These can decide on everything!
With the Western world as a potential adversary, Russia should not be under the illusion that it has an aversion to mass murder of any scale.
From media reports:
If this is not just another injection by the competent authorities, it is intended to completely confuse the potential enemy with a view to the Russian understanding of the nature of a future war, then it makes sense to look more closely at this theoretical work of the Emergencies Ministry.
And, above all, to note as an indisputable fact that the agency responsible for civil defense never in our stories not engaged in research in matters of military strategy and the nature of future wars. Such matters have always been the prerogative of the respective directorates of the General Staff, which brought their own vision of this global perspective to individual structures, in part regarding their contribution to the defense of the country.
Thus, it can be assumed that in this case, through the “scientific and methodological work” of the Ministry of Emergency Situations, some conceptual information from the depths of the General Staff of the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation was leaked, which, for good, should not have been the subject of public exposure.
In any case, it is quite obvious that its source is not from EMERCOM employees, who have something to do besides military strategy. Anyway, their initiative in this matter is completely excluded. And if this vision is at least consistent with the highest point of view in the military hierarchy, then inevitably the question arises as to the degree of adequacy.
So, judging by the “leakage” of the Ministry of Emergency Situations and taking it for granted that it is not a disorienting enemy throw, then it turns out that Russian military planning basically excludes such a form of warfare against the Russian Federation as “targeted attacks on the destruction of the civilian population of the Russian Federation ".
How solid is this conclusion? Especially considering the fact that a potential adversary of Russia is the NATO bloc led by the United States.
If we approach this topic in its historical retrospect, then the optimism of the authors of the EMERCOM labor looks, to put it mildly, not entirely justified. For none other than the United States of America, together with its ally Britain, historically have been the pioneers and the only in world history practical implementers of the strategy of a total air war, the main goal of which is precisely the complete destruction of the cities of the enemy along with their entire population.
This strategy was applied on a large scale against the civilian population of Germany and Japan during the Second World War. At the same time, the number of victims of massed bombings only in Germany and only according to official, probably underestimated, American data reached one million people. In fact, given the huge variation in estimates of the effects of air strikes (for example, according to Dresden - from 35 thousands to 250 thousands of dead), there is reason to believe that the number of casualties was a multiple of a higher one.
Which city is sleeping today? British Air Force commander Sir Charles Portal plans another massive raid. 1943 year.
As for Japan, here for the first time mass destruction of the civilian population of the US Air Force used nuclear weapons. Thus, there can be no question of the absence of a historical precedent for this military strategy in the case of the current likely adversary of the Russian Federation. As well as about the existence in the West of any moral and ethical taboos that completely exclude such a method of warfare.
It turns out that in the historical-value perspective, the conclusion sounded by the Ministry of Emergency Situations about the unreality of “targeted attacks on the destruction of the civilian population of the Russian Federation” clearly hangs in the air.
Another kind of argument in favor of such a statement is a military-strategic one, which also raises questions. It is clear that the authors of these conceptual calculations are based on the situation of nuclear-missile parity between the Russian Federation and the West, which allegedly excludes such actions due to Russia's potential for retaliatory strike.
At first glance, the way it is. However, it should not be forgotten that the West and, above all, the USA are actively developing their global missile defense system, the main purpose of which is to neutralize the response of the nuclear missile strike of the Russian Federation and, on this basis, to obtain unilateral, and decisive, military advantages. That will allow him with impunity to inflict a blow of any power and of any scale on the Russian Federation.
Thus, under certain circumstances, which cannot be completely excluded, especially from the issues of military planning, destroying strikes against Russian cities may well become an acceptable military-strategic goal for the West.
It is on the basis of this assumption that, by the way, Russia is actively working to improve the missile defense of the Moscow region, which it would hardly be worthwhile to do if we proceed from the fundamental unreality of the enemy attack against cities. Literally this week, at the Sary-Shagan test site in Kazakhstan, successful tests of the new anti-missile system ORS-1M were conducted.
Meanwhile, as reported, the Department of Civil Defense has already made a practical conclusion about the inexpediency of carrying out activities for the preparation of mass evacuation of the population (cities) in wartime. It is quite obvious that on refusal of such preparatory work, it is possible to achieve very substantial savings of public funds.
But at the same time, this means that if the West reaches the threshold of psychological readiness to attack against cities of the Russian Federation, which may be, for example, a consequence of its confidence in the reliability of its missile defense system, the civilian population of large administrative and industrial centers of Russia will not even have theoretical chances of survival. , due to the complete absence of a system of advance organizational measures of state bodies in such a case.
This is all the more regrettable that even a nuclear attack, as historical experience shows, does not lead to the complete death of the population, but it does require very large-scale efforts to overcome its consequences, evacuate the survivors and provide them with comprehensive assistance.
And this is not to mention the fact that the system of complete evacuation of the population of a large settlement must exist and be practically worked out even without dependence on the presence or absence of the threat of a nuclear attack. Especially in our age of large-scale industrial accidents and the threat of a repetition of disasters, such as Chernobyl or Fukushima. That is why the conclusion of the department that is directly responsible for rescuing the population in an emergency situation and, at the same time, excluding the possibility of a massive enemy attack from the list of such situations, seems to me somewhat strange and not quite logical.
From media reports:
The use of modern means of destruction, especially high-precision weapons, and the actions of sabotage groups could be the most likely scenario of a possible military conflict with Russia, according to a published scientific and methodological work of the Emergencies Ministry, according to RIA-news.
The authors of the study believe that the use of weapons of mass destruction, including nuclear, in a conflict with Russia is unlikely.
“When forecasting the situation, it is assumed that the target attack on the destruction of the civilian population of the Russian Federation is not inflicted by a potential adversary,” the document says.
Earlier it was reported that, taking into account modern views on the conduct of wars, the ministry proposes to abandon the practice of mass evacuation of the population in wartime
In the emergency services called the most likely scenarios of war with Russia
The authors of the study believe that the use of weapons of mass destruction, including nuclear, in a conflict with Russia is unlikely.
“When forecasting the situation, it is assumed that the target attack on the destruction of the civilian population of the Russian Federation is not inflicted by a potential adversary,” the document says.
Earlier it was reported that, taking into account modern views on the conduct of wars, the ministry proposes to abandon the practice of mass evacuation of the population in wartime
In the emergency services called the most likely scenarios of war with Russia
If this is not just another injection by the competent authorities, it is intended to completely confuse the potential enemy with a view to the Russian understanding of the nature of a future war, then it makes sense to look more closely at this theoretical work of the Emergencies Ministry.
And, above all, to note as an indisputable fact that the agency responsible for civil defense never in our stories not engaged in research in matters of military strategy and the nature of future wars. Such matters have always been the prerogative of the respective directorates of the General Staff, which brought their own vision of this global perspective to individual structures, in part regarding their contribution to the defense of the country.
Thus, it can be assumed that in this case, through the “scientific and methodological work” of the Ministry of Emergency Situations, some conceptual information from the depths of the General Staff of the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation was leaked, which, for good, should not have been the subject of public exposure.
In any case, it is quite obvious that its source is not from EMERCOM employees, who have something to do besides military strategy. Anyway, their initiative in this matter is completely excluded. And if this vision is at least consistent with the highest point of view in the military hierarchy, then inevitably the question arises as to the degree of adequacy.
So, judging by the “leakage” of the Ministry of Emergency Situations and taking it for granted that it is not a disorienting enemy throw, then it turns out that Russian military planning basically excludes such a form of warfare against the Russian Federation as “targeted attacks on the destruction of the civilian population of the Russian Federation ".
How solid is this conclusion? Especially considering the fact that a potential adversary of Russia is the NATO bloc led by the United States.
If we approach this topic in its historical retrospect, then the optimism of the authors of the EMERCOM labor looks, to put it mildly, not entirely justified. For none other than the United States of America, together with its ally Britain, historically have been the pioneers and the only in world history practical implementers of the strategy of a total air war, the main goal of which is precisely the complete destruction of the cities of the enemy along with their entire population.
This strategy was applied on a large scale against the civilian population of Germany and Japan during the Second World War. At the same time, the number of victims of massed bombings only in Germany and only according to official, probably underestimated, American data reached one million people. In fact, given the huge variation in estimates of the effects of air strikes (for example, according to Dresden - from 35 thousands to 250 thousands of dead), there is reason to believe that the number of casualties was a multiple of a higher one.
Which city is sleeping today? British Air Force commander Sir Charles Portal plans another massive raid. 1943 year.
As for Japan, here for the first time mass destruction of the civilian population of the US Air Force used nuclear weapons. Thus, there can be no question of the absence of a historical precedent for this military strategy in the case of the current likely adversary of the Russian Federation. As well as about the existence in the West of any moral and ethical taboos that completely exclude such a method of warfare.
It turns out that in the historical-value perspective, the conclusion sounded by the Ministry of Emergency Situations about the unreality of “targeted attacks on the destruction of the civilian population of the Russian Federation” clearly hangs in the air.
Another kind of argument in favor of such a statement is a military-strategic one, which also raises questions. It is clear that the authors of these conceptual calculations are based on the situation of nuclear-missile parity between the Russian Federation and the West, which allegedly excludes such actions due to Russia's potential for retaliatory strike.
At first glance, the way it is. However, it should not be forgotten that the West and, above all, the USA are actively developing their global missile defense system, the main purpose of which is to neutralize the response of the nuclear missile strike of the Russian Federation and, on this basis, to obtain unilateral, and decisive, military advantages. That will allow him with impunity to inflict a blow of any power and of any scale on the Russian Federation.
Thus, under certain circumstances, which cannot be completely excluded, especially from the issues of military planning, destroying strikes against Russian cities may well become an acceptable military-strategic goal for the West.
It is on the basis of this assumption that, by the way, Russia is actively working to improve the missile defense of the Moscow region, which it would hardly be worthwhile to do if we proceed from the fundamental unreality of the enemy attack against cities. Literally this week, at the Sary-Shagan test site in Kazakhstan, successful tests of the new anti-missile system ORS-1M were conducted.
Meanwhile, as reported, the Department of Civil Defense has already made a practical conclusion about the inexpediency of carrying out activities for the preparation of mass evacuation of the population (cities) in wartime. It is quite obvious that on refusal of such preparatory work, it is possible to achieve very substantial savings of public funds.
But at the same time, this means that if the West reaches the threshold of psychological readiness to attack against cities of the Russian Federation, which may be, for example, a consequence of its confidence in the reliability of its missile defense system, the civilian population of large administrative and industrial centers of Russia will not even have theoretical chances of survival. , due to the complete absence of a system of advance organizational measures of state bodies in such a case.
This is all the more regrettable that even a nuclear attack, as historical experience shows, does not lead to the complete death of the population, but it does require very large-scale efforts to overcome its consequences, evacuate the survivors and provide them with comprehensive assistance.
And this is not to mention the fact that the system of complete evacuation of the population of a large settlement must exist and be practically worked out even without dependence on the presence or absence of the threat of a nuclear attack. Especially in our age of large-scale industrial accidents and the threat of a repetition of disasters, such as Chernobyl or Fukushima. That is why the conclusion of the department that is directly responsible for rescuing the population in an emergency situation and, at the same time, excluding the possibility of a massive enemy attack from the list of such situations, seems to me somewhat strange and not quite logical.
Information