Military Review

US surrounds Russia and China, bringing a nuclear war

79
US surrounds Russia and China, bringing a nuclear war



Possessing a reliable missile defense system, the United States may be tempted to strike first, which inevitably leads to a planetary catastrophe.

In modern military and political conditions, the military security of countries with nuclear weapons provided by deterring any state from the outbreak of hostilities against these countries. At the same time, the main and most important deterrent factor is the strategic nuclear forces (SNF), ensuring the possibility (threat) of guaranteed destruction of the aggressor.

Deterrence is the foundation of peace

The reliability of deterrence is determined mainly by the strategic stability of the SNF, that is, the possibility of preserving the nuclear potential of retaliation and delivering it to the attacker's objects for any aggression options.

Thus, deterrence from unleashing a war against a nuclear-weapon country is ensured only if the task of neutralizing its strategic nuclear forces cannot be guaranteed, that is, when during any actions of the attacking side, the defending side will always be able to cause unacceptable damage to the enemy .

An analysis of the views of the military-political leadership of the major nuclear-weapon States shows that they now still exclude the possibility of achieving goals in a general war (or even on smaller wars) without necessarily fulfilling the nuclear disarmament of the opposing side, if it possesses such weapons.

At the same time, the solution of this task is possible either due to a significant superiority in nuclear missiles (part of which is allocated for primary nuclear disarmament), which is practically unrealistic under current conditions of various contractual restrictions, or by creating an effective strategic missile defense (ABM).

In the second case, the basic principle of deterrence - guaranteed mutual destruction of the opposing sides - changes dramatically, if one of the parties creates a system of protection against nuclear missile strikes on the country's territory, economic facilities, the population and military facilities (especially nuclear missile facilities).

USA vs Russia and China

Thus, in the confrontation of the main world nuclear-missile opponents, the presence of an actively created at the present time a full-scale US missile defense system, aimed directly at blocking part of the potential of the Russian and Chinese SNFs (whatever the US said about parrying the threat posed by “Third” countries) can significantly reduce the effectiveness of both preemptive and retaliatory strikes by the Russian and Chinese SNFs and creates the basis for the aggressive policies of the United States and other NATO members, providing ample opportunities for I use force in resolving conflicts without fear of retaliation.

In addition, the presence of a reliable missile defense system creates for the United States and psychological advantages that strengthen the morale of the military-political leadership and the determination to use military force (including nuclear missiles) to achieve their goals. That is, the presence of a missile defense system gives the US a serious psychological advantage over any other power, and also reduces the psychological barrier in the use of military force, including nuclear weapons.

Consequently, the unilateral creation of a full-scale US missile defense system can lead to the emergence of a qualitatively new and very dangerous tendency in world relations, when the United States has a real (or perceived as real) opportunity to launch a nuclear strike and close with an antimissile shield from retaliation.

In addition, it is highly likely that after the deployment of the United States of a full-scale missile defense system, it can be expected that the already-stopped arms control and disarmament process will be completely eliminated.

New Arms Race

In addition to the reasons given above, which explain the desire to create a full-scale missile defense system on its territory (and partly on allied territories), the US’s determination to create a missile defense system is also due to several other reasons.

One of them, apparently, is that the US and its allies are trying to gradually transfer the arms race in the world to non-nuclear rails, to direct it to the sphere of high technologies (conventional high-precision weapons, which are already capable of solving some strategic tasks, information technologies, and . d.), where the strong becomes even stronger, and the weak lags behind forever.

It takes into account that generally accepted world treaties should ensure the availability of nuclear weapons only in a narrow group of countries, and in smaller volumes than now. For the rest of the states, nuclear weapons should be gradually withdrawn through the development of arms control processes, non-proliferation of nuclear weapons, restriction of the proliferation of missile technologies, etc. At the same time, according to the US plans, the remaining part of nuclear potentials should be neutralized with the help of missile defense.

However, modern realities, on the contrary, have identified other global trends, showing that the US decision to deploy missile defense in conjunction with a common aggressive policy not only adversely affects the process of reducing the strategic potentials of the leading nuclear powers, but also provokes the creation, modernization and strengthening of missiles. third countries nuclear forces.

Thus, if the United States continues along the path of creating a strategic missile defense system, the result will be irreparable damage to the entire arms control process. Efforts aimed at searching for cooperative interaction of states in the field of ensuring military security will be discredited in the event that the United States refuses any self-restraint and international agreements in the field of nuclear missile weapons and missile defense.

Arms control has no prospects, since the most powerful military power undertakes actions that openly contradict its logic and undermine it.

US allies fear the development of missile defense

It is noteworthy that this side of the issue is the object of close attention in the countries that are US partners in NATO. In France, for example, they emphasize the existence of serious problems with the potential impact of strategic missile defense plans on the effectiveness of arms limitation efforts, especially in the area of ​​curbing the proliferation of nuclear weapons and missile technologies.

Representatives of official circles of other countries say that if the US does not recognize any restrictions on missile defense, they should also be prepared to deal with the possibility of certain countries withdrawing from multilateral arms limitation regimes, including the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons.

But, returning to the main problem of this article, we should once again strongly emphasize that the creation of the US missile defense system completely undermines deterrence, based on mutual assured destruction and creates conditions when the use of nuclear weapons by any country against the US becomes very problematic, and from the US for other countries - possible and even safe for the United States.

Ultimately, this creates military-technical prerequisites in order to resolve any differences or contradictions with any state of the world from a position of strength or simply by force.

The problem of the potential impact of creating large-scale missile defense systems on the political situation in the world, the military-strategic balance, the problem of the stability of strategic equilibrium is not new and was considered in detail in connection with the strategic defense initiative program in the early nineties of the twentieth century.

The general conclusion that was formed at that time was unambiguous: the desire of the United States to create a large-scale missile defense system can only be regarded as a desire to use its scientific and technical potential to achieve military superiority with all the ensuing consequences.

Despite the fact that in those years, the United States opposed the USSR, which had enormous scientific and technological potential and historical obviously maintaining experience of the military-strategic balance, the United States, even in those conditions, nevertheless had certain hopes for acquiring any significant advantages politically and militarily. At present, the “counterbalance” of the United States is not so large that it significantly exacerbates the situation.

The threat of a period of unstable deterrence

Thus, with the deployment of the US missile defense system, the threat of the emergence of an unstable both bilateral (Russia-US or China-US) and multilateral deterrence increases. This period can become very long and lead to a state of long-lasting violation of the stability of the military-strategic balance and international security.

The long existence of a period of unstable deterrence increases the risk that sentiment in favor of the active use of military force as the main tool of foreign policy, including by initiating all sorts of local wars and armed conflicts, will increase in US leadership circles.

In addition, the "opposed to the wall" opponents of the United States may be tempted (or rather, by decision of hopelessness) to use nuclear missiles (or other weapons of mass destruction) first out of fear of losing their nuclear missile (and indeed any other) potential.

And this scenario is especially dangerous, since it does not imply any moral, ethical, universal human, legal or other restrictions, which can lead to a catastrophe of global scale.
Originator:
http://www.km.ru/world/2017/12/28/otnosheniya-ssha-i-kitaya/817055-ssha-okruzhayut-rossiyu-i-kitai-priblizhaya-yadern
79 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. 210ox
    210ox 31 December 2017 06: 27
    +4
    "In addition," pressed against the wall "opponents of the United States may be tempted (or rather a solution from hopelessness) to use nuclear missile weapons (or other weapons of mass destruction) first to fear losing their nuclear missile (and indeed any other) potential . ".. Nonsense is complete .. And I agree about missile defense. And we must make every effort not to be left behind forever. Unfortunately, we will not succeed in building a missile defense system at distant frontiers (like in the USA). So we need to look for some other methods ..
    1. Vard
      Vard 31 December 2017 08: 01
      +1
      About the missile defense of the United States .... big doubts ... There is a lot of noise ... But really ... No, of course, they write to the media that they got ... So much is written about the fence ...
      1. Lelek
        Lelek 31 December 2017 10: 19
        +1
        Quote: Vard
        So on the fence a lot of things are written ..

        hi
        Yeah, the state media are noisy. The stink of Russia's interference in the election campaign was ringed all over the world, Congress and the Senate on this basis were quick to impose sanctions on this nasty Russia, and the real basis of this screech was ridiculous:
        1. Angel_and_Demon
          Angel_and_Demon 31 December 2017 11: 34
          +5
          Quote: Lelek
          and the real basis of this screech was

          ABS- adna baba said request
        2. turcom
          turcom 1 January 2018 23: 32
          0
          So no one has tested their missile defense. Maybe it’s worth checking it, by agreement, with the outdated systems of the USSR, otherwise they advertise their notorious IJIS and everything that follows
    2. Boa kaa
      Boa kaa 31 December 2017 14: 19
      +2
      Quote: 210ox
      we won’t succeed in building a missile defense system at distant frontiers (as in the USA, for example). So, we need to look for some other methods ..

      Why doesn’t it work? You can and should try it.
      In the model and likeness of ams: to create mobile naval missile defense areas on the basis of super nuclear destroyers with naval C-500, for example. Or, orbital based on combat laser / neutron-positron systems. Or create a system that would initiate a nuclear fuse of a hydrogen bomb to zero, for example ...
      There are many options, there are no opportunities - neither financial, nor scientific-production, nor moral-volitional, like those of Un and Comrade X ...
      Therefore, we will fight for peace and be friends with the hongfu so that nothing happens. yes
      Ага.
      1. Vadim237
        Vadim237 31 December 2017 18: 14
        0
        We will derive one hundred satellites, on which there will be 20 mini kamikaze satellites, for ramming warheads.
    3. INVESTOR
      INVESTOR 2 January 2018 09: 52
      +1
      What isn’t your article? Karmadrocher Meehan nervously smokes on the sidelines! Happy New Year! fellow
    4. Sevastiec
      Sevastiec 3 January 2018 09: 58
      0
      I’m very interested: they’ll have enough circle, surround Russia, and even with China!
  2. jolly deckhand
    jolly deckhand 31 December 2017 07: 16
    +9
    Yes, they are not stupid to start a war. Greedy, yes. But not crazy. Happy New Year to all,HEALTH!!! hi
    1. The comment was deleted.
  3. PPD
    PPD 31 December 2017 12: 07
    +1
    How do you know for sure that missile defense is reliable? The USA themselves claim ?! Yes, a reliable "source."
    They do not really succeed with air defense. The same Patriot Scuda knocks down once.
    And if something more modern than Skadov will not be in the amount of 3 pieces?
    1. Winnie76
      Winnie76 31 December 2017 12: 20
      +2
      Quote: PPD
      How do you know for sure that missile defense is reliable? Do the USA themselves claim?

      A reliable missile defense will never be. Because you can check fully only once. And this time will be the last.
      1. Vadim237
        Vadim237 31 December 2017 18: 23
        0
        “There will never be a reliable missile defense” This is why it all of a sudden - the number of missile defense systems is growing like the number of satellites, ground-based radars, basing areas and offshore platforms, missile defense systems continue to improve, now it will be 50% in ten years, 100%. In the 20s, the United States Navy wanted to introduce five arsenal ships - a missile defense system, based on the San Antonio BDK with 588 universal launch cells, each of which has the latest modifications for cruise missiles and missile defense missiles SM 3.
    2. ventel
      ventel 31 December 2017 14: 52
      0
      About where the S-400, S-500 came from, Russia also claims that it has no analogues, but sadness alone, these systems did not participate in real military conflicts. And you are sure that in real conflict these systems will show what the media wrote about them.
    3. Vadim237
      Vadim237 31 December 2017 18: 26
      0
      "The Patriot Scuda knocks down once." This is a modification of PAC 2 - as a missile defense system, its capabilities are conditional.
  4. Nemesis
    Nemesis 31 December 2017 12: 40
    +3
    1) No US missile defense system will save. 2) Everyone who tried to subjugate the whole World broke their neck in this way and the USA will not be an exception
  5. Old26
    Old26 31 December 2017 14: 53
    11
    BULLSHIT
    Although he wrote an associate professor Mozhayki.
    In general, those who write such articles would do well to read the recollection of our military and political figures who participated in the conclusion of the 1972 ABM Treaty. Then they wouldn’t write such nonsense

    In reality, NOT ONE PRO in the world is capable of intercepting a massive missile strike of the other side. If it is not based, of course, on the use of systems operating on other physical principles. A missile defense system based on the use of interceptor missiles will never give 100% results. Each interceptor has such a concept as the probability of hitting a target. And the higher it is, the less missile defense is needed. Sorry, that I say common truths, but usually there are two opposing views on the same American missile defense. Or a statement from the words of the Americans. that they will all fall, or vice versa, the opposite view - their PRO-air defense will not bring down anything. Both points of view are mistaken in their essence.
    Simplest example
    The probability of hitting a target with one missile is 0,75. In order to hit the target with a probability of 0,9998 (that is, 99,98%), it is necessary to launch SIX missiles on the target. If the HCV anti-missile has 0,9, then to achieve the same probability of defeat, that is, 99,9% will need THREE
    Why am I saying this, you ask? Moreover, any missile defense system can intercept a very limited number of targets. The Moscow missile defense, in particular, could intercept the EMNIP only 16 pair targets. That is 16 warheads and, for example, 16 false targets. Having spent all the ammunition on it, that is 100 missile defense.
    Now both the missiles are more powerful and maneuverable, and the interception algorithms worked out much more accurately (HCV increased) than 30 years ago, but nonetheless ... The modern missile defense of America can intercept yes, targets 10-15. But the main thing is that? Powder the brains of their citizens, claiming the evil Russians (Chinese, Koreans, Buryats - underline what is necessary), ready to wipe poor America from the face of the earth. The other side also plays the same notes, but a completely different music - the article is just about that. They begin to tell us that the Americans will be able to create an impenetrable missile defense system and deliver a nuclear or some other kind of strike at us, and the small number of missiles remaining after such a strike will be brought to hell. That is, the pipe case, "the plaster is removed, the client leaves." A frightened layman is easiest to control.
    So here. And in the first (Americans), and in the second (we) case we LIE. The expectation is that the overwhelming majority of people may be 99 percent, and maybe even more do not know anything about this, about any systems for constructing an interception and all other tyagomotin too.
    Yes, the American missile defense system is capable of intercepting targets of a certain class. In very limited quantities. In particular, the US strategic missile defense system, located in Alaska and California, is capable of intercepting 100% of North Korean ICBMs. But 100% of Chinese ICBMs will not be intercepted by this system. For this, the US has always had a preemptive strike in order to “thin out” the same Chinese ICBMs. And if the units then strike at the USA, they will be destroyed. Not with a 100% guarantee, but with a fairly high probability
    But with regard to Russian missiles - here the Americans are not going to do anything. If they build a new missile defense from Russian missiles, they will be left without pants. Because it is expensive.

    Imagine launching a single Voyevoda-type missile. The active part of the trajectory ends and the stage of dilution begins to "deliver" the warheads. Not only that, in a certain time, 10 combat units will be divorced. So, besides this, several heavy false targets will also be diluted that can imitate the behavior of the BG up to a strike on the surface. In addition, 3-4 dozens of light false targets are bred, a huge amount of metallized foil, inflatable metallized balls, jammers are scattered. And now all this crowd of warheads by comrades imagines in space a certain “cylinder” with a diameter of a dozen or two kilometers and a length of 150-200 kilometers. The number of targets inside this tube of the trajectory will be at least, for example, 10 combat units, with a dozen heavy, several dozen light targets. All other garbage can not be counted. And decision time is limited. And garbage before entering the upper atmosphere, where it lags behind will go to the goal. By the time it is possible to "select" false targets from the real ones - there will be almost no time. But in any case, even for the destruction of the warheads of one missile at an HCV of 0,95, THREE anti-missiles will be needed. That is, to defeat only real warheads, at least 30 interceptors will be needed. Plus heavy false targets. And the Americans of these interceptors at the end of 2018 will have EMNIP already FORTY FOUR PIECES . The backfill question, how many warheads of our ICBMs will they be able to hit?

    But do not even think that they can do nothing, as the comrade writes PPD
    Quote: PPD
    How do you know for sure that missile defense is reliable? The USA themselves claim ?! Yes, a reliable "source."
    They do not really succeed with air defense. The same Patriot Scuda knocks down once. And if something more modern than Skadov will not be in the amount of 3 pieces?

    A favorite pastime of some comrades is to say that the Americans of the ancient SKADs could not bring down a quarter of a century ago. And now? As is the case with this. After all, now the Americans are not in service with the complex that was in the early 90s and which at most could bring down a missile with a range of 100 km? How are things going now
    As our S-300 will lead, when more than three ballistic missiles will go to the division’s location. Will he be able to intercept them with a 100% guarantee? I DO NOT KNOW. But I know that NOT IN ONE COMBAT ACTION our S-300, unlike the American PETRIOT, did not participate. He even now participates. When the Saudis fight with the Hussites. True, the possibility of interception there depends on the squint of soldiers of these complexes. And we will sell them S-400, and they will use a dozen missiles per missile .. The Americans have quite serious air defense on ships (Aegis). In sufficient quantity. And with good features. THAAD is also.

    so to make an unambiguous conclusion about the "impenetrability" or vice versa the "worthlessness" of the American missile defense system I would not

    I apologize for such a long and somewhat philosophical post. Happy New Year, everyone!! And so that in the New Year your most cherished desires come true !!!
    1. Vadim237
      Vadim237 31 December 2017 18: 38
      +1
      It’s also worth making an error, with a massive launch, percentages of 5 to 10 ICBMs will be emergency.
      1. NKT
        NKT 31 December 2017 20: 34
        +1
        In 91, 16 rockets were fired in one gulp and there were no emergency ones.
        1. Vadim237
          Vadim237 31 December 2017 20: 43
          +1
          But now there is a mace.
          1. bk316
            bk316 31 December 2017 21: 39
            +2
            and what is the mace?
            1. Vadim237
              Vadim237 1 January 2018 11: 19
              +1
              Accident 22% is kind of like.
              1. NKT
                NKT 2 January 2018 00: 10
                0
                R-39 had 36% and nothing.
    2. KaPToC
      KaPToC 1 January 2018 01: 42
      0
      Quote: Old26
      The probability of hitting a target with one missile is 0,75. In order to hit the target with a probability of 0,9998 (that is, 99,98%), it is necessary to launch SIX missiles on the target.

      This does not mean that they will shoot five anti-ballistic missiles in sequence, this means that 25% will break through to the targets, in theory, what percentage will be in reality is unknown.
  6. tosha.chuhontzev
    tosha.chuhontzev 31 December 2017 15: 50
    0
    The strange opinion of the author is not supported by any real fact. The US is not even able to deal with North Korea.
    1. Vadim237
      Vadim237 31 December 2017 18: 36
      0
      It’s better not to check it - millions will die in Japan, North Korea and South Korea.
      1. tosha.chuhontzev
        tosha.chuhontzev 31 December 2017 20: 22
        +3
        In world politics, human losses are not an argument.
  7. Doliva63
    Doliva63 31 December 2017 16: 00
    +4
    "Despite the fact that in those years the USA was opposed by the USSR, which had enormous scientific and technical potential and historical experience in maintaining the military-strategic balance, the United States, even in those conditions, obviously still had certain hopes for acquiring any significant advantages in politically and militarily strategically. "
    As long as the Group of Forces existed, the Yankees did not have any advantages - they would have had to carry out nuclear strikes in Western Europe. And their allies were categorically against. "So shtaaa" (c)
  8. Old26
    Old26 31 December 2017 17: 21
    +5
    Quote: tosha.chuhontzev
    The strange opinion of the author is not supported by any real fact. The US is not even able to deal with North Korea.

    Do you seriously think that the United States is not able to cope with North Korea? Or do they (the Americans) want to kill several birds with one stone? for example, to make sure that they are not the initiators of such a war? Or that economic competitors in the region would suffer numerous losses. What allows you to draw such a conclusion? The fact that the Americans either push their aircraft carriers there, or take them away without doing anything? There is such an old Russian fairy tale or parable. When the boy shouted “Wolf” all the time, but there was no wolf. And when the wolves actually appeared, he screamed - no one was listening to him. so here. Once in the process of training, 3 aircraft carriers were flown, the second, third. Gradually, these aircraft carriers in the world will cease to pay attention to where they are .... And then Day D. may come.
    And the Americans have such potential that during the war, if there is no help from China (and there will be no help under certain conditions), North Korea will be rolled out under the nut. And you say America can't handle it. Can't or don't think the time is right?
    1. tosha.chuhontzev
      tosha.chuhontzev 31 December 2017 20: 16
      +1
      I don’t know what the Americans think there, but they cannot pull for a long time with North Korea. The loss of pace on this issue enables China and Russia to take proactive measures. I think that S-400 has long been in North Korea. I suppose that the Americans will make their attempt to defeat North Korea after the end of the Olympic Games at the end of the election campaign in Russia. The first signal will be a tank strike of Ukrainian forces in the Donbass. If the Americans miss this moment, they will forever say goodbye to the strategy of American interests around the world, in particular, the Pacific region. This is not a slap in the face, but the beginning of the end of the USA.
    2. aKtoR
      aKtoR 1 January 2018 09: 21
      +8
      To crush North Korea is a common word. Apply air strikes, impose a blockade, destroy industry, infrastructure, etc. - yes. Enter troops - no, no. Americans will be extremely happy if Japan, Korea and China are involved in a military conflict. There are no interests of the Russian Federation in this conflict, and we will be left behind until the Americans sink the fleet of the PRC - and then the end of the state in North America. We will get them in those territories where they are going to evacuate part of their statehood: Australia, Brazil and others.
      1. MOSKVITYANIN
        MOSKVITYANIN 3 January 2018 02: 09
        +3
        aKtoR and we will be on the sidelines until the Americans drown the fleet of the PRC - and then the end of the state on the territory of North America.

        And you are "good" I will look. On which Russian Federation will TMV begin with the USA because of some Chinese sunken ships with us, that two lives or the Chinese are our next “brothers”?
        1. aKtoR
          aKtoR 3 January 2018 06: 47
          +8
          If the PRC fleet is sunk, this means that America and the PRC, among other things, exchanged nuclear strikes. At least China’s coastal cities and the entire infrastructure of the shipbuilding industry have been destroyed. What flew to the United States and its military bases is not the answer to your comment)))
          After such a development of events, the Chinese comrades can only move towards Vietnam and, unfortunately, Russia. Further a long war of attrition of our two countries. This is beneficial only to Amer: a long war for final depletion on the land front with the mutual use of nuclear weapons (we have more, but this is not important). The mongrels from the EU will begin to tear our country from the West, and the Americans will threaten everyone with their fingers calling for reconciliation, trying to stay away from nuclear war. Such a cunning policy has matured in them.
          In this case, the disguised aggressor must be destroyed and the amers are hinted that even the evacuated units will not be able to survive ...
          1. MOSKVITYANIN
            MOSKVITYANIN 3 January 2018 12: 10
            +1
            aKtoR If the PRC fleet is sunk, this means that America and the PRC, among other things, exchanged nuclear strikes. At a minimum, the coastal cities of China and the entire infrastructure of the shipbuilding industry have been destroyed.

            And to hell with this PRC, I think, sooner or later it will be a strategic US military ally, all two PLA attacks (1) through Kazakhstan to the Urals industrial region; 2) a blow to Khabarovsk in order to cut off the Primorsky Territory), then the empirialists enter into business .....
            But these are all fairy tales, because we are for the PRC an inexhaustible warehouse of V and VT, fuels and lubricants, etc.
            Yes and where refugees will run, you saw a map of the PRC and the PRC through the mountains and sands? 85% of the population of China is flashing on the coast of China since the rest of the territory is either not suitable for living, or limited for living, so there will be nowhere to run, except for residents of the cities bordering us ....
            1. aKtoR
              aKtoR 4 January 2018 10: 43
              +2
              China can not be an ally of the United States. The People's Republic of China is officially declared a strategic adversary of the Americans and options for the destruction of our country, the People's Republic of China and Iran are being worked out at KSHU
              When nuclear strikes are inflicted on the coastal strip, a cross can be put on Chinese fishing. In order to survive in the conditions of exposure to radioactive contamination of the area they need to move to other territories. In this case, there is a high probability that our territories will be considered not as storage areas, but as a living area. I meant it.
              1. MOSKVITYANIN
                MOSKVITYANIN 4 January 2018 13: 24
                0
                aKtoR
                China cannot be an ally of the United States. China - officially declared a strategic adversary of the Americans

                The United States may declare the PRC an adversary as much as desired, but the United States is one of the most important trading partners for the PRC.
                http://asiavector.ru/countries/china/ (хорошая статья, кстати)
                In addition, China is the main holder of US government loan bonds.
                Investment amount: $ 1242,8 billion
                More details: http://www.vestifinance.ru/articles/71918?page=6

                Do you think that something will change in the investment policy of other countries in relation to the United States if the United States decides to start a war with its main Lender?
                In order to survive under the influence of radioactive contamination of the area, they need to move to other territories. In this case, there is a high probability that our territories will be considered not as warehouses, but as a zone of residence.

                I understood you. However, Siberia, Primorye, Transbaikalia and the MPR are not the most comfortable places to live and places for conducting N / A, more comfortable conditions in Southeast Asia, and what number of men of draft age will survive, I think there will be much fewer than before the war with the United States ....
          2. ccsr
            ccsr 3 January 2018 13: 16
            0
            If the PRC fleet is sunk, this means that America and the PRC, among other things, exchanged nuclear strikes. At a minimum, the coastal cities of China and the entire infrastructure of the shipbuilding industry have been destroyed.

            Take away your wild imagination - the Americans still can’t cope with the DPRK, and you have attributed to them a nuclear war with China. Maybe it’s not worth it to solve world problems so inconspicuously, or do you think that in America everyone is crazy?
            1. The comment was deleted.
              1. MOSKVITYANIN
                MOSKVITYANIN 3 January 2018 14: 41
                0
                Quote: aKtoR
                Zero again? Or genius does not understand the herd?

                Not antilegent
    3. ccsr
      ccsr 3 January 2018 13: 11
      0
      And the Americans have such potential that during the war, if there is no help from China (and there will be no help under certain conditions), North Korea will be rolled out under the nut. And you say America can't handle it. Can't or don't think the time is right?

      Probably here we still need to talk about delivering a nuclear strike on the DPRK, which is unlikely to please all the countries of the world, and it is not clear what the consequences will be for China itself. As for the Iraqi scenario, it will not work against North Korea, which means that the Americans won’t be guaranteed a victory in the war. So you shouldn’t so unambiguously evaluate the results of a future war, if it takes place, everything will depend on what kind of military force the Americans risk using. But this is a completely different story - we recall only the Caribbean crisis.
  9. Old26
    Old26 31 December 2017 21: 01
    +2
    Quote: tosha.chuhontzev
    I don’t know what the Americans think there, but they cannot pull for a long time with North Korea. The loss of pace on this issue enables China and Russia to take proactive measures. I think that S-400 has long been in North Korea. I suppose that the Americans will make their attempt to defeat North Korea after the end of the Olympic Games at the end of the election campaign in Russia. The first signal will be a tank strike of Ukrainian forces in the Donbass. If the Americans miss this moment, they will forever say goodbye to the strategy of American interests around the world, in particular, the Pacific region. This is not a slap in the face, but the beginning of the end of the USA.

    I understand that New Year's Eve, dreams. Comrad. Do you also seriously think that the S-400 has been located there for a long time? And why not the S-500 or not immediately "Poplar" ??? We supply our S-400 army with 2 regiment sets, but is the S-400 in the DPRK? And how many? Two regiments, three? Five? By the little things, do we even comply with the sanctions and supply such weapons?
    Perhaps in reality after the Olympics ... There is no difference what’s in the wake of the election campaign in Russia. This would have affected if we had a mutual assistance agreement with the DPRK, then the president could be blamed for not providing assistance to the ally. But we have not had such an article in the agreement with the DPRK for almost 20 years ...

    Tank attack of Ukraine in the Donbass - I would rather believe that there are already stockpiles of ATGMs and "volunteers" in the Donbass that provide "humanitarian assistance" than in the S-400 in North Korea.

    Even if they miss the moment now, the worst thing for them is that it will become more difficult for Koreans to cope later. And about the slap and all that. They had a slap in the face, and even what, it was called Vietnam, but this did not lead to the end of the United States. Okay, you can talk about this after the new year.

    Happy New Year!!!!!
    1. tosha.chuhontzev
      tosha.chuhontzev 31 December 2017 21: 42
      +1
      I was too lazy to list what is already in North Korea. I think that the Americans, in any case, in the military sense, are easy pi-ts. True, for some time they will do harm quietly. Trump takes place on the economic front. There, the Americans still have a complete advantage and they are trying to draw Russia into all possible conflicts. It sometimes seems to me that the Americans deliberately wreck the Russian militaristic machine in order to master it. Oddly enough this sounds, Russia is overloaded with numerous projects that first unwind the economy and then deplete it. I took a cup here and it was revealed to me that the United States would not touch North Korea. The results of the new US tax reform should be expected. If it works, then the United States will have the opportunity to buy all the world's scientific resources and suck all the white from Europe. Happy New Year and may there be less nightingale litter in Russian television forests!
    2. aKtoR
      aKtoR 1 January 2018 09: 15
      +1
      Of course, you are right - there is nothing there and it is simply enough to reveal the opposite of American intelligence)) And we will try to distance ourselves from the war in North Korea ... And the situation with the PRC is completely different. They will support S.Koreyu ..
      1. tosha.chuhontzev
        tosha.chuhontzev 1 January 2018 14: 38
        +2
        The funniest numbers in this situation. Japanese exports to North Korea accounted for 2016% of all Japanese exports in 23, as for China. Another thing surprises me. Why didn’t China turn North Korea into one of its provinces and displace this clowning regime, which helps Americans proclaim new political days and threaten their military presence with Russia and China at their borders ???
        1. aKtoR
          aKtoR 1 January 2018 15: 22
          +6
          It was not profitable for Europe to cut trade relations with the Russian Federation. Under the pressure of "overseas partners" Europe went for it. European governments are the lackeys of these partners. Japan is the same servant of the Americans. Profitable, not profitable - it does not matter. They must fulfill the will of the owners. But the owner does not care about the subsequent problems of one of the lackeys ...
          And why should China join North Korea? It is beneficial for them to have a buffer independent state in this region, executing the same will as Japan, Korea and the EU. Why the USSR did not annex Vietnam, the countries of Eastern Europe? This is politics.
          There would be no North Korea, the Americans came up with another reason to threaten both the Russian Federation and the PRC.
          Until now, the Americans are holding back the fact that they are not ready now for war with S. Korea and China (the time has not come). The Chinese comrades directly hinted that if there was an attack by the Americans on S.Korea, they would not be left behind ...
          The time of military conflict in this region has not yet come
        2. voyaka uh
          voyaka uh 1 January 2018 18: 41
          +2
          "Japanese exports to North Korea accounted for 2016% of all Japanese exports in 23" ///

          You are confused. Here are the top 10 countries where Japan exports:
          1.United States: US $ 130.5 billion (20.2% of total Japanese exports)
          2.China: $ 113.9 billion (17.7%)
          3.South Korea: $ 46.3 billion (7.2%)
          4.Taiwan: $ 39.4 billion (6.1%)
          5.Hong Kong: $ 33.6 billion (5.2%)
          6.Thailand: $ 27.4 billion (4.3%)
          7.Singapore: $ 19.8 billion (3.1%)
          8.Germany: $ 17.7 billion (2.7%)
          9.Australia: $ 14.2 billion (2.2%)
          10.United Kingdom: $ 13.7 billion (2.1%)
          1. tosha.chuhontzev
            tosha.chuhontzev 2 January 2018 00: 58
            +2
            No, I didn’t mix it up, but bothered to look into the Japanese statistical yearbook.
  10. Sonet
    Sonet 31 December 2017 22: 21
    +1
    Rare ,, water ,,. All the information in this article can be reduced to 1,2 sentences. Disappointed.
  11. Simon
    Simon 1 January 2018 16: 08
    +1
    No matter how, the United States itself, death from this war did not come! It seems to me that the United States is preparing its own doom! fool
  12. Simon
    Simon 1 January 2018 16: 20
    +1
    Quote: tosha.chuhontzev
    The funniest numbers in this situation. Japanese exports to North Korea accounted for 2016% of all Japanese exports in 23, as for China. Another thing surprises me. Why didn’t China turn North Korea into one of its provinces and displace this clowning regime, which helps Americans proclaim new political days and threaten their military presence with Russia and China at their borders ???
    Let Chairman Eun live! In any case, the Americans will not attack him, they only frighten, but they cannot fight (for example, Vietnam, China and Russia will not give. In extreme cases, they will help with weapons. Moreover, we have borders with them). In the war with North Korea, the Americans, in any case, will only be disgraced, but they don’t need it, since they will become more insolvent, in the form of a big, “great” power!
    1. tosha.chuhontzev
      tosha.chuhontzev 2 January 2018 00: 55
      +1
      I love Chekhov and again I’ll cover myself with his phrase: No matter what happens! Americans suspiciously encrypted and do not show their new weapons. In 2020, without noise and dust, Americans go to a new level of missile defense. In the near-earth orbit, a satellite early warning group has already been created, which registers the launches of ballistic missiles at launch and so on and so forth. In principle, God himself ordered that the state of American missile defense be checked on Koreans. As I wrote above, it seemed to me that the Americans are deliberately delaying the solution of the Korean problem. They are now solving their financial problems, forcing the Japanese and Seoul to acquire weapons and equipment in order to even out the trade deficit with these countries. North Korea’s nuclear program undermines its already dead economy. Trump is waiting, making effective efforts to grow the US economy in order to turn the tide of the political situation in his favor. In short, the American does not make sense to rush. The game of cat and mouse continues gentlemen-assessors!
      1. dSK
        dSK 2 January 2018 21: 58
        +1
        Hello Tosha!
        Quote: tosha.chuhontzev
        no sense in a hurry
        to June 14, the beginning of the World Cup 2018when tens of thousands of foreign fans will come to Russia, to ensure the safety of which all the "siloviki" will be involved, including the army. By tradition, the States are preparing "surprises" and most likely in different places, the most "sick" for Russia - Donbass at the first place.
        1. tosha.chuhontzev
          tosha.chuhontzev 3 January 2018 03: 25
          0
          Everything is possible, but provocations in the Donbass will begin at the final stage of the presidential election campaign. My problem is that Putin has ceased to be my president. I really hoped that he would stop the suffering of people in the Donbass, twist his head to the oligarchs and increase his attention to the socio-economic problems of ordinary Russians. And he turned his politics into a policy of trolls.
  13. Simon
    Simon 1 January 2018 16: 27
    +1
    Quote: aKtoR
    It was not profitable for Europe to cut trade relations with the Russian Federation. Under pressure from overseas partners

    For that, it is profitable for us! Russia began to rise in its economy tongue
  14. Old26
    Old26 1 January 2018 17: 08
    +1
    Quote: Simon
    No matter how, the United States itself, death from this war did not come!

    North Korea throws US missiles with nuclear warheads ???
    1. MOSKVITYANIN
      MOSKVITYANIN 4 January 2018 13: 29
      0
      Quote: Old26
      Quote: Simon
      No matter how, the United States itself, death from this war did not come!

      North Korea throws US missiles with nuclear warheads ???

      I think if Eun throws Japan with his missiles, it will only make everyone feel good in the Asia-Pacific region ... (they don’t like Japan there), maybe even after that thankful South Koreans (for destroying a common enemy, and not them) they will put Eunu a cast-iron monument ....
      1. ccsr
        ccsr 4 January 2018 22: 50
        0
        Quote: MOSKVITYANIN
        maybe even after that on the station square in Seoul, the grateful South Koreans (for destroying the common enemy, and not them) will erect a cast-iron monument for Un ....

        I think that their mutual desire to unite is not in doubt for anyone, and this will happen in the near future. This is precisely what will subsequently serve to create the Kimov Memorial in Seoul, as the creators of the nuclear shield, ensuring the Koreans complete independence from their neighbors and the United States.
        1. MOSKVITYANIN
          MOSKVITYANIN 4 January 2018 23: 01
          +1
          ccsr mutual desire to unite, no one doubts, and this will happen in the near future

          And you are an optimist ....
          as the creators of the nuclear shield, providing Koreans with complete independence from their neighbors and the United States.

          You apparently do not read the periodicals and do not know anything about the missile program of the Republic of Kazakhstan (which did not appear yesterday), which in turn is under the strict control of the United States ...
          Google and let you go ...
  15. bratchanin3
    bratchanin3 2 January 2018 10: 02
    +1
    Approaching NATO to the borders of Russia, they think that they will scare the Russians, but they have already “scared” the DPRK by constantly conducting exercises at its borders, to the extent that they themselves may find themselves in Korean nuclear fire.
  16. Anyone
    Anyone 3 January 2018 00: 18
    +1
    With a reliable missile defense system, the United States may be tempted to strike first.

    The author makes me laughable in his attempt to pull modern capitalist Russia towards the ideological confrontation between the USSR and the USA. In the US FIG try to destroy us today? We are now capitalists like them. Limit, crush, make dependent - this is the United States can of course. But to destroy such a good buyer of their treasury bonds is unlikely))
    1. ccsr
      ccsr 4 January 2018 11: 06
      0
      Quote: Anyone
      The author makes me laughable in his attempt to pull modern capitalist Russia towards the ideological confrontation between the USSR and the USA. In the US FIG try to destroy us today?

      The First World War did not begin with Bolshevik Russia either, so this is not an argument. Another thing is that no one wants to die in a nuclear war - this is the main argument against the start of the Third World War.
      1. Anyone
        Anyone 4 January 2018 12: 29
        0
        Quote: ccsr
        The First World War did not begin with Bolshevik Russia either, so this is not an argument ...

        You still pull up the battle of Hastings as an example. However, let it be World War I, since you remembered it. Read the headline and note again - in them the author in every way scares us with nuclear war, a nuclear winter, the apocalypse and other annoying troubles. And now answer the question: did any of the belligerents in World War I aim to destroy not only the army and military industry of the adversary state, but its political system, population and infrastructure? Shorter total destruction? Here to open Alsace-Lorraine from the defeated, impose restrictions on the army, select colonies, deprive the fleet, and close the former trade routes of the enemy - this is always welcome! All this is the winner’s preferences. And it was precisely with such categories that the leadership of the countries fighting in the WWI reasoned. But the leadership of the USSR and the USA looked completely at first at a possible military confrontation. No preferences from the war (not the "cold" but the real war) were discussed at all. It was clear to everyone that only cockroaches would not suffer from this war. And then, if they are New Zealand. So, the parallel with the PMV is not particularly suitable here. From the word completely ... But to the present state of our relations with the United States, it may be applicable, for it is completely clear that the rattling of nuclear weapons by us and the Americans today is completely frivolous. We keep our money in their debt obligations. Therefore, our modern confrontation with the United States best describes a bearded joke in which a Palestinian soldier runs out of ammunition, and a Jewish soldier sells them to him and they continue to languidly shoot in the direction of each other ... So we today from the USA bought from them trezherezov for a couple more lard and how let's face the “mattress” on the world stage with redoubled energy)) Article - for headless children.
        1. ccsr
          ccsr 4 January 2018 23: 03
          0
          Quote: Anyone
          And now answer the question: did any of the belligerents in World War I aim to destroy not only the army and military industry of the adversary state, but its political system, population and infrastructure? Shorter total destruction?

          Of course, for example, Germany was totally destroyed, it lost its colonies, its economy was destroyed, and the multibillion-dollar debts that it paid to the winners led to the collapse of the banking system and led to a revolution that really ended in failure. And after that you will say that Germany was not destroyed?
          Quote: Anyone
          But the leadership of the USSR and the USA looked completely at first at a possible military confrontation. No preferences from the war (not the "cold" but the real war) were discussed at all. It was clear to everyone that only cockroaches would not suffer from this war.

          Actually, there was an IDEOLOGICAL confrontation between the two systems, which was not during the First World War. Nevertheless, the First World War took place. As for the third world war, as I have indicated, only the fear of being destroyed restrains the West in the war against Russia, otherwise we would have fought long ago, first in local conflicts according to the Georgian scenario, and then escalation would have gone. So it’s naive to believe that capitalism in Russia at least as it stops the West in its desire to dismember Russia - this is obvious to any literate person. The question is not the ideology of Russia - the question is its destruction for many centuries.
          1. Anyone
            Anyone 5 January 2018 12: 14
            0
            1. Germany was not "totally destroyed" by the results of the WWII and Versailles. Totally destroyed countries do not occupy half of Europe 20 years after their so-called "total destruction". This is obvious to any literate person))
            2. I believe that it is pleasant to recognize my historical and national exclusivity in the ring of enemies. This enhances national self-esteem. Especially, in conditions when there are absolutely no other methods of resuscitation of national identity. The external enemy is an ideal warrant. Look at Ukraine-it is building statehood and nat. identity on the image of almost now eternal enemy - RI / USSR / RF. Baltic States - similarly. Georgia, etc., too. Don't you think that with this demonization of the USA today we are like Khokhlov / Georgians / Estonians / etc?
            The United States, no doubt, will never be our ally or friend, and by definition, will not be such, but its policy is shaped by economic expediency. In other words, the Americans are not reckless and very prudent. Why should they capture, maintain and protect such a non-core asset as our territory? It will be much more profitable for them to achieve the establishment of a pro-American or US-loyal regime in Russia. Moreover, their main geopolitical adversary in the 21st century is not us at all, but China.
            1. ccsr
              ccsr 5 January 2018 13: 35
              0
              Quote: Anyone
              1. Germany was not "totally destroyed" by the results of the WWII and Versailles. Totally destroyed countries do not occupy half of Europe 20 years after their so-called "total destruction". This is obvious to any literate person))

              You seem to have a poor idea of ​​who financed the development of Germany after the Nazis appeared there, and for what purpose it was done. However, you can read “Three Comrades” at your leisure to understand what kind of cesspool Germany was in after World War I, and it would never have risen to the level of the Third Reich if it had not been for Western aid (incidentally, the story repeated itself after the start of the Cold War). It is strange that you could not even understand this.
              Don't you think that with this demonization of the USA today we are like Khokhlov / Georgians / Estonians / etc?

              It seems to you that the Cold War ended with the collapse of the USSR, and this is a delusion of naive people.
              It will be much more profitable for them to achieve the establishment of a pro-American or US-loyal regime in Russia. Moreover, their main geopolitical adversary in the 21st century is not us at all, but China.

              This question is controversial, and not as clear as you are trying to interpret it. Firstly, we have a good vaccine against the pro-American regime called the "nineties."
              Secondly, with regard to China, with all its economic power, even in the next couple of decades, it will not be able to destroy the United States by military means, unlike Russia. So the first half of the 21st century will nevertheless take place in the military confrontation between the USA and Russia, even if our economies differ greatly.
              1. Anyone
                Anyone 5 January 2018 14: 36
                0
                1. It makes no difference who financed Germany after the republic. You claim that Germany was, I quote, "totally destroyed." You can finance the corpse as much as you like - it will not come to life. And if he came to life, then it was not a corpse. Further discussion of this point does not make sense - you just rested.
                2. The cold war is over. This is a fact that you have to put up with. And what is happening now is a cold little war game))
                3. In general, everything is not unique in this world. But if in the framework of this discussion we start to spread our thoughts on the tree, then, definitely, this will not add certainty)) In general, do you agree with my thesis number 2 in the previous message? That’s weird - why cling to unimportant moments?
                1. ccsr
                  ccsr 5 January 2018 14: 49
                  0
                  Quote: Anyone
                  It makes no difference who financed Germany after the republic. You claim that Germany was, I quote, "totally destroyed." You can finance the corpse as much as you like - it will not come to life. And if he came to life, then it was not a corpse. Further discussion of this point does not make sense - you just rested.

                  Of course it does not, because you have too naive ideas about the functioning of the economies of developed countries. Long before you, scientists came to the conclusion that "As you know, credit is the engine of the economy."
                  So you can rest in your ignorance about the decisive factor in the matter of rejoining Germany after the WWII, but without the loans of the winners it would not have been reborn.
                  2. The cold war is over. This is a fact that you have to put up with. And what is happening now is a cold little war game))

                  Only in your mind. However, you can continue to dream about it, but do not think that everyone here is naive.
                  1. Anyone
                    Anyone 5 January 2018 15: 14
                    0
                    So you started our conversation with a transition to personalities and repeat this technique in each subsequent message. The constant substitution of weak argumentation with epithets for the opponent makes your position in this dispute rather ridiculous. Or paid))
                    P.S. On the topic: You can continue to nest modern capitalist and oligarchic (inappropriately, if that is a statement only) power in Russia to the ideological confrontation of the USSR and the USA, but this is simply ridiculous puffing. Some 15 years ago, our president was ready to kiss the gums with the Americans and Europeans. But you can continue to tell the tales of the Vienna forest that the current brawl for the feed base (crossed out) the current sacred confrontation of the Russian Federation - the USA is ideological))
                    1. ccsr
                      ccsr 5 January 2018 22: 34
                      0
                      Quote: Anyone
                      But you can continue to tell the tales of the Vienna forest that the current brawl for the feed base (crossed out) the current sacred confrontation of the Russian Federation - the USA is ideological))

                      You fairly primitively assess the confrontation - it’s not an ideology that has changed three times in the twentieth century, but the worldview concept of building a humane society that Russians have been striving for since the 19th century, and even earlier. And this confrontation Russia-West will not go anywhere in the 21st century, whether you want to see it or not. You just did not understand this, and attributed your vision of the problem to me. So the one who did not understand this in my text is ridiculous.
    2. MOSKVITYANIN
      MOSKVITYANIN 4 January 2018 23: 04
      0
      Anyone We are now capitalists like them.

      Do not blaspheme ... the sin of laughing ...
      But destroying such a good buyer of their treasury bonds is unlikely

      We are at the 17 place in the purchase of these same bonds (for example, China in the first place) ...
      1. Anyone
        Anyone 5 January 2018 12: 19
        0
        Maybe we are on the 17th place in the list of the best buyers of US debt, but, pomnitsa, in 2017 Russia brought its investments in this asset to almost 100 billion dollars.
        1. MOSKVITYANIN
          MOSKVITYANIN 5 January 2018 13: 43
          0
          Quote: Anyone
          but, pomnitsa, in the 2017 year Russia brought its investments in this asset to almost 100 billion dollars.

          Now 82, so what?
          1. Town Hall
            Town Hall 5 January 2018 13: 52
            +1
            Quote: MOSKVITYANIN
            Now 82, so what?



            Proof does not complicate?
            1. MOSKVITYANIN
              MOSKVITYANIN 5 January 2018 14: 13
              0
              Quote: Town Hall
              Quote: MOSKVITYANIN
              Now 82, so what?



              Proof does not complicate?

              Top 17 US Bond Holders
              More details: http://www.vestifinance.ru/articles/71918
              1. Town Hall
                Town Hall 5 January 2018 14: 19
                +1
                Quote: MOSKVITYANIN
                Top 17 US Bond Holders
                More details: http://www.vestifinance.ru/articles/71918


                Not serious...

                Top 17 US Bond Holders

                16.06.2016 16:25



                Outside - January 2018 ...
                1. MOSKVITYANIN
                  MOSKVITYANIN 5 January 2018 14: 47
                  0
                  Town Hall Outside - January 2018 ...

                  As of at the end of December 2016 year Russia is at 18 place among holders of treasury bonds of the US Treasury. More details: https://investfuture.ru/articles/id/89895 © Investfuture.ru

                  US international lenders
                  Not only the Central Bank of the Russian Federation uses government bonds of the US Treasury. The largest lender to the United States is China. Since January 2017 of the year he has been holding about $ 1,246 trillion in American bills. In second place is Japan with its $ 1,122 trillion. A little further - Ireland ($ 295,8 billion) and Cayman Islands ($ 265 billion). Russia with her $ 108,7 billion located only on 13 location.

                  Article 12.11.2017 19:14
                  https://newsland.com/community/4109/content/finan
                  sovyi-likbez-zachem-rossiia-pokupaet-gosudarstven
                  nye-obligatsii-ssha-i-komu-eto-vygodno / 6077054
                  As you can see, the government bond market does not stand still, our limit in the history of modern Russia
                  This is almost as much as was invested. in 2014 yearat the moment of historical maximum. Three years ago, the accounts of the United States Treasury kept $ 108,9 billion Russian reserves.

                  see there
          2. Anyone
            Anyone 5 January 2018 14: 13
            +1
            Your "so what?" implies the need on my part to draw some kind of conclusion? It was 79, then 86, rose to 100, then dropped to 82, as you say. Are you observing any positive trend here? If yes, share it.
  17. tosha.chuhontzev
    tosha.chuhontzev 3 January 2018 15: 05
    +1
    Quote: Simon
    Quote: aKtoR
    It was not profitable for Europe to cut trade relations with the Russian Federation. Under pressure from overseas partners

    For that, it is profitable for us! Russia began to rise in its economy tongue

    The West has not yet imposed real sanctions. This is all propaganda hype. In principle, the Americans need a third world war on Eurasian territory. This will ensure their hegemony for another 100 years.
    1. MOSKVITYANIN
      MOSKVITYANIN 5 January 2018 14: 36
      0
      tosha.chuhontzev The West has not yet imposed real sanctions.

      That's right.
      In principle, the Americans need a third world war on Eurasian territory. This will ensure their hegemony for another 100 years.

      Eco You swung. Maybe they meant APR?
  18. ccsr
    ccsr 3 January 2018 22: 56
    0
    Quote: tosha.chuhontzev
    In principle, the Americans need a third world war on Eurasian territory. This will ensure their hegemony for another 100 years.

    What do they think they will sit over the oceans if they try to wage a nuclear war against Russia or China? Even American experts admit that 100 nuclear weapons that have reached US territory will completely undermine the country's economic power. And how do you connect all this with the THIRD World?
  19. ccsr
    ccsr 3 January 2018 22: 58
    0
    Quote: tosha.chuhontzev
    The West has not yet imposed real sanctions.

    Do you have any idea what the Iron Curtain is and why we used to send people into space at this time? Let us spit on all sanctions - our potential is so great and so reliably protected that the West will shake for many years after the collapse of the USSR.
  20. NordUral
    NordUral 6 January 2018 19: 43
    0
    In addition, the "opposed to the wall" opponents of the United States may be tempted (or rather, by decision of hopelessness) to use nuclear missiles (or other weapons of mass destruction) first out of fear of losing their nuclear missile (and indeed any other) potential.

    The worst thing is that a halfwit confident in his invulnerability, especially from the Anglo-Saxon elite.