlikely that our losses will exceed the US, but we must understand that they have much more cities and populations than ours, and they will suffer equal losses in size much easier than we do. More than 326 million people live in the USA, this is 2,22 times more than in the Russian Federation.
    Just the opposite. They have a very high urbanization. Three warheads in New York is not the same as three warheads in Zamkadsk. Take my perm. Our city does not have a clearly defined "center" - it is a snot along the Kama River divided into several areas separated from each other by forest tracts. To destroy my city by more than half, ten warheads are needed. And thousands of 300 people will die from this. What if ten warheads also sow New York? How many people were killed in the WTC building alone? When our BG explodes in the center of New York, you can be sure that every energy joule will find its goal and go into action. And when their BG will explode with us, then exactly half of this energy will be spent on sweeping wastelands or demolishing two-story historic merchant mansions. Efficiency is not the same.
    We have neither intelligence tools that can quickly identify enemy aircraft carriers in the vast oceans, nor weapons that can destroy them there.
    Detect is quite a means. At least in theory. This is a satellite of radio engineering and optical reconnaissance. Of course, the efficiency there is not some kind of wild - once in 7-8 hours the information is updated. But this is enough for rough guidance of submarines. We can drown even one or two even now, and if we are engaged in resuscitation of the submarine fleet more actively, then more can be done.
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      24 November 2017 10: 12 New
      +3
      Quote: Alex_59
      Andrey, do not be like Kaptsov.

      ??
      Quote: Alex_59
      There is no need to take a propaganda stamp and try to refute it reasonably. Nobody has been planning the whole world for a long time. This is a chatter.

      You understand that. And the majority of the opponents of the AUG are confident that the Russian Federation can allocate dozens or even hundreds of warheads to eliminate them, not realizing that we now have a trite little
      Quote: Alex_59
      But we can do "unacceptable damage" for sure. And such that no one wants to live in the USA. That makes sense.

      Well, why? Most likely they will be able to live. The population will be greatly reduced, yes, but ...
      The meaning of nuclear weapons today is not my deep IMHO. You correctly speak about unacceptable damage, but in my opinion, it is now interpreted differently.
      The meaning of any war is peace, better than pre-war. So, after the nuclear war there will not be any better pre-war, and even before the pre-war, the United States will have to work the way it was plowed in the 19th century.
      Quote: Alex_59
      Just the opposite. They have a very high urbanization.

      Quite the contrary, their population is much more spread over the territory than ours.
      Quote: Alex_59
      Take my perm. Our city does not have a clearly defined "center" - it is a snot along the Kama River divided into several areas separated from each other by forest tracts.

      Perm is a city of a millionaire; in principle, it cannot be destroyed with one warhead, just like any other millionaire. Compare this with the "one-story" American building, where the bulk of the people live in the suburbs.
      Quote: Alex_59
      When our BG explodes in the center of New York, you can be sure that every energy joule will find its purpose and go into business

      True, but in Moscow it will be a little better. The fact of the matter is that in a few million-plus US populations, population density is really prohibitive, but what are million-plus US populations? There are only 10 of them and 25 million 224 thousand people live in them.
      Quote: Alex_59
      And when their BG will explode with us, then exactly half of this energy will be spent on sweeping wastelands or demolition of two-story historical merchant mansions. The efficiency is not the same.

      In the 15 largest cities in the United States, 29 million 456 people live. 15 million 32 thousand people live in the 997 largest cities of the Russian Federation. I'm afraid that says it all.
      Quote: Alex_59
      Detect is quite a means. At least in theory.

      :))))) That's exactly what is in theory :))))
      Quote: Alex_59
      This is a satellite of radio engineering and optical reconnaissance. Of course, the efficiency there is not some kind of wild - once in 7-8 hours the information is updated

      A satellite of optics flies around a zemshar once a day, where are there 7-8 hours? And this despite the fact that he simply does not see 2/3 of the space due to cloud cover.
      Quote: Alex_59
      But that’s enough for rude submarine guidance

      Even during the Soviet Union was not enough, unfortunately
      1. Alex_59
        Alex_59 24 November 2017 10: 45 New
        +3
        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
        Well, why? Most likely they will be able to live. The population will be greatly reduced, yes, but ...

        That is the point. Let them be able to live. The question is how to live. Therefore, it’s cheaper not to hammer Russia. And pluck by other methods, without getting involved in a big slaughter. Actually, this is what we have been complaining about for a long time, on this the USSR was also burnt. The point is precisely that there will be no global war. There will only be the appearance that this is possible. But they will really bite off at the edges, economically strangle, squeeze allies, cut off the periphery. While the patient (we) is sitting in the trench in readiness to repel a nuclear strike, the Americans around our trench crushed everything for themselves. And they, in principle, do not care what we will do in our trench further, this is not their problem. World war has become hybrid and permanent for a long time. And in a hybrid war, aircraft carriers have the place.
        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
        I'm afraid that says it all.

        And what is said? About equally. But in the canonical form, the United States should, striking first, spend a significant part of its nuclear weapons on the elimination of our strategic missile forces starting positions, trying to prevent an answer. Due to this, the "sowing density" in our cities is significantly less than we can do. Because we, firing the second will no longer hollow the empty mines of American ICBMs. Our goal, in fact, is very rotten - just to kill as many as possible, or to make the lives of survivors unbearably terrible. Destroy as much infrastructure as possible and kill people. That’s all. No need for such an "oil painting" of the American elite.
        Compare this with the "one-story" American building, where the bulk of the people live in the suburbs.
        With such a formulation of the question, of course hollowing the private sector is absurd. It is necessary to hollow so as to eliminate the intellectual elite of society. If it’s in the afternoon, then I would shoot at industrial and business centers. If at night, when the people just settled down on one-story suburbs, I would hammer at the infrastructure, and how many people there would get kneaded, this is secondary.
        There are only 10 of them and 25 million 224 thousand people live in them.
        But it is precisely the intellectual and cultural elite that makes 90% of the American economy. No farmers at the ranch in the deserts to hammer! And at rush hour, this elite sits much denser than ours. The business centers of New York and Washington can accommodate a lot more engineers and managers on whom the life of their country depends than we do. Therefore, their risk of dying all at once in one second is many times higher.
        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
        A satellite of optics flies around a zemshar once a day, where are there 7-8 hours?
        One satellite? Well, if one, then yes, everything is bad. ))) However, while we have more than one satellite in orbit. And ideally, the EMNIP system from the 6 satellite provides a frequency of 7-8 hours. Something like this, I could be wrong in the number of satellites in the system, there is no data at hand.
        1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
          24 November 2017 11: 23 New
          +3
          Quote: Alex_59
          Therefore, it’s cheaper not to hammer Russia.

          Of course. I do not propose Armageddon as a solution to problems :))) Of course, our triad threatens SHA with unacceptable damage, in the sense that in the case of Armageddon they will rake in a sea of ​​problems. But IF Armageddon does happen ...
          Quote: Alex_59
          But it is precisely the intellectual and cultural elite that makes up 90% of the American economy.

          I don’t think :)))) In general, they will sort their scientific staff in the corners during the period of exacerbation
          Quote: Alex_59
          No farmers at the ranch in the deserts to hammer!

          But then these US farmers will then restore back, and they will remember us with a kind word, because
          Quote: Alex_59
          But it is precisely the intellectual and cultural elite that makes up 90% of the American economy.

          sent to oblivion :))))
          1. Alex_59
            Alex_59 24 November 2017 13: 07 New
            +3
            Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
            But then these US farmers will then restore back, and they will remember us with a kind word, because

            HillyBilly - they are)))))))))))
            Restore, not a question. But torment is not enough.
            In general, I believe that Russia has a much higher pain threshold. We have 50% of the population living in a state of "yesterday was a nuclear bombing" - if they really cover us with nuclear weapons they won’t notice much difference. Only Moscow hipsters will suffer, in which the arthouse will have nothing to look at.
            In the USA, of course, also a significant part of the proletarians is not sensitive to destruction, but still the percentage of people who have comfort, the loss of which will be a shock - there is much higher. I’m a city dweller, but if necessary I’ll plow the lawns back under the beds, and let them grow without devotion, but eat them myself.
      2. Setrac
        Setrac 25 November 2017 00: 47 New
        +3
        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
        In the 15 largest cities in the United States, 29 million 456 people live. 15 million 32 thousand people live in the 997 largest cities of the Russian Federation. I'm afraid that says it all.

        This is a hoax, I do not know if you are deliberately deceiving us, or you let yourself be deceived by others, but 37 million people live in New York and Los Angeles alone.
        1. Cherry Nine
          Cherry Nine 25 November 2017 00: 58 New
          0
          Quote: Setrac
          37 million people live in New York and Los Angeles alone.

          You confuse the concept of "big New York" and New York in the administrative sense. Similar to LA.
          1. Setrac
            Setrac 25 November 2017 01: 08 New
            0
            Quote: Cherry Nine
            You confuse the concept of "big New York" and New York in the administrative sense. Similar to LA.

            However, the same thing you do with Moscow, confusion in terms leads to an incorrect assessment of the situation
            1. Cherry Nine
              Cherry Nine 25 November 2017 01: 35 New
              0
              Quote: Setrac
              However, you do the same with Moscow

              No.
              Author data similar to these
              https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A1%D0%BF%D0%B8%
              D1%81%D0%BE%D0%BA_%D0%B3%D0%BE%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%B4%
              D0%BE%D0%B2_%D0%A0%D0%BE%D1%81%D1%81%D0%B8%D0%B8_
              %D1%81_%D0%BD%D0%B0%D1%81%D0%B5%D0%BB%D0%B5%D0%BD
              %D0%B8%D0%B5%D0%BC_%D0%B1%D0%BE%D0%BB%D0%B5%D0%B5
              _100_%D1%82%D1%8B%D1%81%D1%8F%D1%87_%D0%B6%D0%B8%
              D1%82%D0%B5%D0%BB%D0%B5%D0%B9
              For Moscow, 12,3 million are indicated, this is only Moscow (taking into account the new one). Agglomeration - about 20 million. If you count on the agglomerations, then the first 5 (Moscow, St. Petersburg, Samara, Ekat, RND - 32 million
              1. Setrac
                Setrac 25 November 2017 01: 38 New
                +1
                Quote: Cherry Nine
                If we take into account the agglomerations, then the first 5 (Moscow, St. Petersburg, Samara, Ekat, RND - 32 million

                if you count on the agglomerations, then the first five
                New York 19,1 million
                Los Angeles 12,8 million
                Chicago 9,6 million
                Dallas 6,4 million
                Philadelphia 6,0 Million
                Total - 54 million
                1. Cherry Nine
                  Cherry Nine 25 November 2017 01: 48 New
                  0
                  Quote: Setrac
                  if you count on the agglomerations, then the first five

                  Yeah. 22% of the population versus 16%. And the American agglomerations - they are damn large in area.
                  1. Setrac
                    Setrac 25 November 2017 02: 12 New
                    +1
                    Quote: Cherry Nine
                    Yeah. 22% of the population versus 16%.

                    But the Americans have more than five.
                    Quote: Cherry Nine
                    And the American agglomerations - they are damn large in area.

                    Russian more.
                    1. Cherry Nine
                      Cherry Nine 25 November 2017 02: 25 New
                      +2
                      Quote: Setrac
                      Russian more.

                      No. In Moscow, the population density is 1,5 higher than New York. In the USA and only in the USA, agglomerations arose based on the capabilities of automobiles. In other countries, public transport.
                  2. Setrac
                    Setrac 25 November 2017 13: 31 New
                    0
                    Quote: Cherry Nine
                    Yeah. 22% of the population versus 16%. And the American agglomerations - they are damn large in area.

                    Countries are generally damn big, but Russia is twice as large.
                    1. Cherry Nine
                      Cherry Nine 25 November 2017 13: 34 New
                      +1
                      Quote: Setrac
                      Russia is twice as large

                      Russia is an icy desert with rare oases of hot water and Internet. The oasis of paved roads in general, by and large, is one.
                      1. Setrac
                        Setrac 25 November 2017 13: 53 New
                        0
                        Quote: Cherry Nine
                        Russia is an icy desert with rare oases of hot water and Internet. The oasis of paved roads in general, by and large, is one.

                        Did you just go broke about cities and towns ?? belay
                        USA - One Big Waterless Desert
                        Quote: Cherry Nine
                        with rare oases of hot water and internet
        2. xtur
          xtur 25 November 2017 15: 45 New
          +1
          > 37 million people live in New York and Los Angeles alone.

          It’s just that Andrei has his own geography of the USA from another parallel universe. In his version, there are fewer people living in all cities with over one million people in the US than just in New York
          1. Setrac
            Setrac 25 November 2017 16: 16 New
            0
            Quote: xtur
            It’s just that Andrei has his own geography of the USA from another parallel universe. In his version, there are fewer people living in all cities with over one million people in the US than just in New York

            I could say that he is stupid and not educated, but it will be just an excuse, in fact, he is deliberately deceiving, the question is why?
            1. Cherry Nine
              Cherry Nine 25 November 2017 16: 35 New
              +1
              Quote: Setrac
              the question is, why?

              Kindergarten.
              Warhead of Voivode, Topol - 1 Mt, 20KPa within a radius of 6 km.
              Warhead Yars (half of all warhead ICBMs), 0,5 Mt, 20KPa within a 5 km radius.
              Warhead Sineva, Bulava - 0,1-0,15 Mt, 20KPa in a radius of 3 km.
              So consider it. The option "blow up the refrigerator, they will rest" do not offer.
              1. Setrac
                Setrac 25 November 2017 16: 39 New
                0
                Quote: Cherry Nine
                Kindergarten.
                Warhead of Voivode, Topol - 1 Mt, 20KPa within a radius of 6 km.
                Warhead Yars (half of all warhead ICBMs), 0,5 Mt, 20KPa within a 5 km radius.
                Warhead Sineva, Bulava - 0,1-0,15 Mt, 20KPa in a radius of 3 km.

                How does this justify you tricking you into demographic calculations?
                1. Cherry Nine
                  Cherry Nine 25 November 2017 16: 54 New
                  0
                  Quote: Setrac
                  How does it justify you

                  (sighs heavily)
                  If you followed the discussion, I initially objected to taking cities into account on administrative grounds. The area of ​​severe destruction from one warhead Voevoda is 113 km. sq. Yarsa - 80. Clubs - 30. The area of ​​large New York - 35 thousand sq. Km. Greater New York - 1/15 of the US economy. Count.
                  Oh yes. The bomb shelter with a wall of 0,6 m, which omega-gangers stumble across instead of pools in a matter of months, can withstand 900 kPa.
                  1. Setrac
                    Setrac 25 November 2017 18: 30 New
                    0
                    Quote: Cherry Nine
                    If you followed the discussion, I initially objected to taking cities into account on administrative grounds.

                    (sighs heavily)
                    Let’s call an object call for example: a settlement in the Hudson Delta - do you feel better?
                    Kindergarten pants on the straps - these are your excuses, just admit that you were mistaken in your demographic calculations.
                2. Cherry Nine
                  Cherry Nine 25 November 2017 19: 06 New
                  +1
                  Suppose you get a 1 Mt warhead in the junction of the 405th and 105th freeways in LA. You demolish the SpaceX factory and airport terminals (3,8 and 3,6 km, respectively, pressure of about 50 kPa). At the same time, located right next to it, 1,5 km, the taxiway of the international airport (ICAO: KLAX) you can only slightly damage (for this you need 300 KPa), the long lane (3,8 km) except that you fill up with debris. Another airport (Hawthorne, ICAO: KHHR) is 2,5 km from the epicenter and the pressure there will be about 100KPa, which is clearly not enough to damage the concrete strip. In addition to these, there are 7 more airports with solid runways in the big LA (El Monte, Fullerton, Santa Monica, Torrance, Van Nuys, Bob Hole, Whiteman). They are all in order.
                  At the same time, attention, the port of LA is 20 km from the epicenter, the pressure there will be 2-3KPa and is comparable to a gale. Beverly Hills and Hollywood are 15–20 km from the epicenter and covered by terrain (Baldwin Hills), so a ground explosion is unlikely to cause them significant damage. It’s strange to talk about the San Fernando Valley (40 km, covered by Hollywood hills). In the valley, by the way, there are two airports of their own (Whiteman and Van Neuss).
                  So again. Yes, in the United States, several of the largest metropolitan areas have grown into megacities. But they are really big. Highly. Their individual parts are autonomous.
                  1. Setrac
                    Setrac 25 November 2017 21: 13 New
                    0
                    Quote: Cherry Nine
                    Suppose you get a 1 Mt warhead in the junction of the 405th and 105th freeways in LA.

                    Quote: Cherry Nine
                    So again. Yes, in the United States, several of the largest metropolitan areas have grown into megacities. But they are really big.

                    Do you really think that only one warhead will be sent to such an aircraft center? From Los Angeles to the suburbs (agglomeration) will fall from twenty to fifty warheads. When counting survivors, large cities can be ignored altogether, they will be destroyed anyway, medium-sized ones - as luck would have it - not all warheads will reach their targets.
                    1. Cherry Nine
                      Cherry Nine 25 November 2017 22: 27 New
                      0
                      Quote: Setrac
                      twenty to fifty warheads

                      You are talking about the Oxnard - Santa Clarita - San Bernardino - Long Beach stretch. 6 thousand sq. Km. with a population of about 20 million. one way or another, they are out of business for a long time. 2 governors will be enough for you if 2x10x0,8Mt. At the same time, 7 warheads will be shot down by the Vandenberg GBI base, based on their 50% efficiency, so put 3 Governors. You have a risk that one will not reach (reliability according to the most optimistic calculation is 0,935)
                      Farther? You have about 40 governor, I remind you.
                      1. Setrac
                        Setrac 25 November 2017 22: 39 New
                        0
                        Quote: Cherry Nine
                        At the same time, 7 warheads will be shot down by the Vandenberg GBI base, based on their 50% efficiency

                        This is generally speculation of pure water, the dreams of Americans.
                        Quote: Cherry Nine
                        You have a risk that one will not reach (reliability according to the most optimistic calculation is 0,935)

                        I would bet more on technical problems - a larger percentage will not be enough than it will be shot down.
                        Quote: Cherry Nine
                        Farther? You have about 40 governor, I remind you.

                        But we have not only governors request
                      2. Cherry Nine
                        Cherry Nine 26 November 2017 01: 38 New
                        +1
                        Quote: Setrac
                        This is generally speculation of pure water.

                        These are the test results.
                        Quote: Setrac
                        I would put more on technical problems

                        I also can not believe that military missiles fly better than civilian ones. Although on the other hand, out of 22 launches of the Dnieper (aka R-39), 21 are successful.
                        Quote: Setrac
                        But we have not only governors

                        This is 460 warheads out of 1480. In this case, if the enemy will be the first to be in time, this is most likely all that will work out.
                      3. Fudo
                        Fudo 28 November 2017 15: 44 New
                        0
                        The GBI will not bring down an entire governor; they will try to bring down divided warheads.
  8. sevtrash
    sevtrash 24 November 2017 08: 20 New
    +4
    It is not clear why the author so dismissed the likelihood of a "nuclear winter" with its variants. Comparing with the tests is rather strange - speaking about the possible hit of 3 thousand warheads almost simultaneously - but such numbers have never exploded during the tests simultaneously, especially since the tests were carried out underwater, underground, not only ground ones. Terrestrial, by the way, the Americans had no more than a third.
    Total war will be a disaster for civilization with aircraft carriers and without them. Maybe people will survive, whether for a long time, another question.
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      24 November 2017 10: 27 New
      +3
      Quote: sevtrash
      It is unclear why the author so dismissed the likelihood of a "nuclear winter" with its options.

      Yes, very simple. Because bullshit is everything.
      In contemporary works 2007, 2008 computer simulations show that there is a small nuclear war when each belligerent uses about 50 charges (approximately 0,3% of the current world arsenal for 2009), each of which is equal in power to a bomb detonated over Hiroshima, exploding them in the atmosphere over cities will give an unprecedented climatic effect comparable to a small ice age
      That is, for a second - we are talking about 100 charges of 20 kilotons or a two-megaton warhead! And scientists are already threatening small glacial ones. And we banged the Tsar bomb at 50 Mt, and where are the glaciers?
      1. BAI
        BAI 24 November 2017 13: 32 New
        0
        People will survive. There will be no nuclear winter. And the moderator deleted the link to the calculation, so I repeat without the link.
      2. xtur
        xtur 25 November 2017 15: 50 New
        0
        > That is, for a second-we are talking about 100 charges of 20 kilotons or a two-megaton warhead! And scientists are already threatening small glacial ones. And we banged the Tsar bomb at 50 Mt, and where are the glaciers?

        unbelievable level of argument, I’m just in complete confidence. Compare the explosion in the Arctic, at the training ground, and demand a fire from it, on the blue eye - this is the very moment when you need to say, that sometimes it's better to chew than talk
        In fact, the entire article is written with a similar understanding of the problem.
        We will have to recall the basic education of Andrei ... and the Russian / Soviet classics - born to crawl, dare not fly

        in the sense of the accountant is not given to understand the physical models, experiences and achievements.
      3. Fudo
        Fudo 28 November 2017 15: 47 New
        0
        there is a difference over which surface to explode. Over the city a lot of crap in the atmosphere rises.
    2. The comment was deleted.
    3. Vadim237
      Vadim237 24 November 2017 21: 08 New
      +4
      Nuclear autumn can and will - but nuclear winter will certainly not be, 3000 warheads will not have enough energy, even if you multiply them by one megaton it will be 3000 megatons - one megaton, subject to a ground explosion, raises 260000 tons of dust, plus 100000 tons of soot , we get 1080000000 billion tons, the Tambora volcano threw out 1815 billion cubic meters of dust and soot into the troposphere in 144, and even then it did not freeze the planet to minus 50 at the equator - as in the fantasies of the authors of Nuclear Winter.
  9. avia12005
    avia12005 24 November 2017 08: 25 New
    0
    But the vast majority of the US population lives crowded in urban agglomerations along the coast of the oceans.
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      24 November 2017 10: 17 New
      +4
      I can only repeat that 15 million 29 thousand people live in the 456 largest US cities. 15 million 32 thousand people live in the 997 largest cities of the Russian Federation. There is no "overwhelming crowding" in the United States, on the contrary, they have a fairly spread population over the territory.
      1. Sergey Alekseev
        Sergey Alekseev 24 November 2017 10: 46 New
        0
        and you look at the map of population density. somehow it immediately becomes clear. Most of the US population lives on the coasts, and the east of the country is very densely populated, while in Russia the population is more smeared
        1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
          24 November 2017 11: 26 New
          +5
          Yes, it’s not spread with us :))) Well, look at the DF for example - yes, like there are a lot of places, but not many people, but in fact - all people are gathered in several large cities
          In the USA, it’s the other way around. They have 172 million living in cities of less than 100 thousand inhabitants, 64 million - in settlements of less than 2500 inhabitants
        2. alex86
          alex86 24 November 2017 22: 25 New
          0
          the area of ​​the European part of Russia is about 4 million km2, roughly 115 million people live on them. In the United States, 300 million live on 9,5 million km2. Both they and we have places with a high concentration of the population, and there are sparsely populated ones. Under the USSR, production was placed with maximum dispersal (monotowns were obtained), albeit at the cost of suboptimal logistics. As well as in urban planning, there were norms with gaps along highways of 600 m to prevent a fire storm during a nuclear strike. All this does not work for today. Maybe good - that means no one believes in the possibility of nuclear war ...
          1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
            24 November 2017 23: 17 New
            +3
            Quote: alex86
            the area of ​​the European part of Russia is about 4 million km2, roughly 115 million people live on them. In the United States, 300 million live on 9,5 million km2

            Again:)))
            In their 295 largest cities, only 89 million people live - 27% of the total population. 172 million live in towns from 2,5 to 100 thousand people, there are approximately 18 of them. And another 700 million live in rural areas, in settlements of less than 64 thousand people
            And in our 170 largest cities - 51% of the population. Here it is useless to measure in kilometers, nobody lives for hundreds of kilometers - then millionaires.
            1. alex86
              alex86 25 November 2017 19: 26 New
              +1
              Yes, I, in fact, did not argue with you, on the contrary, I wanted to emphasize that we have not 144 million people for 18 million km2 (which is really so), but 115 million people for 4 million km2 - which is more significant. And if you really cast half to the north of the European part, then even denser. And in Siberia, it’s understandable - one bear or Agafya Lykova per 1000 km2, then Novosibirsk or Krasnoyarsk.
            2. Setrac
              Setrac 25 November 2017 22: 21 New
              0
              Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
              In their 295 largest cities, only 89 million people live - 27% of the total population. 172 million live in towns from 2,5 to 100 thousand people, there are approximately 18 of them. And another 700 million live in rural areas, in settlements of less than 64 thousand people
              And in our 170 largest cities - 51% of the population. Here it is useless to measure in kilometers, nobody lives for hundreds of kilometers - then millionaires.

              Let's go on the other side:
              According to the BBC, as of September 2016, Russia had 1796 strategic nuclear warheads, the United States - 1367.
              Let us turn to the doctrine:
              The Americans are going to destroy with us completely, that is, industrial potential, the army and the population - one third of warheads for each type of target (approximately), that is, no more than 450 warheads will be charged for the population, one warhead for every 300 people.
              Russia intends to deliver a retaliatory strike only against the population (as a deterrent) of 1700 warheads per warhead for every 200 people.

              There are a number of additional factors, for example:
              Neither Russia nor the United States has the necessary number of such large cities, respectively, for most of the smaller cities and settlements, neither in Russia nor in the USA there will be enough warheads.
              In the United States, strategic aviation has a greater role than in Russia, that is, the Americans will have even fewer warheads in the first strike.
              In the United States, a large part of the population and industry is concentrated off the coast and several submarine missile carriers with cruise missiles can become a decisive force, Americans are deprived of this opportunity because most of Russia's industrial and demographic centers are far inland.

              The main danger for the United States is that after the nuclear war the United States will cease to be a single state, and Russia will remain united, because Russia has a state-forming nation, but not in the United States.
              1. Cherry Nine
                Cherry Nine 26 November 2017 05: 28 New
                +3
                Nonsense is more or less everything.
                Quote: Setrac
                According to the BBC, as of September 2016

                There are official data for September 2017. 1561 warheads.
                Quote: Setrac
                Americans are going to destroy us completely

                Complete nonsense. Americans are authors and staunch supporters of the doctrine of the counterforce strike.
                Quote: Setrac
                that is, the population will charge no more than 450 warheads, one warhead for every 300 people.

                This is not the slightest need. In the warehouses lies about 5 thousand warheads, after exchanging blows you can finish without fuss.
                Quote: Setrac
                In the United States, strategic aviation has a greater role than in Russia, that is, the Americans will have even fewer warheads in the first strike.

                For 2010, US strategic aviation had 316 charges on 60 carriers, Russian - 838 charges on 75 carriers. Reason is the cheapest option. In addition, the START-3 conditions suggest that 1 bomber = one charge, regardless of their actual quantity on the carrier.
                As of July 2017, the United States had only 48 bombers - carriers with nuclear weapons on duty.
                Trident-2 rocket was deployed 220 (11 underloaded boats)
                Minutes on the same date was deployed 405.
                If we count the warheads (as of July 1, 1411 were declared), then we get a shortfall (48 + 220x4 + 405x3 = 2). In real life, the minitude blocks are mainly monoblocks. But in an attack it is more creative to put monoblocks on the Trident part.
                Quote: Setrac
                several submarine missile carriers with cruise missiles can become a decisive force,

                Are you on Antei and Ash? Generally no chance.

                What does a counterstroke look like:
                At any given time on duty are usually 8-9 Ohio. Recently, it is customary to charge them with 20 Tridents, but they can be downloaded quite legally by 24. Unlike Dolphins, they don’t have to get rid of PLO, you can work from the Japanese, Norwegian, and Mediterranean Sea from the minimum distance for the Trident (about 2 thousand km , 5-6 minutes flight time).
                And minus
                Gadzhievo

                Vilyuchinsk

                Judging by these two photos, with two warheads, we zipped 8 SSBNs out of 11, please note. 416 + 144 warheads. The rest are very unlikely to be shot back - damage from minor clashes with moose in underwater during the Soviet era was recorded by dozens. In the photographs we do not see 2 Boreas (2x96 CU) and one Dolphin (80 CU). If they are alive, we will avenge the Russian woman. No - no.
                One more. Both Boreas work from the Sea of ​​Okhotsk. Missiles fly over Alaska. The number of GBI and SM-3 spent on them may turn out to be much larger than it seems now.
                Engels

                Ukrainian

                Strategic aviation is everything.
                Spent 4 Monoblock Trident.
                Further Voivode. Located in Uzhur and Dombarovsky. It’s more convenient to work on them from the SLO. The same 6 minutes of flight time. If two W88 blocks hit, the launch shaft is disabled with a probability of 95%. This means that at the price of 92 W88 out of 400 blocks, 43 Governors out of 46, 430 warheads are minus. 2 or 3 missiles, 20 or 30 warheads leave.
                Enemies are in a good plus.
                Poplars in Saratov, Yarsy near Kaluga (mine). Tentatively, 50 and 20, respectively. We believe that the mines are the same as those of the Governor. 140 W88, leaving 1 Yars (4 warheads), 2 Poplars (2x1 warheads).
                Spent 232 W88, 8 (we take 2 each) W76.
                Remained mobile complexes. There are about 100 of them, mainly Yars. Ivanovo, Novosib, NTagil. This does not even require YABCh, the main thing to find. But we will not regret 100 W76, for good people it is not a pity. To find - you need to correctly guess with the passage of satellites. If everything matches up, it's about the hat. 20 warheads (5% of carriers) will lose their strength.

                Total A preemptive strike can cover 80% of the media in 6 minutes. The remaining, almost all, are 3 SSBNs (this is a lot, KOH 0,3 is respected for Russia, to put it mildly, not always). If it is possible to infuse them too (and this is quite possible if the enemy is preparing) - the Russian girl disappeared for a snuff of tobacco. Fifty warheads are an adequate task for missile defense. They fly, I note, on random targets - it is not known in advance which ones will survive, but they cannot succeed in retargeting - there is no Moscow.
                Vrazhin: spent 108 W76 (actually less, mobile Yars / Poplars for the most part are at the base), 232 W88. There are 400 more minitacks, more than 100 Tridents, more than 1000 warheads, about half - 450 Kt each. Unlimited number of bombs (approx. 5 thousand) Damage to the USA, even in the most lousy situation with the SSBN, does not threaten the nation’s physical survival.
                Quote: Setrac
                after a nuclear war, the United States will cease to be a single state

                Dream.
                Quote: Setrac
                in Russia there is a state-forming nation

                Are you talking about Russians? The Russians have no state and never have.
                1. Setrac
                  Setrac 26 November 2017 11: 08 New
                  0
                  Quote: Cherry Nine
                  Are you talking about Russians? The Russians have no state and never have.

                  Russia, no ???? bully
                  1. Operator
                    Operator 26 November 2017 12: 32 New
                    0
                    Why argue with a Jew - he is already turning around to “prove” that after the explosion of the 62 US nuclear power plant, local residents in four times less territory will survive more than Russians in four times as much territory.
                    1. Cherry Nine
                      Cherry Nine 26 November 2017 14: 42 New
                      0
                      Quote: Operator
                      after the bombing of 62 US nuclear power plants

                      I told you the official data on the victims of the Chernobyl nuclear power plant. But you, of course, may have your own math.
                      1. Operator
                        Operator 26 November 2017 15: 48 New
                        0
                        There was a thermal explosion at the Chernobyl nuclear power plant, after which it is impossible to live in the exclusion zone for 225000 years.

                        In the event of a nuclear explosion of 62 nuclear warheads with a power of 62 kilotons each over 150 US NPPs, there will be 62 nuclear explosions of reactors with a power of 100 megatons each.

                        The number of victims surpasses half of the US population, regardless of whether there will be a special period with the evacuation of residents from settlements or not.

                        Count at your leisure "your" math.

                        PS Do not forget about Israel with the reactor in Dimona and the "state-forming" Jewish people, which is less than 50% of the Palestinian population.
                      2. Cherry Nine
                        Cherry Nine 26 November 2017 16: 09 New
                        0
                        Quote: Operator
                        In the event of an explosion over 62 nuclear power plants ... there will be 62 nuclear explosions of reactors with a capacity of 100 megatons each.

                        Quote: Cherry Nine
                        Drug propaganda is prohibited in Russia.

                        Quote: Operator
                        which accounts for less than 50% of the Palestinian population.

                        You're right. The trick is that the Jews are a nation-forming nation, and the rest are "the population of Palestine." Not all groups of people, however large, are able to create their own state. Approximately the same situation with the population of Russia.
                    2. Setrac
                      Setrac 26 November 2017 16: 21 New
                      0
                      Quote: Operator
                      Why argue with a Jew

                      just
                  2. Cherry Nine
                    Cherry Nine 26 November 2017 14: 32 New
                    +2
                    Quote: Setrac
                    Russia, no ????

                    Is this news for you?
                    The nation state is an invention of the end of the XNUMXth century. The Russian Empire at that time was a supranational structure, the ruling class of which, in the main, does not even speak Russian. Later (the last quarter of the XNUMXth century) a certain national rhetoric appears, but this is not Russian nationalism at all, but pan-Slavism. At the same time, neither the Slavs, nor even the Russians, were declared the owners of the state - this savagery could not even come to mind. The master of the state, of course, is the Sovereign.
                    The USSR was the same supranational structure, only erected in a cube. The Russians were masters of the USSR, like firewood were masters of a stove. However, they are not alone.

                    The current Russian Federation is the colonial administration of an extinct empire, which in recent years has been trying to pretend that it is an empire. The sovereignty of the Russian state, which its employees love to talk about, is the independence of the state from citizens, above all. Such independence gives extraordinary ease and decisiveness in foreign policy, but the results of such activity, by definition, can be nothing but the exchange of the Russian people (including their blood) for show-offs.
                    1. Setrac
                      Setrac 26 November 2017 16: 28 New
                      0
                      Quote: Cherry Nine
                      At the same time, neither the Slavs, nor even the Russians, were declared the owners of the state - this savagery could not even come to mind.

                      The fact that 80% of the population is Russian does not bother you. Everything is simple here - you have to "be" and not "seem" - all Westerners are mistaken in this.
                      Quote: Cherry Nine
                      The current Russian Federation is the colonial administration of an extinct empire, which in recent years has been trying to pretend that it is an empire.

                      But nothing that this "administration" for the twentieth century was cleaned three times to zero?
                      Quote: Cherry Nine
                      The sovereignty of the Russian state, which its employees love to talk about, is the independence of the state from citizens, above all.

                      You shift your Jewish vision of the world into Russians, and this is fundamentally wrong, all people are different and measure others with your own standards - then you will be very surprised that this is not so, like the Germans in the forty-first.
                      1. Cherry Nine
                        Cherry Nine 26 November 2017 17: 44 New
                        +3
                        Quote: Setrac
                        The fact that 80% of the population is Russian does not bother you.

                        Absolutely. The fact that Tuva is 82% in Tuva does not make Tuva a Tuvan state, or even just a state.
                        Quote: Setrac
                        in the twentieth century, three times stripped to zero?

                        At zero it was cleaned once, in the years 17-19. At the same time, the uprising of 17-19 was against the republic (and the national state) and for autocracy under a different name. In addition to the autocracy, the victorious Bolsheviks quickly returned and slavery too, having rolled back 60 years ago.
                        Quote: Setrac
                        Jewish vision of the world in Russian, and this is fundamentally wrong, all people are different

                        Your point of view is quite popular in Europe. It is called "multiculturalism."
                2. Fudo
                  Fudo 28 November 2017 16: 29 New
                  0
                  the voivode’s readiness for launch is 62 seconds. In 6 minutes they will fly back.
  10. Vikxnumx
    Vikxnumx 24 November 2017 08: 29 New
    0
    Even if the aircraft carriers survive the first strike, then where will they land?
    Will the Navy and all major ports be turned off from the target lists? Yes, and they will remain the most coveted goal for every pilot, rocket launcher, submariner ... How long will they live?
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      24 November 2017 10: 16 New
      +2
      Quote: VIK1711
      Even if the aircraft carriers survive the first strike, then where will they land?

      Do they need it? :)))
  11. Romario_Argo
    Romario_Argo 24 November 2017 08: 45 New
    0
    on the 6 aircraft carriers of the US Navy, 8 submarines, 949A and ICRC Liana are enough
    - are the main means of countering the Russian Navy strike aircraft carrier groups of the US Navy
    1. tlauicol
      tlauicol 24 November 2017 09: 15 New
      +1
      4 satellites and 4 boats (the rest are under repair) - that’s the whole system! If you are fortunate enough to meet the AUG, then two aircraft carriers are enough
      1. Romario_Argo
        Romario_Argo 24 November 2017 09: 23 New
        0
        PLARK ave. 949 always go (!) As part of cruisers ave. 1144 (1) or 1164 (3)
        and of course BOD 1155 or Em 956
        and all this miracle cover the PCB pr. 971
        just 4 shock groups
        but the fact that 4 satellite is 100% configuration
        1. tlauicol
          tlauicol 24 November 2017 09: 40 New
          +2
          two of these cruisers are based in completely different places. Running Pike also 4. About the destroyers generally keep quiet. For a battle with one AUG, we’ll hardly scratch the ships from all fleets.
          4 satellites are not enough to track aircraft carriers around the clock
          1. Romario_Argo
            Romario_Argo 24 November 2017 09: 58 New
            0
            When using dissimilar forces of the Russian Navy
            1 RK ave. 1164, 1 PLARK ave. 949
            BC 40 RCC Granite with a range of 500 km. - 16 EM equivalent of Arly Burke
            (line of attack of RCC Harpoon 280 km.)
            SF:
            1 IG 1 RK ave. 1164, 1 PLARK ave. 949A, 1 BOARDS ave. 971 - 24
            2 IG 1 TARK pr. 1144, 1 PLARK pr. 949AM, 1 BOARDS pr. 885 - 81
            Pof:
            3 IG 1 RK ave. 1164, 1 PLARK ave. 949A, 1 BOARDS ave. 971 - 24
            Mediterranean Task Force:
            4 IG 1 RK ave. 1164, 1 BOARD ave. 949AM, BOAR ave. 971 - 24
            Equivalent: 182 EM Arly Burke 68 / KR Ticonderoga 22 - only available 90 и 10 aircraft carriers
            4 Shock Groups may 1,8 times destroy 100 US Navy ships
            1. The comment was deleted.
              1. Romario_Argo
                Romario_Argo 25 November 2017 14: 47 New
                0
                No comments

                Of course, thinking is probably not for you.
                everything is very complex in our Navy, as well as the US Navy
                American AUG is difficult to sink but possible!
                with no loss on our part
                because our ship’s air defense is much layered and not permeable!
                1. ZVO
                  ZVO 26 November 2017 16: 54 New
                  0
                  Quote: Romario_Argo

                  because our ship’s air defense is much layered and not permeable!


                  Again an alternate universe.
                  1. Romario_Argo
                    Romario_Argo 27 November 2017 05: 51 New
                    0
                    Again an alternate universe

                    because our ship's air defense is much layered and not permeable!

                    for example TARK ave. 1144
                    6 ZRAK Dagger on 2 channel = 12 targets / BC 144 ZUR / range 10 km.
                    2 ADMS Dagger 2 channel = 2 targets / BC 64 SAM / range 10 km.
                    SAM Fort-M 4 channel = 4 targets / BC 96 SAM / range 75 km.
                    Where is the alternative universe ???
            2. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
              24 November 2017 10: 33 New
              +6
              Why don't you read something about a war at sea before writing? Well, so as not to disgrace?
              1. Romario_Argo
                Romario_Argo 25 November 2017 14: 50 New
                0
                Why don't you read something about a war at sea before writing? Well, so as not to disgrace?

                I had a headline
                When using dissimilar forces of the Russian Navy
            3. ZVO
              ZVO 26 November 2017 16: 57 New
              +1
              Quote: Romario_Argo

              4 Shock Groups may 1,8 times destroy 100 US Navy ships


              Alternate universe.

              You have already written this many times, but you still do not understand that there is no target designation for our missiles at their maximum range and there will not be another 10-15 years.
              There is no satellite system.
              Direct targeting missiles - does not exist.
              A wolf pack is a coined term.
              Not a single test of our PKR_ in a wolf pack has ever happened ...

              You are a very gifted alternative. Operator number 2.
    2. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      24 November 2017 10: 15 New
      +4
      Quote: Romario_Argo
      on the 6 aircraft carriers of the US Navy, 8 submarines, 949A and ICRC Liana are enough

      Do you seriously believe that 2 working satellites + 2 of limited usefulness are the ICRC? :)))))))
      And the stupid USSR, in addition to 949A, for some reason built hundreds of Tu-22s, RKRs, aircraft carriers ...
      1. Romario_Argo
        Romario_Argo 25 November 2017 14: 45 New
        0
        Do you seriously believe that 2 operating satellites + 2 of limited fit are ICRC?

        you have outdated, up-to-date information
        ICRC Liana's group is fully operational and for all 100%
        I can give links to articles on this site to learn the mat part!
    3. avt
      avt 24 November 2017 10: 35 New
      +2
      Quote: Romario_Argo
      on the 6 aircraft carriers of the US Navy, 8 submarines, 949A and ICRC Liana are enough
      - are the main means of countering the Russian Navy strike aircraft carrier groups of the US Navy

      fool A ,, Moose "with a" Virgin "will stand somewhere in Kitsap Bangor, or San Diego and cry quietly! bully
      1. Romario_Argo
        Romario_Argo 25 November 2017 14: 42 New
        0
        immediately obvious, pulled out of context, the most simple.
        strike group from RK pr 1144, 2 BOD pr 1155, PLARK pr 949, PLAT pr 971
        here they will cope with all the threats!
      2. Setrac
        Setrac 25 November 2017 15: 31 New
        0
        Quote: avt
        A ,, Moose "with a" Virgin "will stand somewhere in Kitsap Bangor, or San Diego and cry quietly!

        What will they do? Will they commit mass suicide by breaking into the system of the Russian fleet?
        1. Romario_Argo
          Romario_Argo 27 November 2017 05: 55 New
          0
          https://topwar.ru/130272-los-andzhelesom-menshe.h
          tml
          Konstantin Sivkov has an excellent article on the use of our nuclear submarines
          1. Setrac
            Setrac 27 November 2017 20: 45 New
            0
            Quote: Romario_Argo
            Konstantin Sivkov has an excellent article on the use of our nuclear submarines

            His article is utter crap, I don’t want to say platitudes, but tanks do not fight tanks.
            Our submarine missile carriers are capable of firing at the adversary from several hundred kilometers. It is practically impossible to find and destroy them on such a large area, in the area of ​​Russian air defense and anti-aircraft defense.
            Why should we discuss submarine duels if they don't affect anything?
  12. EvilLion
    EvilLion 24 November 2017 09: 30 New
    +1
    Neither the Russian nor the American arsenal has long been enough to turn this very world into dust


    Do you really think that the destruction of the largest cities in the USA by 20-30 will not be enough so that not only the Yankees lose their desire to fight, but also that the USA as a state ceases to exist?

    The point is not only in the millions of directly killed, the point is the loss of the entire industrial and scientific base.
  13. BAI
    BAI 24 November 2017 09: 37 New
    +1
    shy “Satan” ”, beautiful, if you do not take into account that the adjustment of the flight of ballistic missiles is carried out using astrocorrection

    And who said that they will fight like that against aircraft carriers? No one has canceled hunters for aircraft carriers with nuclear torpedoes (anti-ship missiles).
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      24 November 2017 10: 34 New
      +4
      Quote: BAI
      And who said that they will fight like that against aircraft carriers? No one has canceled hunters for aircraft carriers with nuclear torpedoes (anti-ship missiles).

      They were canceled by the collapse of the USSR. Today we have no silt and no means to track AUG in the ocean (in fact, even the USSR was hardly capable of it)
    2. alex86
      alex86 24 November 2017 22: 32 New
      0
      Quote: BAI
      Nuclear torpedo carriers

      I think that in a serious (nuclear) conflict there will be no time for aircraft carriers - there will be no detection equipment or forces to attack, and if anything remains (such as Tu-22M3), it will be used against ground targets.
  14. Galleon
    Galleon 24 November 2017 09: 42 New
    12
    Bravo to the author: thoughtful and well-calibrated point of view. I would add that each aircraft carrier is 144 nuclear weapons from that category of freely falling bombs, nuclear weapons. 6 aircraft carriers - nearly 900 charges. Not weak.
    The criticism of the article by opponents who turned out to be unable to even understand what they read, and even less so familiar with the American concept of choosing targets for delivering nuclear strikes, looks very silly and dumb.
    Thanks again for the article. It’s a big mistake to refuse the enemy in the mind and strategic thinking.
    Quote: Romario_Argo
    on the 6 aircraft carriers of the US Navy, 8 submarines, 949A and ICRC Liana are enough
    - are the main means of countering the Russian Navy strike aircraft carrier groups of the US Navy

    Let me remind you: the speed of the submarine in stealth mode is about 5 km / h. The speed of the aircraft carrier during the take-off / landing of aviation is 55 km / h. How many submarines are needed to search, detect such a surface target and reach a firing range? Torpedo firing range - about 30km. Further: anti-torpedo protection of an aircraft carrier is a 5-fold duplication of the underwater side. To pierce them all is 2-3 times (no less!) To get torpedoes to the same place. When a single compartment is flooded, the ballast system will not allow the ship to be brought into a sky-ready state. It is necessary to fall into 3 different places on the right or left side repeatedly, so that the aircraft carrier receives a critical roll for flights - 3-5 degrees.
    Do not deny the enemy in the mind.
    1. Alex_59
      Alex_59 24 November 2017 10: 17 New
      +9
      Quote: Galleon
      Do not deny the enemy in the mind.

      That is why there will be no nuclear war. And there will be aircraft carriers. Everyone wants to live comfortably and well-fed - well, why do they need there these problems with eliminating the consequences of a Russian nuclear strike? Life is good, weekend barbecue, work, wife, lover, Britney Spears on TV. Well, what the hell is a nuclear battle? Putin to punish? Who needs it ...
      But the aircraft carriers ... heh heh heh. While we are discussing how they could operate in a nuclear slaughter, they are quite realistically working on reformatting the world according to American desires. They will format Libya there. Here is Syria. There is Grenada, then Vietnam, Somalia, Yugoslavia and so on. Here it is, war without war. Slowly, little by little. Without getting involved in any massacres with the Russians openly, the Russians quietly squeeze out spheres of influence. All is well. And the main thing is nothing to be done about it - will you not sink the American aircraft carrier bombing an allied, but formally alien, Yugoslavia? Well, the truth is, here we also want to live in peace, even if we don’t have a barbecue on weekends, but we also have work, a wife and a lover.
      The aircraft carriers are strong. The fact that there will be no global war is all theory. But in practice, they quite specifically bring US profit.
    2. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      24 November 2017 10: 35 New
      +3
      Quote: Galleon
      Bravo to the author: thoughtful and well-calibrated point of view.

      Thank you!
  15. Galleon
    Galleon 24 November 2017 09: 45 New
    +2
    Quote: DesToeR
    The effect of synergy was not taken into account while hitting 3000 warheads.

    Do you know how to calculate and predict this synergy effect? If so, tell me. It would be interesting.
  16. savage1976
    savage1976 24 November 2017 09: 56 New
    +3
    In many ways, the author is right, aircraft carriers are a force, but they are very mistaken in the details. In Russia, the city is called a settlement in which more than 12-15 thousand people live, in the United States a city of 2500 inhabitants. Spending a nuclear charge on a village makes no sense. There are 167 cities in Russia with a population of more than 100 in the USA 000. Quite different numbers come out.
    So there are articles that everything is gone, it's time to give up. But in fact, we have where to move from the infected cities, Siberia and the Far North are big, but where are they from the coast? To the desert of Nevada .....
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      24 November 2017 10: 56 New
      +6
      Quote: savage1976
      There are 167 cities in Russia with a population of more than 100 in the USA 000. Quite different numbers come out.

      They don’t come out, alas.
      In Russia, 170 cities with a population of over 100 thousand people. And 75 339 595 people live in them. This is 51% of the total population of the Russian Federation.
      In the United States, 295 cities with a population of over 100 thousand people. But only 89 102 318 people live in them. This is only 27% of the total US population.
      64 million people live in rural areas of the United States. And another 172 million live just in small cities, less than 100 thousand of the population
      Quote: savage1976
      So there are articles that everything is gone, it's time to give up

      ??
      Quote: savage1976
      But in fact, we have where to move from the infected cities, Siberia and the Far North are big, but where are they from the coast? To the desert of Nevada .....

      Oh yes, the United States just has a place to move, because it has a closer, if not heavenly, subtropical climate to Mexico. But how did you plan to survive in areas of the same Khanty-Mansiysk with its -50 every winter? :)))))))
    2. MoJloT
      MoJloT 24 November 2017 13: 06 New
      +1
      It makes no sense to spend a nuclear charge on the village
      especially when there is no water, food, electricity, heat, honey. help ... especially if it’s in the north, where without regular supplies from the central part of Russia, the life of cities is basically impossible, it turns out that you don’t need to spend money on such goals, they are self-destructing.
      But in fact, we have where to move from the infected cities, Siberia and the Far North are big
      You were there? I’m from there, it’s completely absurd, there is no way to survive in isolation, it is enough to break the main branch of the gas pipeline, the north will die by itself.
  17. The Siberian barber
    The Siberian barber 24 November 2017 10: 01 New
    0
    The task is not to erase the US into “dust”, but to cause unacceptable damage, probably.
    In a nuclear conflict, it seems to me that the factor of "Russian roulette" will play a significant role: something will not fly up, something will be knocked down, both in those and those ..
    How many? Practice will show (pah-pah) That which is, at the moment, is thought to be enough.
    And we need aircraft carrier connections, essno. At least, to increase the combat stability of our RPKSN. But, again, for starters we need an escort that we don’t have :( Unfortunately, the ships of the ocean zone are not laid down here (am I mistaken?).
  18. raw174
    raw174 24 November 2017 10: 08 New
    +5
    I think that the scenario of my fellow countryman does not take into account one important point, namely the navigation of an aircraft carrier. In the event of the destruction of communication channels and the failure of the spacecraft control centers, can aircraft carriers find the way? Will they reach? I don’t think that the captain of the US aircraft carrier possesses sufficient knowledge about the starry sky map and has a sufficient number of paper maps and devices capable of positioning it without reference to satellites ...
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      24 November 2017 10: 57 New
      +7
      Quote: raw174
      In the event of the destruction of communication channels and the failure of the spacecraft control centers, can aircraft carriers find the way? Will they reach? I don’t think that the captain of the US aircraft carrier possesses sufficient knowledge about the starry sky map and has a sufficient number of paper maps and devices capable of positioning it without reference to satellites ...

      laughing good drinks It's five, thanks, neighing like a horse :)))))
  19. xtur
    xtur 24 November 2017 10: 14 New
    +2
    For a flight of fancy, he put the author a plus ...
    But the level of nuclear forces is maintained at the level of causing unacceptable losses. And this means that everything that we think is not reality, but fantasy, because at our level of knowledge everything looks like the author shows. But none of this draws on unacceptable losses ...

    I repeat the name of the term - unacceptable, that is, after that the United States will not be able to wage war. And yes - a bunch of megaton rockets target US supervolcanoes and fault zones. And super volcanoes in the USA are not only Yellow stone.

    All sorts of “statuses” are being worked out, which simply cause a tsunami with a height of km and simply wash away the entire eastern coast of the United States into the ocean, Soviet humanism, the efforts of the United States, are no more.

    So I’m afraid the aircraft carriers will simply be taken by airborne assault, after it turns out that after the apocalypse the USA is no longer there, but the Russian Federation is still there
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      24 November 2017 11: 00 New
      +2
      Quote: xtur
      I repeat the name of the term - unacceptable, that is, after that the United States will not be able to wage war.

      Sorry, but "unacceptable" is just a word, and everything else is your interpretation of it. I can give another interpretation - unacceptable losses, these are losses that exclude the possibility of achieving a peace that would be better than pre-war as a result of the war.
      1. xtur
        xtur 24 November 2017 11: 12 New
        +1
        > Sorry, but "unacceptable" is just a word

        this is the definition of the state on which the concept of nuclear deterrence is based, thanks to which no one has used nuclear weapons for more than half a century
        1. rudolff
          rudolff 24 November 2017 11: 25 New
          +4
          Unacceptable damage is when the perceived losses in the war exceed the benefits. For example, the United States wants to destroy Russia and is willing to pay a certain price for it. If the possible damage exceeds this price, it is considered unacceptable. The term only matters as a deterrent to the outbreak of war. If the war (nuclear) nevertheless began for some reason, the term loses all meaning. War will be fought until complete annihilation, exhaustion, surrender, or the cessation of hostilities.
          1. xtur
            xtur 25 November 2017 17: 00 New
            +1
            > Unacceptable damage is when the alleged losses in the war exceed the benefits. For example, the United States wants to destroy Russia and is willing to pay a certain price for it. If the possible damage exceeds this price, it is considered unacceptable.

            very good definition. If the United States can destroy the Russian Federation, then the Russian Federation can destroy the United States, but in this case a nuclear war is meaningless. So, the point is that it simply causes damage of some magnitude, and then the question arises, what damage is considered unacceptable for the United States, even if the same damage to the Russian Federation

            It is clear that nuclear war will destroy all industrial potential. So the country in the economy will return to about the level of the 17th century in addition to a huge number of zones of radioactive contamination.
            The whole question is how long the country will return from this level to the modern one - it will take at least 100 years, because it will have to change the generation of industry, and this should take time.

            And yes - judging by open sources, the United States still does not know whether the Russian leadership will survive after a nuclear war - that is, the uncertainty in its consequences is so high

            The effect is that third countries benefit from a nuclear war between Russia and NATO, which could very well survive with all their potential. And then the USA and the Russian Federation will simply become colonies of these countries.
            So the US nuclear loaves should be divided into China and India, and a bunch of countries of relatively high development. Then the RF itself will get completely crumbs ...

            But all this leads us to the exact opposite conclusion - the US nuclear war is not profitable in any case, unless its true leaders have established a base in some third countries such as Australia or I do not know Antarctica
          2. Fudo
            Fudo 28 November 2017 16: 42 New
            +1
            UNACCEPTABLE DAMAGE IN THE WAR - the level of defeat of the armed forces, military-industrial facilities, state and military control systems, in which the state loses the opportunity to continue the war or is deprived of the political and economic motives for its further conduct. This is achieved by inflicting such losses on the enemy, the compensation of which is possible only in the long term. It is also feasible in case of destruction of the entire economic potential of the state, in connection with which its further struggle leads to irreversible deterioration of the situation and, ultimately, to surrender.
    2. tlauicol
      tlauicol 24 November 2017 11: 00 New
      +1
      ask Andrei to write a bonus article about nuclear weapons and Yellowstone, and about the tsunami too, to debunk another stupid myth - I can no longer see this balcony every day. fool
      SW Andrew, please!
      1. The comment was deleted.
        1. tlauicol
          tlauicol 24 November 2017 11: 30 New
          0
          Well at least not raving
        2. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
          24 November 2017 11: 36 New
          +2
          Quote: xtur
          we know him, right?

          Well, why? I don’t presume to write articles on biology, medicine, mathematics, cybernetics, cybenematics (such a science at the intersection of mathematics and cybernetics), physics, and many other areas of human knowledge :)))
      2. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
        24 November 2017 11: 27 New
        +2
        Quote: Tlauicol
        ask Andrei to write a bonus article about nuclear weapons and Yellowstone, and about the tsunami too, to debunk another stupid myth

        Just not that :)))))
        However ... I will think :)))))
        1. xtur
          xtur 25 November 2017 16: 14 New
          0
          >> he’s nerdy here, right?
          > I do not presume to write articles on

          strange, my original message that you quoted, and I, here, was deleted, although I do not see anything criminal or disrespectful in it

          But oh well. After reading the thread, I want to tell you that, unfortunately, I have to tell you that you are floating even in military matters, in particular, the use of nuclear weapons and calculating its consequences. And swimming is very inept
          I was shocked by your statement that when using / testing nuclear weapons at a test site in the Arctic, a fire could result in a nuclear winter
          With this level of knowledge, your analysis degenerates into a mockery, cheap fantasy, zombie apocalypse - to choose from, but there’s no point in arguing with him
          And when you immediately disproved the conclusions of a very qualified physicist Sakharov, you buried your reputation as a serious author in the grave. It is customary to back up such allegations with something more than one’s own opinion — the opinion of another qualified physicist, at least.
          Compared to you, Kaptsov or Damantsev is simply the embodiment of modesty, conscientiousness and literacy, although until today I thought quite the opposite.

          > Just not that :)))))
          > However ... I will think :)))))

          If you so easily refuted Sakharov’s calculations, then I can easily believe that having no idea about methods for solving and calculating the problems of the dynamics of volcanoes, without having the gigantic computational resources needed for such studies as an immense set of initial data, is easy make statements about the possibility / impossibility of influencing such processes, then your analytical articles this kind must continue to be considered anal_ethical articles
  20. Sergey Alekseev
    Sergey Alekseev 24 November 2017 10: 29 New
    0
    Quote: savage1976
    In many ways, the author is right, aircraft carriers are a force, but they are very mistaken in the details. In Russia, the city is called a settlement in which more than 12-15 thousand people live, in the United States a city of 2500 inhabitants. Spending a nuclear charge on a village makes no sense. There are 167 cities in Russia with a population of more than 100 in the USA 000. Quite different numbers come out.
    So there are articles that everything is gone, it's time to give up. But in fact, we have where to move from the infected cities, Siberia and the Far North are big, but where are they from the coast? To the desert of Nevada .....

    I completely agree. In the states, just very densely populated territories, respectively, are very vulnerable to impact.
    At the same time, the author says that there is no nuclear winter effect, and as an argument he cites the absence of consequences during nuclear weapons tests. A strange argument, in my opinion. They experience one or two charges, and in the event of a conflict, more than 4000 explosions of various capacities will occur almost simultaneously. As I understand it, not only the United States and Russia use all their nuclear weapons in case of war. China, India and all who have it will use the entire available arsenal. And, I believe, the effect of the application will be, and even what.
    Trash is not trash, but for the planet the consequences will be irreversible.
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      24 November 2017 11: 28 New
      +4
      Quote: Sergey Alekseev
      In the states, just very densely populated territories, respectively, are very vulnerable to impact.

      I have already answered many times in the comments - these are US densely populated territories, and not in the USA.
      1. _Efiop_
        _Efiop_ 26 November 2017 23: 13 New
        0
        Something here did not converge did not true?
        The New York metropolitan area is also known as Greater New York, the New York Metro Statistical Range, the combined statistical range New York - Newark - Bridgeport is the largest metropolitan area in the United States and one of the largest in the world, with its center in New York. In addition, the agglomeration includes the five largest Read more
        Population23723696 people
        Area34 km²
      2. evgenii67
        evgenii67 27 February 2018 14: 08 New
        0
        the article is very entertaining! Thank! You expect that almost every city needs several bombs and that the whole charge of the Russian Federation is not enough for the United States, there’s another moment: "Nuclear winter? A total of at least 2060 tests of atomic and thermonuclear charges were carried out in the USA, USSR, France, Great Britain and China, including 501 tests in the atmosphere." - all these tests were not carried out over the cities and most importantly were not carried out SIMULTANEOUS and it is unlikely that you, and indeed anyone, have any exact calculations of what will actually happen to the mainland or even to the planet itself. I understand that you exclude a nuclear winter, ok, but how can one exclude the awakening of the same volcanoes and the appearance of a tsunami? another moment, in addition to nuclear weapons there is a bacteriological, a bunch of chemical industries that will contribute to the destruction of the population. Well, again, nuclear power plants, which even if partially destroyed, will cause more damage to human health than a nuclear explosion, can not discount the consequences of explosions, what plows on the landfill and what smells in the city is a huge difference. And finally, my favorite, but for the most part it is to Russia, again the consequences of the explosions, say in the hot summer, will cause forest fires, I think everyone remembers 2010. how all the central part of Russia was suffocating from the smoke, and if not thousands, but millions hectares of forests were smoked at once, nobody would think.
  21. Cherry Nine
    Cherry Nine 24 November 2017 11: 02 New
    +5
    Andrey, a very nice article. Honestly, I did not expect from you.

    Alas ... Neither the Russian nor the American arsenal has long been enough to turn this very world into dust.

    Andrei, I never supported the proposals of people with especially good faces about the need for mass executions of the so-called patriots. But your “Alas” is a great attempt to convince me.
    stay on the ashes of the once great country in the face of a consolidated and untouched nuclear fire in Europe

    This is not a problem to worry about. On the implementation of the measures described by you, the consensus on the issue of Russian genocide should be considered practically guaranteed.
    a certain amount of nuclear weapons will probably be spent on defeating military targets on the European continent

    It's funny But the warheads of France and Britain did not forget to count in balance? By the way, on the issue of consensus, such measures will significantly help to achieve it.
    Roughly speaking, and we. and the Americans are capable of delivering a one-shot strike using approximately 1500–1600 warheads

    Andrey, cheating is not good.
    Russian strategic nuclear forces on Vika
    Strategic Rocket Forces - 958 charges. Reliability of carriers - let's say, like the Proton launch vehicle, 90% Will be released 862.
    SLBM 752 charges. Only those media should be considered. 1. The combat ready. 2. Do not receive a torpedo from Virginia at the time of opening the covers. 3. They will not be covered by a trident at the base without having time to work out. Of the spent ones, we consider reliability for the same 90%. How much in the end? KVM, half - a very optimistic result.
    Strategic Aviation, 798 charges. Not a single one will reach.
    It is easy to see that 798 + 752 + 958 is not a fig, not 1561. Even taking the most pleasant arithmetic for the patriot, we get 958 * 0,9 + (1561-958) * 0,5 = 1163 charges. This is more or less the maximum that is achieved if the Sovereign presses a button from a bay, without any pre-war period, and does not immediately receive a bullet in the back of the head from the representative of the sixth column.
    Possible consequences for the enemy when hitting cities.
    The main US population is concentrated in several agglomerations. New England (Boston Washington), California (San Francisco-San Diego), Great Lakes, Florida, South Texas. This is approximately half the US population.
    I note that these are very large areas without a clear center. The head of the megaton class is 50 sq. Km. continuous defeat (we believe that all of these). Mentioned BosVash - 300 thousand sq. Km. 16% of the area. When struck by all forces in one megalopolis. At the same time, there is no need to talk about any counter-force strike.
    So when you strike at the most urbanized parts of megacities, you will kill tens of millions of people. 10% of the population. Well 20.
    And now the fun part.
    Eliminate most of the industrial potential - certainly

    Not so. Industrial potential and population are geographically separated. Either one or the other.
    Drop development in the region of Central African countries

    This is the biggest puncture. Central African countries live in Central African countries. In America, Americans. What is the difference - can be traced to the example of large earthquakes in Japan and Haiti. America will remain almost the same as it was. Only very, very angry.

    In Russia, meanwhile, there will not be a single large city and not a single arsenal of the same unused warheads (there are about 6 thousand of them, it seems). And then the consensus mentioned.
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      24 November 2017 11: 44 New
      +4
      Quote: Cherry Nine
      It's funny But the warheads of France and Britain did not forget to count in balance?

      I’m not sure that we will definitely need to hammer through their territories, and there is the most important nuance - I do not know how many warheads are deployed there. General values ​​only.
      Quote: Cherry Nine
      Andrey, cheating is not good.

      ??
      Quote: Cherry Nine
      Strategic Aviation, 798 charges. Not a single one will reach.

      And what will stop them? I would say that the IA will capture 5 percent of the Kyrgyz Republic, hardly more.
      Quote: Cherry Nine
      So when you strike at the most urbanized parts of megacities, you will kill tens of millions of people.

      The article says so.
      Quote: Cherry Nine
      This is the biggest puncture. Central African countries live in Central African countries. In America, Americans. What is the difference - can be traced to the example of large earthquakes in Japan and Haiti.

      I looked at the example of New Orleans. Did not impress.
      1. Cherry Nine
        Cherry Nine 24 November 2017 12: 49 New
        0
        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
        I looked at the example of New Orleans

        Have you looked well? N. Orleans, 2005, 1200 thousand people. (with suburbs), 720 victims of Krymsk, 2012, 60 thousand inhabitants, 170 victims.
        But the thesis was different. The fact that the people who created America will remain (and, quite possibly, will become stronger). It will not work to turn the USA into the Central African Republic, even if the population is completely exchanged in these countries. The CAR will very quickly turn back into the United States, and the United States - roughly into today's Russia.
        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
        I would say that the IA will intercept 5 percent of the KR, hardly more.

        It seems to you that you know the forces and means needed to destroy the AUG. Your estimates of the effectiveness of an incomparably stronger ground-based air defense are somewhat surprising. The calculation is that the Americans after the ICBM strike will begin to cry and repent and forget that they still need to shoot down the X-55. Subsonic CD in its own sky. I’m not talking about carriers that were expected over Canada 60 years ago.
        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
        ??

        The USA has a strategic triad, Russia does not. It is ridiculous to consider the capabilities of the Russian Air Force and the NATO Air Force "by default" the same.
        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
        I’m not sure that we will definitely need to hammer through their territories, and there is the most important nuance - I do not know how many warheads are deployed there. General values ​​only.

        Consider it all. While you go to the English Channel, they will have time to start.
        1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
          24 November 2017 13: 19 New
          +2
          Quote: Cherry Nine
          Have you looked well? N. Orleans, 2005, 1200 thousand people. (with suburbs), 720 victims of Krymsk, 2012, 60 thousand inhabitants, 170 victims.

          Well, again :)))) You see, in the event of a nuclear strike against the United States, the skills of the United States that they did NOT demonstrate in New Orleans will matter. But what can be, in other countries the situation is even worse, the United States will not help
          And as I recall, up to 1600 people died in New Orleans
          Quote: Cherry Nine
          But the thesis was different. The fact that the people who created America will remain (and, quite possibly, will become stronger).

          Quite possible. But it is also possible that they will have to get into people from the level of Central African countries
          Quote: Cherry Nine
          The calculation is that the Americans after the ICBM strike will begin to cry and repent and forget that they still need to shoot down the X-55. Subsonic CD in its own sky. I’m not talking about carriers that were expected over Canada 60 years ago.

          You can wait as long as you want over Canada, with a range of X-101 5,5 thousand km Nobody will introduce strategists into the coverage areas of the IA
          Americans were waiting, or not - I do not know. In fact, there is no serious missile defense system in the United States.
          Quote: Cherry Nine
          It is ridiculous to consider the capabilities of the Russian Air Force and the NATO Air Force "by default" the same.

          NATO has no way to prevent our strategists from attacking the United States through the North Pole.
          Quote: Cherry Nine
          Consider it all. While you go to the English Channel, they will have time to start.

          I doubt it very much.
          1. Cherry Nine
            Cherry Nine 24 November 2017 14: 00 New
            +1
            Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
            I doubt it very much.

            That is, if you don’t know how much exactly, you think that it is zero? OK, the author knows better alternatives.
            Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
            NATO has no way to prevent our strategists from attacking the United States

            Is there really nobody in Tula? How's it going with AWAC, by the way?
            Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
            In fact, there is no serious missile defense system in the United States.

            You are talking about a subsonic missile, which is perfectly interrupted by fighters. And flies in the air defense zone for four hours, starting with polar Canada.
            Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
            they will have to get into people from the level of Central African countries

            According to your own estimates, at the level of Stalingrad / African countries there will be 50 thousand sq. Km. territory. At the level of the Moscow Ring Road - for example, another 500% of the country's territory. The remaining 5% will remain where they were.
            Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
            And as I recall, up to 1600 people died in New Orleans

            You remember wrong. 1600 are the victims of Katrina in the USA (Mississippi, Louisiana), and not only N. Orleans. For all affected areas, it is difficult to estimate the population, but most likely the percentage will be even lower.
            Speaking of that. If the Armagedec is preceded by a preparatory period, say, a year, the bourgeoisie will find cozy bomb shelters for themselves, there is experience. In 20-30 minutes of flight time you can do a lot. See tsunami warning system.
            1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
              24 November 2017 14: 34 New
              +2
              Quote: Cherry Nine
              That is, if you don’t know how much exactly, you think that it is zero? OK, the author knows better alternatives.

              Not funny. I repeat, I do not know the number of deployed warheads, and I do not take into account the non-deployed in the general scenario for either the United States or the Russian Federation. With him would I do this for England and France? And deployed ... well, I don’t know, there will be at least 100 pieces for both of them? So I have data for the USA - plus minus 200 warheads.
              Quote: Cherry Nine
              Is there really nobody in Tula? How's it going with AWAC, by the way?

              How will it help you?
              Quote: Cherry Nine
              You are talking about a subsonic missile, which is perfectly interrupted by fighters. And flies in the air defense zone for four hours, starting with polar Canada.

              Firstly, the KR is not so easy to bring down a fighter. Secondly, what kind of Canada is there? Canada is a member of NATO, so we must say goodbye to the radar system of this state long before the arrival of the Kyrgyz Republic.
              Quote: Cherry Nine
              According to your own estimates

              Nope. According to your
              Quote: Cherry Nine
              You remember wrong. 1600 are the victims of Katrina in the USA (Mississippi, Louisiana), and not only N. Orleans.

              I will not argue, as I wrote above, the state of the rescue services in their country, and not in someone else's, is important.
              By the way, 1600 people are victims of a hurricane ONLY. What about the accompanying victims (bandit / ganterito?)
              1. Cherry Nine
                Cherry Nine 24 November 2017 15: 15 New
                0
                Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                What about the accompanying victims

                Marauding? Separately did not stand out.
                Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                Nope. According to your

                OK. Your thoughts If possible, in sq. Km.
                Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                KR is not so easy to bring down a fighter

                The tempest did, they say. You can search the museums.
                Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                Canada is a member of NATO, so we must say goodbye to the radar system of this state long before the arrival of the Kyrgyz Republic.

                What will happen to her? Or are you in a counterstroke already? How much power will you divert?
                Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                And deployed ... well, I don’t know, there will be at least 100 pieces for both of them?

                Vika writes, for 4 submarines. Lime has 160 warheads, the French have about 300.
                1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                  24 November 2017 16: 16 New
                  +2
                  Quote: Cherry Nine
                  OK. Your thoughts If possible, in sq. Km.

                  In sq. Km it can not be measured. And in cities - I cited an article
                  Quote: Cherry Nine
                  The tempest did, they say.

                  KR? :)))) Yes, you're kidding :))))
                  Quote: Cherry Nine
                  What will happen to her? Or are you in a counterstroke already? How much power will you divert?

                  How much do you need? some ICBMs, warheads of 15 pieces?
                  Quote: Cherry Nine
                  Vika writes, for 4 submarines. Lime has 160 warheads, the French have about 300.

                  Again. These are general numbers, and they are incorrect, the EMNIP lime has about 225. And there is a minuscule amount.
                  1. Cherry Nine
                    Cherry Nine 24 November 2017 17: 13 New
                    0
                    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                    And in cities - I cited an article

                    This is not the best solution. The USA is a country of urban areas. Formally, the same Beverly Hills, for example, is a small city. So if you take it that way, then 20 thousand small cities, and if you say that, 20 very big cities.
                    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                    KR? :)))) Yes, you're kidding :))))

                    V-1 was called.
                    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                    How much do you need? some ICBMs, warheads of 15 pieces?

                    Is that a question for me? Do you only have a claim to Canada, or to all of NATO?
                    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                    These are general numbers, and they are incorrect, the EMNIP lime has about 225. And there is a minuscule amount.

                    Vika gives 225/160 and 500/300 respectively. It happens, of course, Vika is lying. Where did your score come from?
                    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                      24 November 2017 18: 55 New
                      +2
                      Quote: Cherry Nine
                      This is not the best solution. The USA is a country of urban areas. Formally, the same Beverly Hills, for example, is a small city. So if you take it that way, then 20 thousand small cities, and if you say that, 20 very big cities.

                      Yes and no. When the US urbanizes, it’s urbanization for all urbanizations — they push a bunch of people into a square meter of area. But right here - the suburbs with one-story buildings.
                      Everything is pretty simple. We evaporate cities up to 100 people, inclusive, below - no. There are about 300 such cities in the USA and around them the main industry and civilization are concentrated. We are the most powerful power plants and the most powerful industrial enterprises outside 100 cities and more, even if they are located in urban-type settlements.
                      As a result of this, the USA has almost no metallurgy, automobile, aviation, electro, and instrument-making and so on and so forth industries. But there is a bunch of small cities, whose economy, well, has never been self-sufficient, an excess of the population that is not working in the new realities (clerks / brokers / psychologists) and whose population needs to be fed
                      The primary concerns of Americans will be:
                      1) Food
                      2) Fuel and energy resources
                      And it will be necessary to solve the problems of food with untrained personnel and with a minimum of agricultural equipment, fertilizers, etc., because the industry has bogged down and there is no new one. And the Yankees will be able to move on to the restoration of industry only after they have solved the previous tasks at the minimum acceptable level. That is, for some period their production will slide into clothing, simple agricultural equipment, pumping oil and getting fuel from it, and of course the agricultural sector. This is what I mean by Central Africanism.
                      And then yes, they’ll go up to where they will go.
                      Quote: Cherry Nine
                      V-1 was called.

                      I told you - you're kidding :))))
                      Quote: Cherry Nine
                      Is that a question for me? Do you only have a claim to Canada, or to all of NATO?

                      To you. You are talking about the impregnable US air defense, which can reset the DRA of the Russian Federation. So, you know, probably what you are talking about :))))
                      An article like Russian in white says
                      It should be recognized that a conflict between the United States and the Russian Federation is extremely unlikely, and if it comes to military operations, then most likely it will be a conflict between the Russian Federation and NATO.

                      Quote: Cherry Nine
                      Vika gives 225/160 and 500/300 respectively

                      Once again :)))) Vika writes about Britain
                      The UK is estimated to have around 225 thermonuclear warheads, of which 160 are on alert

                      In other words, 160 warheads are operational warheads that can be deployed at least theoretically. And deployed warheads are those that are placed on media.
                      So, the British, if I forgot, have 1 SSBN on duty, where she goes from 12 ICBMs to 4 warheads each, this is 48 warheads officially, but in practice there is even less EMNIP. And 2 more SSBNs are on alert, but whether there are missiles on them is a question. I just remember, we sorted this issue out with knowledgeable people, and the quantity came out somehow ridiculous
                      1. Cherry Nine
                        Cherry Nine 24 November 2017 21: 44 New
                        0
                        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                        So, the British, if I forget, have 1 SSB on duty

                        It’s strange. You and I have different wikis. In my 4Angle Wangard, at least 1 on duty, KOH at least 0.25.
                        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                        I just remember, we sorted this issue out with knowledgeable people, and the quantity came out somehow ridiculous

                        Knowledgeable people also consider Russian SSBNs only on duty? 16 ridiculous Tridents in 3 blocks left after a preemptive strike on the base of Clyde will be enough to destroy in total 15 cities you mentioned. 1st and 16th to Moscow for warranty.
                        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                        An article like Russian in white says

                        Which NATO facilities do you plan to cover? You have no more than 400 carriers for the first strike, let me remind you (ICBM + SLBM). In this case, with SLBMs may be oh, wrote above.
                        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                        This is what I mean by Central Africanism.

                        Not enough Central Africans. Without them, you describe Australia.
                        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                        There are about 300 such cities in the USA and around them the main industry and civilization are concentrated.

                        Evaporate? Again. Do you know the term "losangelization"? Aircraft (not agglomeration, the city itself) 1200 km4, less than XNUMX million people. How much warhead does it take to "vaporize"? If it’s about partial destruction,
                        then later this plant can be restored, in spite of any harmful emissions

                        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                        And it will be necessary to solve the problems of food with untrained personnel and with a minimum of agricultural equipment, fertilizers, etc., because the industry has bogged down and there is no new one.

                        Agriculture is not affected by you. Equipment and fertilizers (and food) will be brought from all over the world for free. They will not bring to Russia. Or you have to redo everything under the first blow of the Americans. But even then ...
                        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                        excess of the unemployed in the new realities of the population (clerks / brokers / psychologists)

                        You just ordered them a blow to the cities.
                        General idea. With your nuclear strike you will receive Germany 45 in large cities. Despite the fact that most of the settlements and military potential the war is not affected in any way.
                        This, I recall, is a variant of a sudden strike.
        2. Alex_59
          Alex_59 24 November 2017 13: 41 New
          +2
          Quote: Cherry Nine
          Your estimates of the effectiveness of an incomparably stronger ground-based air defense are somewhat surprising.

          What is the "stronger" air defense? The interception of the Kyrgyz Republic is not a solution today.
          The Patriot will see this CD at the range of the radio horizon, which for its radar is 10 kilometers of force.
          The Stinger? Well, of course you can. Probably a funny sight will be - how they will be chasing the KR on the “Avengers”.
          IA air defense? Well, yes, only TSU who will give if KR above the ground in 40-50 meters fly? Where to wait for them? And if the Russians do not climb the shortest path and go from the ocean? There are not enough AWACS planes for everyone.
          The Russian Federation with its anti-aircraft defense is much more likely to raise the percentage of downed missile defense to at least 20 percent. And then in an ideal situation.
          1. Cherry Nine
            Cherry Nine 24 November 2017 14: 38 New
            0
            Quote: Alex_59
            And if the Russians do not climb the shortest path and go from the ocean? There are not enough AWACS planes for everyone.

            Yes? And by the numbers? How much is, how much is not enough, who is able to go from which side? What, by the way, are the possibilities of the notorious flawed penguins in this regard?
            1. Alex_59
              Alex_59 24 November 2017 15: 20 New
              +1
              Quote: Cherry Nine
              Yes? And by the numbers?

              What numbers? KR flying at an altitude of 40-50 meters can be seen from the nearest hill, but no further. On each hill to put on the radar or air defense system is so far unprofitable even for the United States. By AWACS aircraft: the E-3 has a fighter range when viewed from the upper hemisphere about 400 km. At the same time, the EPR fighter has several square meters. In the case of X-55 type EPRs, there are only 0,1 m2, and in X-101 in general 0,01 m2. I think it will be close to the truth to say that the E-3 can confidently distinguish low-flying CRs at a distance of kilometers in 100. From such a distance, it is only possible to issue a command center already in the air near a fighter. And the front of a possible breakthrough of our KR is about 10 thousand km. The United States will be forced to keep all E-3 continuously in the air all day and night and hundreds of fighter jets on air as well. It is impossible physically. And the air defense system will not have enough time for reaction - a hundred-kilometer section of the Kyrgyz Republic will overcome in 8-10 minutes. During this time, even a fighter on duty in the air will barely have time to go on a rapprochement course, not just to detect a target and take it to follow. Therefore, no one in the world can shoot down guaranteed. It is only a matter of reducing, to one degree or another, the damage from their use. Our air defense has a better chance.
              1. Cherry Nine
                Cherry Nine 24 November 2017 16: 02 New
                +1
                Quote: Alex_59
                E-3 can confidently distinguish between low-flying CRs at a distance of 100 kilometers

                We accept for the base.
                Quote: Alex_59
                about 10 thousand km

                At least 50 aircraft. It is desirable 100. There are 31 Century 75 hokai, plus any little thing. This is if the enemies do not wake up and do not give the Boeing 737 AEW & C a Stakhanov pace.
                About 10 t.km And where do you want to crash from?
                Quote: Alex_59
                The United States will be forced to keep all E-3s continuously in the air all day and night and hundreds of fighter jets on air

                Day? There are three bases there. After the mass launch of ICBMs, they are very unlikely to have time to take off at all. If they take off beforehand, they will disrupt the whole surprise. Not to mention that the chances of the sixth column are growing exponentially with every minute of preliminary action.
                In any case, the arrival window of the X-101 is less than a day in time.
              2. Alexey RA
                Alexey RA 24 November 2017 18: 40 New
                0
                Quote: Alex_59
                I think it will be close to the truth to say that the E-3 can confidently distinguish low-flying CRs at a distance of 100 kilometers.

                This is an average. In the north, even with a disturbed ionosphere, there may be problems with communication - especially after someone’s SBN explodes in low orbits, knocking out the space component of the SPRIAU.
                1. Cherry Nine
                  Cherry Nine 24 November 2017 23: 56 New
                  0
                  Quote: Alexey RA
                  This is an average. In the north, with a disturbed ionosphere, even with communication there may be problems

                  Well, this is great news for manufacturers of drones and optical systems. They will need a lot.
              3. Vadim237
                Vadim237 24 November 2017 21: 18 New
                +1
                Given that in the event of a nuclear conflict, all the air defense, the Navy and the US Air Force will be in full combat readiness - the chances of shooting down most of our cruise missiles will increase many times over.
        3. Alexey RA
          Alexey RA 24 November 2017 14: 55 New
          +1
          Quote: Cherry Nine
          It seems to you that you know the forces and means needed to destroy the AUG. Your estimates of the effectiveness of an incomparably stronger ground-based air defense are somewhat surprising. The calculation is that the Americans after the ICBM strike will begin to cry and repent and forget that they still need to shoot down the X-55.

          There is one problem with the ALCM - they will go through the north. And in this direction, the United States, even in the blessed 80s, had big problems with early warning. Not because of good life in the north, instead of pyramids with PAR, a chain of conventional radars appeared with much more modest ranges.
        4. nPuBaTuP
          nPuBaTuP 24 November 2017 22: 17 New
          0
          Incorrect example with New Orleans and Crimean ...
          If residents of Krymsk were warned, then there might not have been any victims ....
          But in New Orleans, with the situation as in Krymsk (night, flood) ... I think the situation would not be very favorable ...
          1. Cherry Nine
            Cherry Nine 24 November 2017 23: 21 New
            0
            Quote: nPuBaTuP
            If residents of Krymsk were warned, then there might not have been any victims ....

            Yeah, and that included.
            1. nPuBaTuP
              nPuBaTuP 25 November 2017 00: 08 New
              0
              Pulling out of context ...
              But what happened in New Orleans if Katrina sneaked up unnoticed?
              1. Cherry Nine
                Cherry Nine 25 November 2017 01: 00 New
                +1
                Quote: nPuBaTuP
                if only Katrina crept unnoticed?

                Do rains in the Krasnodar Territory know how to do this?
                1. nPuBaTuP
                  nPuBaTuP 25 November 2017 19: 30 New
                  0
                  Ha ... they still can’t do that :): believe me ...
    2. Fudo
      Fudo 28 November 2017 16: 49 New
      0
      why did you decide what to pay attention to the zone of continuous destruction? Do you really expect to survive in a city in which several nuclear warheads exploded, even if you are not in this zone of continuous destruction and are sitting in the basement with a supply of food and water? How much time do you expect to survive?
  22. burigaz2010
    burigaz2010 24 November 2017 11: 04 New
    +1
    Andrew there is such a thing as unacceptable damage !! If at least half of our missiles fall this will be the very unacceptable damage !!!
    1. Fudo
      Fudo 28 November 2017 16: 57 New
      0
      which half there. One is enough for inadmissibility. Political power in this situation is changing by revolutionary methods per day.
  23. Kars
    Kars 24 November 2017 11: 12 New
    +2
    Well, I think all the same, the Russian nuclear weapons will be enough to destroy the US naval bases, and the main cities of the USA, I don’t see the point of bombing some kind of tattered Springfield, and the rest will be destroyed by the man-made environment, how many nuclear plants will explode, chemical plants and so on. they will run out of gasoline and ammunition for aircraft.
  24. Galleon
    Galleon 24 November 2017 11: 49 New
    +1
    Quote: Alex_59
    Well, the truth is, here we also want to live in peace, even if we don’t have a barbecue on weekends, but we also have work, a wife and a lover.

    An interesting and very intelligible point of view on this issue. Thank. laughing good
  25. rudolff
    rudolff 24 November 2017 11: 51 New
    +5
    The calculation of the ratio of the required number of warheads to the nth number of targets required for destruction is correct only if the parties agree to start a nuclear war of such a date, such a month, exactly at that time. In any other case, the fact of the outbreak of war first will be of paramount importance. For example, Americans start first. We have only two naval bases of the PKK SN. KOH is about 0,15-0,2. That is, from two fleets to a BS in the sea, one or two strategists are at their best. Sometimes not a single one. If you make time, with two salvos of the Kyrgyz Republic, you can simultaneously deprive us of the entire marine component of the strategic nuclear forces. Immediately a giant imbalance. In this situation, the concept of "primary goals" comes to the fore. These are places of basing of carriers (marine, air) of nuclear weapons and storage sites of nuclear weapons. Critical infrastructure and energy in the second place. Major cities and megacities in the third.
    1. Alexey RA
      Alexey RA 24 November 2017 12: 58 New
      +2
      Quote: rudolff
      We have only two naval bases of the PKK SN. KOH is about 0,15-0,2. That is, from two fleets to a BS in the sea, one or two strategists are at their best. Sometimes not a single one.

      Yeah ... the famous photo of 2015 of the Gadzhievo base - 5 SSBNs are at the piers: Karelia, Yekaterinburg, Yuri Dolgoruky, Novomoskovsk and Verkhoturye.
      1. Fudo
        Fudo 28 November 2017 16: 59 New
        0
        with an alarm from this pier, they all shoot back.
        1. Alexey RA
          Alexey RA 29 November 2017 10: 01 New
          +1
          Then why is it necessary for the SSBN? A barge with SLBMs can also shoot from the pier. And there is no need to spend money on a ship with the ability to dive and shoot from underwater.
    2. Vadim237
      Vadim237 24 November 2017 21: 22 New
      +1
      "If you make time, with two salvos of the Kyrgyz Republic, you can simultaneously deprive us of the entire marine component of the strategic nuclear forces." In the future, orbital bombers will be able to do this, on the basis of X 37, each with three warheads and goodbye to all naval bases in a few minutes.
    3. Fudo
      Fudo 28 November 2017 16: 58 New
      0
      Yes you can’t deprive anything at a time. Flight time and start-up time all these calculations are leveled
      1. Cherry Nine
        Cherry Nine 28 November 2017 23: 03 New
        0
        Quote: Fudo
        Flight time and start-up time all these calculations are leveled

        Quote: Fudo
        the voivode’s readiness for launch is 62 seconds. In 6 minutes they will fly back.

        Mines that can withstand a direct hit of 150 Kt warheads were built by supporters of other calculations.
        Quote: Fudo
        with an alarm from this pier, they all shoot back.

        The letter "P" in the abbreviation of the SSBN may mean "underwater" or "pontoon". For you, as I understand it, there are no differences, but your opinion is not the only one.
        Quote: Fudo
        The GBI will not bring down an entire governor; they will try to bring down divided warheads.

        Where you checked in, this is written.
        1. Fudo
          Fudo 29 November 2017 08: 30 New
          0
          mines were built before the governor's modernization took place up to 62 sec. readiness time.

          What does the letter P have to do with it? And what, what are they underwater? Can't shoot from the surface now?
  26. Alexey Sobolev
    Alexey Sobolev 24 November 2017 12: 00 New
    0
    In any case, the "Day of Triffids" is guaranteed to the Americans .. We, by the way, too, but we are more familiar ....
    Accordingly, our victory here ...
    1. 3danimal
      3danimal 13 December 2017 09: 53 New
      0
      Quote: Alexey Sobolev
      In any case, the "Day of Triffids" is guaranteed to the Americans .. We, by the way, too, but we are more familiar

      And it will be customary for the Americans that the whole Western world will help them. And the Russian Federation is unlikely (if they don’t start topping up at all). If we start a nuclear war. And the United States will never be the first to start it-it’s pointless. Or does someone seriously believe that they are sleeping and see how the last bastion of spiritual bonds and traditional values ​​is being destroyed? )
  27. SSN
    SSN 24 November 2017 12: 22 New
    0
    I’ll probably say a button accordion, but you can beat the strategic nuclear forces at weak geo points to cause earthquake, tsunami, eruptions, etc.
    In terms of nuclear weapons, I personally have many questions, how is it divided? Not only in terms of power, right?
    PKRK Granit is an operational-tactical complex, and their warheads are 500Kt
    1. Fudo
      Fudo 28 November 2017 17: 00 New
      0
      in range
  28. Common man
    Common man 24 November 2017 12: 50 New
    +2
    I’ll say from the side of the layman: here people know, and maybe they “know” how it will be from the military side. But for the average layman, this is not important. Nuclear war, who destroyed something more. Not important. Nuclear war is a global mess when there is little destruction and nuclear contamination. This is a ruined WORLD economy, when all supplies flew into the pipe, production stopped everywhere, because any more or less developed production depends on a heap of everything from around the world. And the same products in a city with a population of more than a couple hundred thousand for 3 days. So everywhere in the world a "grateful" and hungry population will go in droves of a couple of hundred thousand to hang up their "beautiful" government at the nearest posts.
    Today, 10 million will die from hostilities, and tomorrow dozens will die from the fact that there is no water, there is no electricity and there is nothing to eat.

    In the end, what am I talking about? That it doesn’t matter who bites someone harder, everyone will lose.
    Ps And the aircraft carriers? This thing is good and useful, and it would be good for us to have them too, if, again, the economy pulls. But I write this as a layman, so gentlemen, without complaints.
    1. Vadim237
      Vadim237 24 November 2017 21: 24 New
      +1
      "So everywhere in the world a" grateful "and hungry population will go in droves of a couple of hundred thousand to hang up their" beautiful "government at the nearest posts." The entire government will be in underground bunkers under heavy guard - no one will get to them.
  29. Graff77
    Graff77 24 November 2017 13: 12 New
    +2
    My opinion.
    An article, as purely speculative, even nothing fit. About the doctrine of a nuclear strike ... As already said in the comments - the effect of the simultaneous attack of 3000 very powerful warheads is not known. How volcanoes will react, whether tsunamis will appear, whether there will be a nuclear winter. It should be noted and coherence and skills of the population to survive. Damage from breaking command chains. A lot of everything. The forecast of how many people will die is also amenable to poor accounting. All this is poorly verifiable.
    Regarding what a word is about in the article, but the author writes in the comments. Russia NEEDS AUG. At least 4. And ideally, 6-8 ships of the Mistral type on marine TVDs such as the Baltic or the Black Sea. Why are they needed? Because they allow you to quickly build up the grouping of forces and provide the necessary support on a particular theater. Plus a lot of different things, too lazy to list.
    Regarding the fact that after a nuclear strike, the United States has several AUGs that will carry a certain part of combat aircraft (These are not 90 aircraft, if that is less, about 75) and they will finish off the remnants of our country ...
    This will NOT be a decisive advantage in the war with the Russian Federation.
    Transfer to airfields, I do not consider. Because the combat radius of the aircraft is limited. And it will not be possible to work from all airfields. Logistics, even though some supplies of ammunition and fuel will remain, will be difficult. The work of combat aircraft, this is not suicide bombing attacks. And this is if we allow the destruction of the entire air defense of the Russian Federation. What is unrealistic. Delivery of military contingents will be difficult. If at all possible. Plus, infection of the main theater with residual radiation and other consequences of an intense nuclear strike.
    It is unclear why the Russian Federation will throw to the English Channel when Europe is simply paralyzed and, most likely, the East European theater of operations will not be of any significance due to the consequences of intensive nuclear strikes. This is not taking into account that the ACG will have to overcome natural disasters at sea. This is not taking into account the fact that the fight against AUG is now entrusted to the forces of naval aviation and submarine. And this fight will be organized immediately during the counter strike. In a nuclear conflict, AUGs are not needed. Unless, of course, they are involved in striking freely falling bombs with nuclear weapons. On this reasoning about the ACG in a nuclear war - well, as a topic to talk even nothing.
    Why the Russian Federation will NEVER have its AUG.
    The economy is not that. They will not be from the word at all and there is nothing to cry about it. By 2025, when the Flurry project will be implemented, I will already have other requirements for aircraft carriers. And this is if we are not pulled into another war. And we are definitely drawn into it.
    1. Fudo
      Fudo 28 November 2017 17: 03 New
      0
      The author considers the fighting of robots. In a real situation, all these AUGs without orders from the center will be sent by ship captains somewhere to Australia, and not to fight in Europe
  30. QWERTY
    QWERTY 24 November 2017 13: 20 New
    0
    I think so, if everyone involved in each other smells of all available warheads, then there will not be any combined-arms operations - for a mess will begin and anarchy. Who will supply the army with fuel and food? Where to get replenishment, if most of the cities - in dust, to catch the villages? Likewise, aircraft carriers - even if they don’t get hit - do they swim on their own? Without supplies? Well, they are atomic - they don’t need fuel. What about food? Will fish be caught from decks?
    1. Fudo
      Fudo 28 November 2017 17: 05 New
      0
      After assessing the situation, the captain will send the ship to a safe port, wherever it will last.
  31. Nikita Yadrovsky
    Nikita Yadrovsky 24 November 2017 13: 38 New
    +1
    Why doesn't anyone mention the combat radius of the F / A-18E / F Super Hornet - the main strike force of aircraft carriers, which is approximately 720 km? Areas from which US aircraft carriers can reach the territory of Russia: these are the Barents, Baltic and Black Seas. The issue of unhindered (under war conditions then!) Penetration of aircraft carriers into the Black Sea remains open. One way or another, from these water areas the Hornets are capable of striking almost all over the western part of the country (though they still don’t reach Moscow). I don’t know about whether the aircraft carriers are capable of operating in the Arctic Ocean, but even from there they are not able to penetrate into the depths of the industrial regions of Siberia. In the Far East, these are the waters of the Japan, Okhotsk and Bering Seas. I don’t know about the Chukchi Sea. In this case, the greater part of the east of the country is also inaccessible to US carrier-based aviation. In all these cases, one does not have to talk about the ability of US aircraft carriers to strike most of the territory of Russia. Of course, I suppose that the combat radius can be increased by reducing the combat load and using part of the Hornets as refuelers, but this does not solve the problem.
    The author mentioned that aircraft carriers will in fact be used only for delivering combat aircraft to the shores of Europe, and a European airfield network will be used for combat sorties. But in this case, only the western part of our country is under attack.
    1. _Efiop_
      _Efiop_ 26 November 2017 23: 35 New
      +1
      720km This is the land version of the deck version of not more than 500 unless tanks are suspended but then the combat load is reduced. (Fly 600km to drop 1500kg of bombs is such an activity.)
      As for the seas, you are right that not one sane admiral during the conflict will drive the AUG neither into the Black Sea (they will stay there 2 straits), nor into the Baltic Sea (there are many islands and shoals with shallow water), nor into the northern seas (far from bases supply, lack of icebreakers and ice drift AUG,)
      The author here smoked some cigarettes and decided to take faulty fighters from the mainland to carry an aircraft carrier with bunkers, then use the same bumps to spare parts from the ground in order to repair them in cramped holds without conditions and equipment and drive them back to the mainland.
  32. Krasnodar
    Krasnodar 24 November 2017 14: 40 New
    +1
    Carrier strike group is the subject of constant surveillance.
    Destroy them will be in the first place. With submarines, etc.
  33. Elka13
    Elka13 24 November 2017 16: 41 New
    +1
    It is generally well written, but the author forgot about the nuclear winter. Nuclear winter will be caused by clouds of smoke and dust from an explosion in cities. These clouds will lead to a significant decrease in atmospheric transparency. A little less sunlight will reach the earth's surface, so the average tempera will fall by several degrees - which will lead to a small ice age. Personally, I haven’t done the modeling and I don’t know how many cities should burn in order to get such an effect. However, the almost simultaneous explosion of about 2000 warheads in cities is different from 10 years of testing in deserts and underground. I met information that the last volcanic eruption in Iceland with clouds of dust really had a noticeable effect on the climate. In short, if you believe the modeling, then of course it is not easier for us, except for aircraft carriers, we will have to assume that in the next few years there will not be enough food and fuel for all survivors. But this is really secondary, obviously the order for such a global blow will be given only by a psycho (what they have with us), But local application of nuclear weapons is likely. Does anyone really believe that if the Americans bring down our plane or we sink their ship, then both presidents will rush into the bunkers frantically pressing the red buttons in their suitcases? No, nuclear weapons will be used gradually over the course of the entire conflict, precisely for significant single goals: aircraft carriers, bases. The winner will stop the war when he reaches local goals so as not to pin the loser into a corner and not provoke a global response.
    1. Graff77
      Graff77 24 November 2017 18: 02 New
      0
      It is unlikely that such a situation is possible. In direct confrontation, they will shower us with meat. Therefore, we clearly indicate in all doctrines that if there is a war, we reserve the right to immediately use nuclear weapons.
    2. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      24 November 2017 19: 09 New
      +3
      Quote: Elka13
      but the author forgot about nuclear winter

      I have not forgotten, but she will not be
      Quote: Elka13
      I met information that the last volcanic eruption in Iceland with clouds of dust really had a noticeable effect on the climate.

      Read here http://army-news.ru/2016/08/yadernye-straxi-mnimy
      ei-nastoyashhie-chast-2 /
  34. Operator
    Operator 24 November 2017 18: 09 New
    +4
    In an attempt to substantiate his dreams about domestic aircraft carriers, the author of the article pulls an owl on a globe:

    1. The cost of aircraft carrier formation, including aircraft carrier, carrier-based aircraft and escort ships ~ 100 billion dollars. The cost of an attack nuclear submarine, medium-range missiles, satellite constellation (per enemy AUG) and "fishing seiners" (real-time tracking AUG deployment) ~ 1 billion dollars.
    Simply put, the author is either incompetent in the matter or is an agent of US influence and is trying to ruin the Russian Federation by propagating 100 billion costs for AUGs, which parry 1 billion costs for Virginia-class submarines.

    2. Americans, Europeans, Japanese and South Koreans long ago did not live in cities, but in megacities, at the nodal points of which it is enough to inflict only a few hundred strikes with nuclear charges with a power of ~ 150 CTN to completely paralyze the functioning of state institutions and industry of these countries.
    How much the population will die in this case depends only on the presence / absence of a special period before the start of the nuclear exchange, when the population will / will not be evacuated from megacities. But even after the evacuation, the surviving population will fall into the living conditions of the Stone Age. The question is, who will have the advantage - the Russians or Westerners - is purely rhetorical.

    3. Currently, the military situation in the world has changed dramatically compared to the end of the 1980's: in the event of a bilateral nuclear conflict (for example, Russia - NATO countries), a third party (for example, China) automatically wins. That is why none of these three centers of power wants a nuclear conflict with their participation (and not because of the arithmetic of warheads and carriers that the author cites).

    4. After the exchange of massive nuclear missiles between the Russian Federation and NATO on the territory of Russia, in any case there will be no worthy goals for delivering an additional nuclear strike with the help of U.S. carrier aircraft, regardless of how many ASGs survive the first stage of the war.
    Yes, and to hell with American AUGs to strike at the Russian Federation in a situation where the United States will already be disarmed (the main ammunition of their strategic nuclear forces flew to the side of the Russian Federation) and their only adversary is automatically China with unexpended strategic nuclear forces and unaffected by nuclear territory?
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      24 November 2017 19: 04 New
      +3
      Quote: Operator
      The cost of aircraft carrier formation, including an aircraft carrier, carrier-based aircraft and escort ships is ~ $ 100 billion. The cost of an attack nuclear submarine, medium-range missiles, a satellite constellation (per enemy AUG) and “fishing seiners” (real-time tracking of AAG deployment) is ~ $ 1 billion.

      Enchanting delirium. The cost of AUG - even as expensive as the United States one - 12 billion aircraft carrier, + 150 million dollars * 80 aircraft and helicopters (which is a huge overstatement) = 12 billion total - 24 billion, 5 Arly Burke in support - well, even 2,2 billion apiece = 11 billion, total - 36 billion, + 2 nuclear submarines of 1,8 billion = 3,6 billion total 39,6 billion + supply vessel 0,5 billion = 40,1 billion EXTREMELY AND OVER.
      The cost of the strike nuclear submarine is about $ 2 billion, the satellite constellation is unknown, for the reason that it is not there and is not expected in the next 50 years, but the United States abandoned its creation due to the fabulous high cost (Discovery 2 project) Seiner monitoring AUG - it's just an erotic dream.
      There is no point in commenting, the Operator did not read the article and simply rushed into battle ... because he was waved by an aircraft carrier. Well, like a red handkerchief in front of a cloven-hoofed :)))
    2. KKND
      KKND 24 November 2017 20: 29 New
      0
      Greetings Operator hi
      I then found out the fundamental lack of long-range explosive missiles.
      Keywords Inertia and Moment of Inertia. Further I hope you will understand everything.
      This does not mean that they are useless, but it is also not a "uber weapon" as you imagined, comparing our and American planes.
      1. Operator
        Operator 24 November 2017 20: 48 New
        +1
        The larger the rocket, the more powerful its engine and the greater the supply of fuel on board, which compensates for the inertia, which is directly proportional to body weight. Weighted perfection is ensured by a reduction in the specific gravity of warheads, RCGS and control equipment as part of the RBB-DB as compared to the RVV-SD.

        Plus, the possibility (in the future) of separation of the second stage as part of the warhead, RCGS and its own pulse engines when approaching directly to the target.

        There is no reception against long-range scrap.
        1. KKND
          KKND 24 November 2017 21: 00 New
          0
          Quote: Operator
          the larger the explosive rocket, the more powerful its engine and the greater the fuel supply on board, which compensates for inertia, which is directly proportional to body weight.

          Listen, read the theory of rocket science and I hope you understand why the rocket engine runs literally 5 seconds (the less the better).
          The whole joke is that solid rocket is used in the rocket and, as a rule, it is much less than on an airplane (with liquid fuel). Therefore, the algorithm of the navigation system of aiming through radio correction sends the missile not just where, but to the lead point.
          A highly maneuverable fighter, having seen at the STR, the probability that a missile is launched on it and begins to perform maneuvers of a “snake” or “smeared barrel” and a rocket, calculating the lead point, will begin to maneuver, this is where Inertia, Moment of Inertia.
          Why, in Russian RBB-DB and RVV-SD, as in the "phoenix", "multi-stage" is not used, I honestly do not know. Apparently not profitable. I'm still not an expert.
          1. Operator
            Operator 24 November 2017 22: 11 New
            0
            The RVV solid propellant rocket engine runs on the first quarter of the flight distance, which is: for RVV-DB - 75 km, for AIM-120D - 45 km.
            While the engine is running, the RVV has a maximum acceleration sufficient to hit highly maneuverable targets such as Su-35С and F-22.

            Multi-stage is not yet in demand.
            1. KKND
              KKND 24 November 2017 22: 25 New
              0
              Quote: Operator
              The RVV solid propellant rocket engine runs on the first quarter of the flight distance, which is: for RVV-DB - 75 km, for AIM-120D - 45 km.

              Good Andrey. Link please.
              Honestly, engine operation data rarely advertise, apparently a specialist can find out too much.
              Just type in google explosive rocket engine operating time and you’ll learn a lot (although there are only 15 GB missiles appearing there, and although their time is longer, it’s also 60-XNUMX sec.)
              1. Operator
                Operator 24 November 2017 23: 22 New
                0
                I won’t give a link - I forgot where I read it.

                But in no other way - to fly in aerodynamic mode 225 (135) km with the engine off, you have to fly 75 (45) km with the engine running.
                1. KKND
                  KKND 25 November 2017 18: 07 New
                  0
                  http://www.russianarms.ru/forum/index.php?topic=1
                  1943.0
                  R-73 5 sec
                  https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A0-60
                  P-60 3-5 sec (they don’t even know belay )
                  https://forum.keypublishing.com/showthread.php?97
                  983-AIM-120-range-questions
                  AIM-120 7 sec.
                  I found on the wiki that the AIM-120 engine worked for 25 seconds, but they probably mixed up with the gas generator.
                  Generally on the web, this question is surprisingly poorly consecrated.
                  You see, the Operator is a variable-mass rocket-object that receives acceleration precisely thanks to Newton’s 3 law. (Mass ejection at a certain speed.) Therefore, in an “ideal” rocket, fuel should be released instantly, so the highest speed of the rocket is achieved. In real life, of course this is impossible, but the faster the better. More fuel, more time, but less is better.
                  Consider your data: 75 km with a running engine. According to some sources, the missile reaches a speed of 6 M, therefore 75 \ 6M in approximately 9 seconds
                  seems to be true. 45 \ 4M approximately 8,5 sec. also seems to be true. But you need to consider that such speeds are not gained instantly. Nevertheless, after 135 \ 45 km. the rocket will have to lose energy and here the AIM-120 is in a much more advantageous position in frontal resistance, Inertia, Moment of Inertia, but in losing speed (kinetic energy) + in theory, if launched from a great height, it’s also in potential.
                  One way or another, knocking down the F-22 from 300 km is not real (even if detected by the RADAR), but disrupting the combat system and finishing off the Su-35 in the BVB real
                  1. Operator
                    Operator 25 November 2017 18: 40 New
                    0
                    The solid propellant rocket engine at RVV-BD and AIM-120D is dual-mode - the launch section of higher power (operating time 5-10 seconds) accelerates the rocket to marching speed, the main section of lower power (operation time 25-60 seconds) maintains the marching speed at a given active range flight.

                    Then the rocket flies by inertia with a decrease in speed in accordance with aerodynamic drag. The maximum range of a rocket is determined by the speed sufficient to hit a low-maneuverable air target such as AWACS or a cargo plane.
                    1. KKND
                      KKND 25 November 2017 20: 18 New
                      0
                      Quote: Operator
                      The solid propellant rocket engine at RVV-BD and AIM-120D is dual-mode - the launch section of higher power (operating time 5-10 seconds) accelerates the rocket to marching speed, the main section of lower power (operation time 25-60 seconds) maintains the marching speed at a given active range flight.

                      Of course, I’m my mother’s rocket launcher, but can I link? And it’s not clear why the main section should work for 30 seconds (25-60)? Imagine pushing a cart with the same force. Which trolley will gain more speed, quickly becoming light or slow over the same period of time? It is clear that quickly "relieving."
                      On the other hand, the speed of air resistance grows, at least, as a 2-order curve, therefore, too high a speed is also not “buzzing”.
                      It’s not very clear yet, I hope you have some thoughts about this.
                      Quote: Operator
                      Then the rocket flies by inertia with a decrease in speed in accordance with aerodynamic drag. The maximum range of a rocket is determined by the speed sufficient to hit a low-maneuverable air target such as AWACS or a cargo plane.

                      That seems to be true. Previously, you f-22 they shot down from 300 km. But I have no complaints, the one who does nothing is not mistaken, and it was you who "pushed" me "deeper" to dig this topic. hi
                      1. Operator
                        Operator 25 November 2017 23: 45 New
                        0
                        You are inattentive - I have always argued that any explosive rocket has the following range ranges:
                        - maximum range on low-maneuverable targets when firing at the front hemisphere at high altitude (indicated in the technical specifications);
                        - intermediate range for maneuverable targets (~ 1 / 2);
                        - minimum for highly maneuverable targets (~ 1 / 4).
                        Ф-22 (as well as Su-35С) refers to the latter.

                        The marching speed of the VV missiles is 1,2 km / s (the speed should allow shooting at catch-up).
  35. Graz
    Graz 24 November 2017 18: 43 New
    0
    the author’s fantasies, the nuclear potential is calculated and held at that level so that even with losses from an attack it would be possible to destroy all civilization on the planet several times, aircraft carriers are for punishing small and weak countries and only
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      24 November 2017 19: 31 New
      +4
      Quote: Graz
      the author’s fantasies, the nuclear potential is calculated and held at that level so that even with losses from the blow it was possible to destroy the entire civilization on the planet several times

      The faster you part with these fantasies, the better for you.
  36. trinoc
    trinoc 24 November 2017 19: 00 New
    0
    The reasoning of the amateur (8 workshop of the NSR):
    reasoning about YAZ and AUG is certainly all right, but now show me that plane that takes off, returns when it is very dusty in the air (> 3000 crackers)), I present a picture: turbine blades with a sandblast) about navigation, communication (if the ionosphere is damaged ) I am silent - a purely mechanical question.
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      24 November 2017 19: 33 New
      +2
      I can only repeat again - read here http://army-news.ru/2016/08/yadernye-straxi-mnimy
      ei-nastoyashhie-chast-2 /
      There is no dust, all these nuclear winters and trillions of tons of ash are the result of errors in the modeling of large-scale nuclear weapons conflict
      1. xtur
        xtur 25 November 2017 16: 35 New
        0
        > I can only repeat it again, read here:
        > http://army-news.ru/2016/08/yadernye-straxi-m
        nimye-i-nastoyashhie-chast-2 /

        it’s just a holiday of some kind — to quote the author of our site as an authority who proved that mathematical modeling was not correct !!!
        there should be a _ _ hands_ face_ icon
        Have you seriously decided that no one will look at the link?
        OMG
  37. KKND
    KKND 24 November 2017 20: 24 New
    +1
    The author debunked some myths, but still thinks as a layman.
    The wars on our planet do not exist for the "Jewish Rothschild" to seize power over the whole world and still get some benefits from the war, but to destroy the unhealthy population. That is, war is the continuation of natural selection among animals.
    That’s why humanity wants it or not, wars will happen and nuclear weapons will greatly contribute to the progress of mankind after this century of "decadence".
    As for aircraft carriers, I can say that they will not hinder the Americans at all, at least to control maritime trade, it is unlikely that nuclear war will destroy at least 300-400 million, while others want to trade.
    It seems to me "silly" to attack Russia by sea with airplanes, then what will the Americans control the sea? Harpoons? Our air defense is not the most "weak" to bring down a lot of things we can, and the aircraft resource will be spent.
    As for Orleans, I can say that 80% of the American population can not be evacuated at all, the main thing is to save specialists (engineers, scientists, skilled industry workers), and here I believe in the organizational talent of the Rothschilds and the Rockefellers, it’s not for nothing that they’re brains all over the world love to collect it.
    About the elimination of the radioactive material of a nuclear power plant, a nuclear explosion was amused. Was the author going to annihilate matter? And he will make radioactive isotopes even more radioactive. Lol
    Also, EMP is much more destructive than it seems to the Author. But at the same time, Americans (20%) are not fools like they are often represented and can restore, partly, after some time, the power supply can.
    In principle, the article is a plus, high-quality material that does not often appear on VO, but the author digs deeper.
    1. Vadim237
      Vadim237 24 November 2017 21: 36 New
      +2
      Read the book "Physics of a Nuclear Explosion" - everything is written in detail there, about factors and how they change from certain conditions and about EMP, which is attributed with some fantastic properties - to burn out all the electronics.
  38. nPuBaTuP
    nPuBaTuP 24 November 2017 21: 04 New
    0
    We have neither intelligence tools that can quickly identify enemy aircraft carriers in the vast oceans, nor weapons that can destroy them there. The ideas that “we will see them through Google Maps and shy away from Satan” are great, if you do not take into account that ballistic missiles are adjusted using astro correction. And in order to change the coordinates of the impact, it is necessary to calculate and prescribe the reference positions of the stars so that the rocket can navigate them in flight,

    What kind of astro correction for rockets? .... they won’t be able to fly during the day? (Since stars are not visible)
    And the author probably forgot about our reconnaissance satellites in orbit .... there are not only aerial equipment flying there ...
    1. KKND
      KKND 24 November 2017 21: 10 New
      0
      Quote: nPuBaTuP
      What kind of astro correction for rockets? .... they won’t be able to fly during the day? (Since stars are not visible)

      Yes, he is about the "eyes" on the rocket.
      You know almost nothing, but express your opinion. Is it good?.
      The author is about an inertial navigation system. And we have many less satellites than the Americans.
    2. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      24 November 2017 21: 15 New
      +4
      Quote: nPuBaTuP
      What kind of astro correction for rockets? .... they won’t be able to fly during the day?

      (laughing) You see, ballistic missiles in the first minutes of the flight go beyond the atmosphere into space :)))) The only way to navigate there is through the stars :))) Behind the atmosphere they are visible around the clock :)))))
      Quote: nPuBaTuP
      And the author probably forgot about our reconnaissance satellites in orbit .... there are not only airplanes flying devices ..

      I know about them and about their capabilities. Alas.
      If it comforts you, the USA also cannot promptly track moving targets.
      1. KKND
        KKND 24 November 2017 21: 27 New
        0
        Andrew do not want to comment on my "opus"?
      2. Cherry Nine
        Cherry Nine 25 November 2017 01: 22 New
        0
        Quote: nPuBaTuP
        there are not only n-owls flying devices ...

        Speaking of that.
        Recently, American commercial companies, damn them, have been providing Earth scanning services. In particular, the Planet Labs group of companies consists of 88 satellites and allows you to photograph any part of 80% of the earth's surface once a day with a resolution of 3-5 meters. One device, Dove, attention, costs 60 thousand dollars and weighs about 5 kg.
        Rich omega-merchants, if desired, can also put another device in the series, SkySat, which gives a pixel less than a meter and allows you to file video recorders. Weight 120 kg, cost 20M.

        As mentioned above, a constellation of 88 satellites in medium (approx. 600 km) orbits allows you to take any piece of land once a day. Consequently, with the launch of 2,5 thousand devices, any piece of land can be photographed every hour, even more often. At the same time, all the pleasure will cost in the first case $ 150 million + conclusion, in the second case - $ 50 billion (most likely - several times lower in serial production). As for the conclusion, they can be withdrawn immediately in a hundred in the first case - with light missiles, for example, the Minotaur, in the second case - with the Falcons.

        Currently, the main problem with Earth photomonitoring is the need to process insane data arrays. However, the solvability of this task in the near future is beyond doubt.
        1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
          25 November 2017 12: 19 New
          +2
          Quote: Cherry Nine
          In particular, the Planet Labs constellation consists of 88 satellites and allows you to photograph any area of ​​80% of the earth’s surface once a day with a resolution of 3-5 meters

          Yeah. When there is no cloud. And since there is always cloudiness, in order to draw up a map you need to photograph the zemshar for several days
          1. Cherry Nine
            Cherry Nine 25 November 2017 12: 57 New
            0
            Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
            And since there is always cloudiness

            1. Will you insidious plans to tie the weather forecast, like a Model in the 44th?
            2. And there are definitely no decisions regarding cloud cover?
            1. Cherry Nine
              Cherry Nine 25 November 2017 13: 12 New
              0
              PS
              Quote: Cherry Nine
              allows you to photograph any area of ​​80% of the earth's surface once a day

              The word "any" is used incorrectly. Not "any," but "everyone." The group once a day photographs the entire Earth.
        2. VALERIK_097
          VALERIK_097 26 November 2017 12: 07 New
          0
          ))) Here it is, it turns out)))). Orders for the demagnet stand up and immediately "Wind-2".))))))
  39. Setrac
    Setrac 25 November 2017 00: 18 New
    0
    Quote: NEXUS
    Well, what can you call for example a person who will shoot at an anti-tank mine, saying, She will not explode.?

    The problem is that Russia has its own "volcanoes", the Americans will sadden the megaton warhead on the Black Sea - and will cover a cloud of gases all over Europe with no chance of survival.
    1. Golovan Jack
      Golovan Jack 25 November 2017 00: 20 New
      +8
      Quote: Setrac
      Americans are saddled by a megaton warhead across the Black Sea - and will cover a gas cloud all over Europe with no chance of survival

      Megaton on the sea - "it will be not enough" (c)
      And - what kind of gases are there?
      Are you talking about H2S? But isn’t it funny?
      1. Setrac
        Setrac 25 November 2017 00: 36 New
        0
        Quote: Golovan Jack
        Megaton on the sea - "it will be not enough" (c)

        But the sea is not necessary, it is necessary along the bottom.
        Quote: Golovan Jack
        Are you talking about H2S? But isn’t it funny?

        It would be funny if it were not so sad, in history there have been precedents for such disasters.
        1. Vadim237
          Vadim237 25 November 2017 01: 09 New
          +1
          The maximum that will come from a megaton explosion at the bottom of the sea is two meters tsunami.
          1. Cherry Nine
            Cherry Nine 25 November 2017 01: 44 New
            0
            Quote: Vadim237
            The maximum that will come from a megaton explosion at the bottom of the sea is two meters tsunami.

            Setrag has in mind the well-known tale that in the Black Sea below 200 meters, it’s almost pure liquid hydrogen sulfide and when we rise to the surface AAA we will all die, because
            Very toxic. Inhalation of air with a low content of hydrogen sulfide causes dizziness, headache, nausea, and with a significant concentration leads to coma, convulsions, pulmonary edema, and even death. At high concentrations, a single inhalation can cause instant death. When inhaling air with small concentrations, a person quickly enough adapts to the unpleasant smell of “rotten eggs” and it ceases to be felt. A sweet metallic taste appears in the mouth [30].
            When inhaling air with a high concentration due to paralysis of the olfactory nerve, the smell of hydrogen sulfide almost immediately ceases to be felt.

            But there is a pleasant moment. Who's lucky to be close enough but far enough
            Like nitric oxide, hydrogen sulfide plays a role in the expansion of the vessels of the penis necessary for an erection, which creates new opportunities for the treatment of erectile dysfunction with the help of various drugs that increase the production of endogenous hydrogen sulfide


            The story is, of course, unclear, but the Yellowstone Super Volcano is well worth it.
            1. Setrac
              Setrac 25 November 2017 13: 55 New
              0
              Quote: Cherry Nine
              Setrag means a famous bike

              Quote: Cherry Nine
              The story is, of course, unclear, but the Yellowstone Super Volcano is well worth it.

              That's right, I cited one murky story as opposed to another murky story.
              I myself live in the Krasnodar Territory and do not worry about hydrogen sulfide.
        2. Golovan Jack
          Golovan Jack 25 November 2017 07: 01 New
          +7
          Quote: Setrac
          Sadanut Americans megaton warhead on the Black Sea

          Quote: Setrac
          But it’s not necessary by the sea, it’s by the bottom

          You really, that ... decide, perhaps, "what is needed there, what is not necessary" ...
          Quote: Cherry Nine
          Setrag means the famous bike in the Black Sea below 200 meters

          I understood that he "means".
          Quote: Cherry Nine
          near pure liquid hydrogen sulfide ...

          ... does not happen in nature
          Okay ... I’m writing off for Friday evening, magical time ... everything happens there, but, as a rule, not for long. And in the morning then a bo-bo head laughing
          1. Cherry Nine
            Cherry Nine 25 November 2017 12: 58 New
            +1
            Quote: Golovan Jack
            does not happen in nature

            Yes, I am aware, in general terms.
            1. Golovan Jack
              Golovan Jack 25 November 2017 12: 59 New
              +7
              Quote: Cherry Nine
              Yes, I am in general outline

              And this is good good

              And I - and "in detail." Chemist, panimaiti, hereditary ... however, I’m not working in my specialty, I’ve been about 30 years old, but at least not a janitor, and then bread laughing
  40. Falcon5555
    Falcon5555 25 November 2017 02: 21 New
    +3
    Nuclear winter? In the USA, USSR, France, Great Britain and China, at least 2060 tests of atomic and thermonuclear charges, including in the atmosphere - 501 test, were carried out. It cannot be said that the world did not notice this at all, but no consequences, at least as close to fatal ones, have come.

    Nuclear winter is not supposed to be from explosions over desert polygons or underground laughingand from fires in cities that will be ignited by nuclear explosions - fiery tornadoes that carry soot into the stratosphere. But there may be inaccuracies in the calculations. There are a million all kinds of nuances. Want to check the calculations and put an experiment on Earth and humanity? I'm against.
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      25 November 2017 09: 02 New
      +3
      Quote: Falcon5555
      Nuclear winter is supposed not from explosions over landfills or underground laughing, but from fires in cities that will be ignited by nuclear explosions - fire tornadoes that will carry soot into the stratosphere

      Only here is bad luck - there will be no fires and soot
      http://army-news.ru/2016/08/yadernye-straxi-mnimy
      ei-nastoyashhie-chast-2 /
      1. Falcon5555
        Falcon5555 25 November 2017 14: 22 New
        0
        This is bad luck - it is not approved there.
        In this model, it was envisaged that as a result of thousands of nuclear explosions, hundreds of millions of tons of soil lifted into the air, ashes of burning cities and forests would make the atmosphere impenetrable to sunlight ... However, later many geophysicists and climatologists doubted the correctness of the calculations and pointed to many unaccounted for calculations factors.

        Etc. in the same vein. Not "no fires and soot will not be", but "factors unaccounted for in the calculations"!
        The fragment ends like this:
        One can only hope that we will never find out whose theory is closer to the truth, the proponents of "Nuclear winter" or "Nuclear summer."

        So I return to the question - do you want to check?
        And in general - a site from the field of pseudoscience. The article begins with this comical RenTV style:
        The allegations that numerous nuclear explosions are capable of breaking the Earth and changing the orbit or tilt of the axis do not withstand any criticism and are not considered by adequate scientists.
        In a scientific article by an “adequate scientist”, this should not be discussed.
        1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
          25 November 2017 15: 20 New
          +2
          Quote: Falcon5555
          In a scientific article by an “adequate scientist”, this should not be discussed.

          (heavy sigh) Well, let's start with the "adequately scientific" articles on the inevitability of a nuclear winter. It’s not “everyone knows that,” but it’s adequate and scientific. In which all the necessary arguments will be stated
          1. Falcon5555
            Falcon5555 25 November 2017 16: 02 New
            0
            Well, Moses did such work.
      2. Fudo
        Fudo 28 November 2017 17: 07 New
        0
        from 1500 explosions in the atmosphere near the places of explosions there will be tons of sand and smoke. This is enough to kill the entire crop for the current year. And this is the hunger of all the survivors.
    2. opus
      opus 25 November 2017 14: 23 New
      0
      Quote: Falcon5555
      Nuclear winter is not supposed to be from explosions over desert polygons or underground

      and one-time with an interval stretched along the time scale from 1945 to our days

      and outside of big cities and other technological objects

      without synergy

      And if all these 2624 successful nuclear explosions, starting from 1945, do not stretch 50 for years, but "here and now", during 8 hours, but not in the Nevada desert or Novaya Zemlya, but in megalopolises, nuclear power plants, oil storage facilities, etc.?
      good
      Quote: Falcon5555
      Want to check the calculations and experiment on Earth and humanity?

      Peter is enough for one hit.
      5-30% immediately knight horses
      the remaining 90-65% will die out within a week.


      We have power lines knock down (steep drives of concrete mixers from LSR), 1 / 3 cities and the adjacent part of Flax. areas without light, water, gasoline, heating on 10 hours. In the summer, there is no war.
      and in the winter? and if war?
      1. tlauicol
        tlauicol 25 November 2017 18: 37 New
        +1
        and what, in the fall of 10Mt on the Field of Mars, all radiation-dangerous objects Flax region. crash overnight within 80km?
        "the remaining 90-65% will die out within a week." - What, they won’t drink at all? By the way, when the power lines were demolished, how many people have died there in a week? 60-90% or less?
        1. opus
          opus 26 November 2017 18: 45 New
          0
          Quote: Tlauicol
          and what, in the fall of 10Mt on the Field of Mars, all radiation-dangerous objects Flax region. crash overnight within 80km?

          Why all? Enough and a few

          And do not "collapse", and certainly cease to function
          Quote: Tlauicol
          By the way, when power lines were demolished, how many people died there in a week? 60-90% or less?

          and what was a nuclear strike?
          This example shows the helplessness of people in the modern metropolis, without el-wah, cold-water and hot water, etc.
          1. tlauicol
            tlauicol 27 November 2017 05: 39 New
            0
            Well, when 10Mt falls on Peter (look for another one) - there will be no gasoline with a refrigerator. And the inhabitants of the region will survive and survive. "Objects" will stop but will not explode
      2. Falcon5555
        Falcon5555 26 November 2017 01: 24 New
        0
        Strange map. What do the phone-shaped icons mean?
    3. xtur
      xtur 25 November 2017 16: 39 New
      0
      > Nuclear winter is supposed not from explosions over desert polygons or underground

      Thank God, at least someone other than me saw an obvious mess in Andrei’s understanding of the chemistry of combustion and the factors of nuclear winter
  41. Cop
    Cop 25 November 2017 11: 32 New
    +1
    You would fiction Mr. author to write .......
    With the explosion of the warhead megaton class, 10 kilometers from the epicenter will die no more than 5% .....

    Why is this the author? How many died in the collapse of the twin towers? And how many lives and works, for example, in Manhattan?
    True, another 45% should receive injuries of various severity levels, but this is only if the blow falls on unsuspecting citizens. But if they are ready and take at least the simplest protective measures, then the losses will be significantly, if not multiple, reduced.

    Oh really? Did you see the author of their metro? And ours is especially that which they. Kaganovich ...? I advise you to compare. In my opinion, if a megaton warhead explodes over Manhattan, then a couple of millions will die immediately, and another ten in the coming weeks. And if a similar one explodes over the Kremlin, then the losses will be many times less. And if the population, as the author put it, is ready, then in Moscow the losses will be an order of magnitude less. Well, and aircraft carriers ...... I think the Chinese comrades will not miss such a unique opportunity to once and for all put an end to the American AUG. Their military potential will remain unharmed .......
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      25 November 2017 12: 17 New
      +2
      Quote: Cop
      Why is this the author?

      We study the factors of a nuclear explosion and the decrease in their efficiency with increasing distance from the epicenter.
      Quote: Cop
      How many died in the collapse of the twin towers?

      Was it a nuclear explosion? wassat
      Quote: Cop
      Oh really? Did you see the author of their metro?

      But where does the metro? 10 km from the epicenter, if you lie behind a stone wall - consider that nothing will happen to you
      1. Cop
        Cop 25 November 2017 13: 10 New
        +1
        We study the factors of a nuclear explosion and the decrease in their efficiency with increasing distance from the epicenter.

        It would not hurt you to refresh yourself even with a textbook on NVP, especially the section on the consequences of PFYAV.
        Was it a nuclear explosion?

        But you don’t care what to set fire to, with a match or a bottle of cop, will the result be different?
        But where does the metro? 10 km from the epicenter, if you lie behind a stone wall - consider that nothing will happen to you

        Yes, despite the fact that in Moscow there is where to hide, but New York is not. When the towers fell, then in Brooklyn, people gritted the sand on their teeth. So then the tower, and then ONE megatonN .... Do you yourself calculate the distance?
        1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
          25 November 2017 13: 18 New
          +2
          Quote: Cop
          It would not hurt you to refresh yourself even with a textbook on NVP, especially the section on the consequences of PFYAV.

          Absolutely not compatible with
          Quote: Cop
          But you don’t care what to set fire to, with a match or a bottle of cop, will the result be different?

          If this is monoenergetic for you - what can I talk about at all? :)
          1. Cop
            Cop 25 November 2017 13: 58 New
            +1
            Absolutely not compatible with

            And in my opinion it is very logical ....
            If this is monoenergetic for you - what can I talk about at all?

            So you say that you are well versed in "polyenergy" processes. And the picture seems to me like this: a fire is burning, a person comes kicking him and, about a miracle, the fire goes out, as the author of the article "smoking fireballs" remains ..... I have not yet taken into account bottles of gasoline around the fire, i.e. gas stations and gas canisters, i.e. gas lines .....
      2. opus
        opus 25 November 2017 13: 45 New
        0
        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
        We study the factors of a nuclear explosion and the decrease in their efficiency with increasing distance from the epicenter.

        §7. In Moscow, we should expect a ground explosion. This somewhat reduces the total damage radius compared to an aboveground explosion, but increases the strength of the seismic wave, which leads to ground movements such as tectonic disturbances of a character similar to a high-power earthquake in the upper layers, leading to crushing and destruction even significantly buried shelters of increased strength within a radius of ten to fifteen kilometers.

        §8. Heat damage factor.
        8.1. At the epicenter of the explosion, a flash of light arises, which is many times greater in brightness than the observed sunlight. For 0,03 — 0,04 seconds the flash is formed into a dazzling luminous sphere 1,5 — 2 km in diameter, with temperatures of 10 — 20 million ”C. It covers the city center within the Boulevard Ring - Kremlin - Polyanka, moreover, everything entering this space instantly ceases to exist, passing into the plasma state.
        8.2. 3 — 4 km instantly evaporate and incinerate all objects of organic origin, directly exposed to direct thermal radiation of an explosion (unopened people, animals, plants, wooden parts of buildings, facing the explosion). Asphalt pavements, metal fences, roofs and parts of building structures, concrete and brick walls, including with stone and ceramic cladding, both open to direct thermal radiation of an explosion and hidden to a depth of several meters, instantly burn down, evaporate. . All substances, both organic sheltered and inorganic heat-resistant, in the radius of the Garden Ring immediately after the moment of explosion burn down within a few seconds with a temperature of tens of thousands of degrees.
        8.3. 20 — 25 km all exploding towards the explosion and accessible to direct thermal radiation wooden, plastic, painted surfaces, plants, burn metal roofs, concrete, brick, glass, metal, stone are melted; the window frames are burned, the glass evaporates, the wires melt, the asphalt lights up. Hit is active fire instantly covers the city within the Moscow Ring Road. Outside the Moscow Ring Road there is a ring forest fire. Fully built-up arrays and forest-park zones are set on fire. The Moscow-river and Yauza reservoirs evaporate, the upper layer of the Khimki reservoir boils.
        Remember: direct radiation heat exposure lasts from fractions of a second to several seconds and even to several tens of seconds depending on the power of the explosion and extends only in a straight line, i.e. any obstacle between you and the explosion, in the shadow of which you find yourself, can save your life in a situation of sufficient distance from the epicenter of the explosion.

        §9. Striking shock wave factor.
        9.1. The action of an air shock wave begins immediately at the moment of the explosion and follows the heat radiation, however, lagging behind its instantaneous effects as it moves away from the epicenter of the explosion, the farther the time, the speed of the air shock wave reaches 1— 5 thousand m / s, i.e. Everything in this zone, and already exposed to heat, is carried by a powerful explosion in the direction from the epicenter to the periphery, turning into the leveled surface of crushed fragments burning with high temperatures (the so-called “deflation of the landscape”). The crushed burning fragments of substances that were between the radii of the Boulevard and the Garden Ring are thrown out by the shock wave along an expanding concentric circle into zone three.
        9.2. In the third zone, i.e., within Moscow within the Moscow Ring Road, the speed of the shock wave somewhat decreases, especially at the surface itself, but continues to remain above supersonic, i.e., to 300 — 500 m / s at the Moscow Ring Road border, which causes instantaneous destruction all ground buildings, both high-rise and low-rise. Burning and burning parts of surfaces facing the epicenter, mixing up with other materials, give so-called. "Fire carpet" with a temperature that ensures the burning of metals and the melting of ceramics. In the process of passing a shock wave, separate parts and parts move in air at speeds of the order of artillery shells, aggravating the process of destruction of everything that rises above the surface. All plantings are pulled out, water from all reservoirs "is squeezed out".
        9.3. The forests, settlements and airports closest to the Moscow Ring Road are also subjected to complete or preferential destruction, partial or complete destruction and combustion.
        9.4. Within the entire affected area, a region of sharply reduced atmospheric pressure arises due to both the oxygen burning out of the air and the concentric retraction of the air masses. As a result, shortly after the passage of the shock wave, a “reverse shock wave” arises, directed toward the epicenter. It is characterized by a much lower speed, commensurate with the speed of a normal hurricane, but it brings on
        the whole area of ​​ignition of the mass of fresh oxygen, which creates the effect of "blacksmith", creating the so-called. "Fiery storm" throughout the area of ​​destruction. The zone within the Moscow Ring Road is likened to the smoothed surface of hot coals in the furnace.

        §10. The seismic impact of a ground explosion causes an “earthquake effect” with compaction and shearing of the surface layers. All underground structures of the metro within the Koltsevaya line and the stations closest to it collapse and collapse completely. All bomb shelters within the Garden Ring are completely destroyed. All basements within the Moscow Ring Road are completely destroyed. All sewage and ventilation underground facilities in Prospect Mira, Zoo, Serpukhovskaya, Ilyich Square space are crushed, destroyed and collapsed. All entrances and exits from the metro, ventilation shafts, emergency and service exits are filled up, or crushed, or completely blocked by a layer of hot mass on the surface.

        Tests of similar ammunition, carried out both by the USSR and the USA and France, have shown with confidence that attempts at carrying out any rescue work within the specified radii have no real reason. The defeat of open and sheltered manpower, equipment and buildings reaches 100%. Rescue work should be focused on resettling and assisting people who are outside the zone of direct destruction, outside the 100-kilometer zone.


        For administrative use
        INSTRUCTIONS
        Events on the situation "Atomic alarm"
        Headquarters of the Civil Defense of Moscow Department of Emergency Services Guide Fire, Emergency, Rescue and Medical Services
        1. Cherry Nine
          Cherry Nine 25 November 2017 14: 05 New
          0
          Quote: opus
          The zone within the Moscow Ring Road is likened to the leveled surface of hot coals in the furnace.

          How do we properly renovate.

          Hope uv. S.S.Sobyanin does not read this site.
        2. Cherry Nine
          Cherry Nine 25 November 2017 14: 13 New
          +1
          Quote: opus
          For administrative use
          INSTRUCTIONS
          Events on the situation "Atomic alarm"

          Colleague, you are quoting a work of art. Michael Weller B.Vaviloskaya.
          Zapadlo do that.
          1. opus
            opus 25 November 2017 15: 27 New
            +1
            Quote: Cherry Nine
            Zapadlo do that.

            Have you ever wondered where Weller drew this knowledge?



            Under normal working conditions, 100 will need to spend man-hours for the burial of 368,5 who died in one mass grave, and subject to the joint use of both personnel of the formations and equipment (bulldozers, excavators) 22,5 man-hours and 4,43 machine hours


            The model assumes that, based on the population of Moscow (about 9 million at the time of its development), the number of victims during 12 weeks after the explosion will be 2,5 million people. .... About 750 thousands of children will die in Moscow as a whole, several million people will be injured.
            1. Cherry Nine
              Cherry Nine 25 November 2017 16: 14 New
              +1
              Quote: opus
              the number of victims within 12 weeks after the explosion will be 2,5 million.

              Colleague, it is easy to notice that the description of Weller does not allow the death of only 28% of the population. If some moments (2 km funnel) coincide with a real i-shirt, then the consequences of the shock wave and thermal radiation are described artistically. In order to lay a brick building, approximately 40KPa / sq.m. is required. With a 10Mt explosion, such pressure is provided in a radius of about 9 km from the epicenter (with an air explosion). This is TTK. As for the Moscow Ring Road, the pressure of 15 km from the epicenter will be about 15 KPa, which corresponds to weak or moderate damage. And this, I emphasize, upon arrival W59, which has not been released for a long time. My beloved B41 25 Mt will give 40KPa about 12,5 km from the epicenter, and even in her case inside the MKAD there will remain areas with an average and even possibly weak (Biryulyovo, 20 km from the Kremlin) level of damage.
              1. Cherry Nine
                Cherry Nine 26 November 2017 15: 36 New
                0
                Here you can play around
                http://nuclearsecrecy.com/nukemap/
              2. opus
                opus 26 November 2017 18: 42 New
                0
                Quote: Cherry Nine
                In order to put a brick building, it takes approximately 40KPa / sq.m.

                good
                not pressure, but delta p
                overpressure in the shock front, ΔРф, Pa (kgf / cm2);
                CALCULATION OF EXPLOSION CHARACTERISTICS


                The nature of the destruction of industrial buildings, depending on the load generated by the shock wave:

                total destruction at ΔРф ≥ 50 kPa (destruction of all elements of the building construction);
                severe damage at ΔPf ≥ 30-50 kPa (collapse of 50% of building structures);
                average damage at ΔPf = 20-30 kPa (cracks in the bearing elements of structures, the collapse of certain sections of the walls);
                slight damage at ΔPf ≥ 10-20 kPa (damage to windows, doors, light partitions


                Quote: Cherry Nine
                With the explosion of 10Mt, such pressure is provided within a radius of the order of 9 km from the epicenter (with an air explosion). This is TTC.

                Quote: Cherry Nine
                As for the Moscow Ring Road, the pressure in 15 km from the epicenter will be about 15 KPA


                And where are you from?



                Quote: Cherry Nine
                And this, I emphasize, upon arrival W59,

                W-59 / Mk 5 = 1 Mt, if something
                there are others in service
                W-47Y2: 1,2 25
                Mk-41 / B41: 2525
                Yes, and how they "recycled" W-53 / Mk-6 the same question
                1. Cherry Nine
                  Cherry Nine 26 November 2017 19: 02 New
                  0
                  Quote: opus
                  not pressure, but delta p

                  Incorrectly applied the term? I apologize.
                  Quote: opus
                  The nature of the destruction of industrial buildings

                  That you confirm my assessment, or refute it?
                  Quote: opus
                  And where are you from?

                  I was mistaken in writing about the air explosion (Weller’s ground). In this case, the digit is indicated for terrestrial. According to your nameplate, the distances of 14 and 18 km (while the air explosion was made at an unsuitable height, db 21) are given for the zone of moderate damage (20KPa).
                  Quote: opus
                  W-59 / Mk 5 = 1 Mt, if something

                  You are right, mixed up W59 c W53, I apologize. But you also cheated on my beloved B41 10 times.
                  1. opus
                    opus 26 November 2017 20: 09 New
                    0
                    Quote: Cherry Nine
                    That you confirm my assessment, or refute it?

                    or see numbers

                    If detonated at optimal height, the B41 xNUMX miles (4 km) in diameter, [generate quote], miles (6.4 km) from ground zero, and 15 miles (24 km) from ground zerowhile producing third degree burns 32 miles (51 km) from ground zero.

                    658 miles distance (1,059 km) from ground zero

                    Quote: Cherry Nine
                    According to your nameplate, the distances 14 and 18 km (

                    it's not mine, it's GU GO
                    Quote: Cherry Nine
                    Oh, and you cheated my favorite B41 10 times.

                    what
                    B-41 (Mk-41) was a weapon deployed in the early 1960s. It was developed by the United States, with a maximum yield of 25 megatons

                    The X-NUMX Megaton / tonne ratio (based on a 25 Mt yield). It was a blast of the 25 or 50 megatons of TNT, according to a "clean" (lead encased) or a dirty (uranium encased) bomb. However, it’s possible that it’s still possible to achieve the ratio of the XgNomx / tonne


                    and again, weakly, I believe in the recycling of the W56 Mod-3.
                    270 kg are perfectly placed on Minutemen-3 and Trident
                    1. Cherry Nine
                      Cherry Nine 26 November 2017 20: 31 New
                      0
                      Quote: Cherry Nine
                      But you also cheated on my beloved B41 10 times.

                      Quote: opus
                      Mk-41 / B41: 2525

                      How to read your digits?
                      Quote: opus
                      or see numbers
                      If detonated at optimal height, the B41

                      And what is the relation of B41, and even at optimal height, for example, to Weller about 2-10 Mt of a ground explosion? Yes, 25Mt at an altitude of about 9 km will give almost 30KPa per 24km, which can be described as “destroy most residential structures”, but according to your nameplate it corresponds to the collapse of 50% of the building structure (although how to build, of course. Panel is one thing, another thing pre-revolutionary building with meter walls).
                      Quote: opus
                      and again weakly I believe in the disposal of the W56 Mod-3

                      Well, this is a business. Homeland will say - the 53rd will be in stock in a year or two. The storekeeper retired, forgot to hand over the key to the distant basement. I believe in the ingenuity of partners.
                      1. opus
                        opus 26 November 2017 21: 51 New
                        0
                        Quote: Cherry Nine
                        How to read your digits?

                        Parkinson's disease (either mine, or Claudia or mouse, well, about the top site super, I don’t stutter)
                        Well, actually, any Homo sapiens who did not buy a certificate of
                        secondary education, knows the charge (YABZ, ABZ even more so) in 2 525 Mt-was not.
                        It was not in nature. and it can hardly be.
                        Quote: Cherry Nine
                        And what does the B41 relation, and even at optimal height have for example

                        a w 41 NEVER AND INITIATED ON 25 MT
                        and then the computational method for 10.
                        I repeat: Weller took the numbers for thin. not from the ceiling.
                        He was on the table was a book from the USSR Civil Defense, which I still need to search. Yesterday I rummaged all the attic, found a lot of things needed, it is not there
                        By the way: Mikhail Iosifovich is a contact, write to him (hello from A.), he will throw a scan to you. It will be faster than I find

                        Quote: Cherry Nine
                        I believe in the ingenuity of partners.

                        Chess speaking, I nakakat partners.
                        I know that we will lose (if anything), or no one will win.
                        But very Hotz so shy the door to "care", Schaub years 300 understood.
                        see 70 years is not enough (or slightly shied)

                        =================
                        although I prefer these dances:
                      2. Cherry Nine
                        Cherry Nine 26 November 2017 22: 09 New
                        0
                        Quote: opus
                        2 Mt

                        For some reason I decided. which is indicated in CT with an error. However, quite about that.
                        Quote: opus
                        and then the computational method for 10.

                        Why do you think so? The calculation is for 25, and not for 10. Fireball for 25 is about 7 km in diameter with an air explosion, as you indicated, for 10 Mt it is about 5.
        3. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
          25 November 2017 14: 16 New
          +2
          It's great, only you forgot 2 things
          1) The instructions quoted by you say
          The most likely power of thermonuclear munitions is from 2 to 10 megatons.

          And I write about 1 mt ammunition
          2) You forget that Moscow was under the guise of its own missile defense with (attention!) YBCH. By the way, the loss of Muscovites during the operation of one missile could be up to 1/10 of their total number. Accordingly, all Soviet instructions, although they did not write directly about it, this factor was necessarily taken into account
          1. opus
            opus 25 November 2017 15: 29 New
            +1
            Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
            And I write about 1 mt ammunition

            and if they will be 10 * 1mt?

            Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
            2) You forget that Moscow was under the cover of its own missile defense system with (attention!) YABCH.

            High-altitude interception of missile defense with YABCh will add sharp little.
            Yes, and I do not think they will catch
          2. Nikita Yadrovsky
            Nikita Yadrovsky 11 December 2017 13: 32 New
            0
            "Uncle are you duRak ?!" That's honestly the only word that comes to mind. In the first, nuclear warheads were used only in the first generation of anti-ballistic missiles, since their accuracy suffered. Secondly, their use would not pose any danger to Moscow itself (except for the EMP pulse). If only because the nuclear warheads were equipped with missiles (attention!) At atmospheric interception. Those. at a height significantly higher than 20 m. And an explosion of even large power at this height does not cause damage to objects on the surface.
        4. Elka13
          Elka13 25 November 2017 14: 54 New
          0
          Do you think this is really a real instruction? ... no offense, but like a duck, I will be grateful for the link. I myself found several links, but all of them do not inspire confidence. Especially the presentation style, if this is a real document, then some kind of science fiction writer wrote it. In the event of a global strike, Moscow will of course be very difficult because at least a dozen nuclear weapons will obviously be allocated to it.
          1. Cherry Nine
            Cherry Nine 25 November 2017 15: 18 New
            0
            Quote: Elka13
            I myself found several links, but all of them do not inspire confidence. Especially the presentation style, if this is a real document, then some kind of science fiction writer wrote it

            Quote: Cherry Nine
            Colleague, you are quoting a work of art. Michael Weller B.Vaviloskaya.
            Zapadlo do that.
          2. opus
            opus 25 November 2017 15: 34 New
            0
            Quote: Elka13
            Do you think this is really a real instruction?

            no.
            But it is almost no different from this
            the 1,2 megaton bomb dropped on the Vnukovo strategic object: the radius of the fireball is 1,04 km, the radius of the shock wave (5 psi) is 7,47 km, the light emission (3 degree burns) is 13,2 km. Predicted 79 860 dead, 723 810 injured.



        5. Vadim237
          Vadim237 25 November 2017 20: 59 New
          +1
          This is a calculation from a charge of 10 megatons - no one already has such, the most powerful that the United States now has is a B83 bomb with a capacity of 1,2 megatons.
      3. xtur
        xtur 25 November 2017 16: 42 New
        0
        > We study the factors of nuclear explosion damage and the drop in their effectiveness with increasing distance from the epicenter.

        there should be English-language sites on the Internet with calculators of the affected areas, I have hidden the link where, but I can’t find it. Without objective data and references to formulas, it’s just fiction
        1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
          25 November 2017 18: 39 New
          +2
          Quote: xtur
          there should be English-language sites on the Internet with hit area calculators

          You can just go into the wiki to drive in an “atmospheric nuclear explosion” and get a very thorough analysis (yes, this happens on the wiki too). The table is compiled on the basis of the article by H. L. Broad “Review of the effects of nuclear weapons”, monographs “Physics of a nuclear explosion”, “Action of a nuclear weapon”, the textbook “Civil Defense” and tables of shock wave parameters in other sources
          1. Cherry Nine
            Cherry Nine 25 November 2017 21: 00 New
            0
            Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
            You can just go to the wiki to drive

            In this article, in connection with the description of Weller, it should be borne in mind that an atmospheric explosion in terms of damaging factors is equivalent to twice as powerful ground, and the damaging effect is proportional to the cube of distance. Those. the effect of a ground explosion with a power of 2Mt is approximately equal to that described in the table (with the exception of the effect on underground structures near the epicenter), while with a ground explosion of 10 Mt, the distances from the epicenter indicated in the table should be multiplied by approximately 1,7.
            This is a word about
            All basements within the MKAD are completely destroyed

            continues to remain above supersonic, that is, up to 300-500 m / s at the MKAD border, which causes instant destruction of all ground structures, both high-rise and low-rise

            The zone within the Moscow Ring Road is likened to the leveled surface of hot coals in the furnace.
          2. xtur
            xtur 28 November 2017 16: 15 New
            0
            > You can simply go to the wiki to drive in "atmospheric nuclear explosion"

            it is useful for those who have at least some specialized education, and he can understand at least a little the causal part of the above. And do you expect a nuclear winter when testing weapons at a training ground in the Arctic.
            In addition, your article is, as it were, analytical, and should operate with some digital data that has at least some degree of verification, except for your IMH, which, judging by the previous paragraph, is very, to put it mildly, unreliable
      4. Fudo
        Fudo 28 November 2017 17: 11 New
        0
        won't happen? If you have a supply of pants with you (you will have to change them immediately), then nothing will happen in the first hours. And then start a new interesting life on the ashes.
  42. opus
    opus 25 November 2017 13: 39 New
    0
    With the explosion of a megaton class warhead, in 10 kilometers from the epicenter no more than 5% of the population there will die

    m. maybe not. But right away.
    The remaining 90% will die soon.
    In cities (ours, and American even more), 30% destruction of infrastructure (water, electricity, gas, hospitals, transport), leads to 100% collapse of city life.
    What can we say about a nuclear war, if we have a flu virus or a breakthrough in the water supply system, the network is broken — life has died. City bloggers are the same

    Quote: author
    Radioactive infection? It is worth noting that the Japanese after the nuclear explosions in Hiroshima and Nagasaki began to restore and settle these cities after some two or three years.

    general comparisons are not relevant.
    What is there that Babahnul is in Hiroshima and Nagasaki?
    a point punch in the miserable xnumx-xnumx kt?
    approx and the country already 4 fought with the United States, everyone is accustomed

    Quote: Author
    that the adjustment of the flight of ballistic missiles is made using astrocorrection. And in order to change the coordinates of the impact, it is necessary to calculate and prescribe the reference positions of the stars so that the rocket can navigate through them in flight, and this is a very difficult and, most importantly, slow task, which completely excludes the possibility of attacking moving targets.

    This is not the correct dictum and interpretation
    1. "Adjustment" ... "astrocorrection"
    -The flight of ballistic missiles (or other controlled projectile) is corrected by remote control correction, usually at the end of the active phase
    - Astro-inertial control systems solve the problems of azimuthal and (or) complete correction of the flight path of the object.
    2. "to change the coordinates of the strike"
    this is not related to the flight mission (choice of target)

    The system of azimuthal astrocorrection = the system of azimuthal astrotsevelyvaniya rocket, which is carried out in flight at the end of the active part of the trajectory in order to compensate for the error of the initial exhibition of the gyro-stabilized platform in azimuth.

    Based on the obtained error value, the on-board computer generates the law of control of the lateral movement of the rocket or combat stage, implemented in the correction process, and also determines and introduces the appropriate amendment to the flight range control


    The systems of complete astrocorrection are based on the astronavigation method of determining the location and azimuth, in which, in addition to azimuth measurements and correction, the coordinates of the object are found from the heights of two stars measured in the inertial coordinate system. Since the gyro-stabilized platform keeps the vertical at the starting point, the full astrocorrection system allows you to compensate only inaccuracy of knowing the coordinates of the launcher.
    ======================
    No connection with the "change of coordinates"
    1. The baseline azimuth (ABN) is determined in advance or during prelaunch.
    2. Based on the known azimuth Abn and given by the flight task azimuth Apz in terrestrial digital computing complex determines the azimuth angle= Apz-Abn, on which the otgoritsionnaya platform is rotated from its original position using the platform azimuth guidance system.
    1 + 2 = The misalignment of the directions of the axes associated with the rocket and the axes of stabilization of the platform resulting from the azimuth guidance of the platform is eliminated by the control system of the ballistic rocket in the vertical part of the flight of the rocket.
    Quote: Author
    Ideas that "we will see them through Google Maps and shy" Satan ""

    I'm afraid to make a mistake, but on the P-36М2 (aiming system 15ШX64) there is no astroinertial system, there:
    autonomous, inertial, three-channel with multilevel majoritarianization
    On UBB 15F178, too, it is not.

    Theoretically, "Voevoda" can catch aircraft carriers.



    Quote: Author
    And at this moment, those six US nuclear aircraft carriers emerge from the sea haze. With five hundred and forty aircraft on board.


    Gerald R. Ford class aircraft carriers:
    The autonomy of navigation = 100 days for provisions, 30 days for aviation fuel.
    That is, if the sea is typical, I'm afraid that with autonomy, autonomy will cut by half