Limited nuclear exchange. Russia starts and wins?
Read with great interest article by Dmitry Verkhoturovdevoted to the analysis of some variants of military actions with the use of nuclear weaponsI confess I was stunned a little.
Firstly, from the fact that I am in some way a monopolist in the topic of discussion of nuclear strikes. In any case, in the public media space I was until now the only one who openly analyzed scenarios of a nuclear conflict. I am even the author of the Doctrine of Limited Nuclear Exchange. It is clear that these issues are being discussed not publicly, with the involvement of highly classified and equally well-informed experts, and not my calculations, but their calculations, lie on the General Staff table, but about fifty years later we will find out.
Secondly, a cursory analysis of Dmitry’s article shows that he followed the beaten path, but not always the right path of apology at the other extreme, which simply rejects old views and concepts, instead offering something almost diametrically opposite.
So, let's try to analyze some theses of Dmitry, and then offer a more realistic, in my opinion, scenario in the event of a military conflict between Russia and NATO.
First of all, I must agree with the author that the “deafening” and all-destructive power of nuclear weapons is a bit exaggerated. The terrible cadres of burned Japanese cities at one time made such a depressing impression on the public that the myth about the fundamental impossibility of nuclear war instantly appeared. True, this myth was not very believed by the military, who, by the nature of their service, need to have stronger nerves. Therefore, the nuclear arsenals of the United States and the USSR steadily grew and strengthened, and the USSR even conducted rather cruel, but probably necessary experiments to study the effects of a nuclear explosion on large concentrations of people and technology.
I do not believe in the terrible and all-consuming picture of the “nuclear winter”, which the most “conscientious” scientists draw it. You see, when we are offered a scenario of such a global cooling because of the dustiness of the atmosphere, that from frost oxygen and nitrogen fall out of the atmosphere to the earth in the form of either frost or snow, I always want to ask: where is the dust in this case? Will it continue to fly freely in the atmosphere, preventing sunlight from penetrating to the surface of the earth? But how, if, according to your “calculations”, there is almost no atmosphere left?
That is, such terrible scenarios are absolutely definitely written not by scientists, but by specialists in duping people. Or just fools, you forgive. And to seriously discuss it does not make sense either in the first or in the second case.
And yet, in no case should one go to the opposite extreme, stating that a major (total) nuclear conflict will have absolutely no climatic consequences.
Also, do not underestimate other aspects of a nuclear strike. In particular, according to a study by Matthew Kroenig, a professor at Georgetown University, America will lose a total of up to 150 cities and about a hundred million inhabitants in the course of two waves of massive strikes by the Russian strategic nuclear forces. One can agree with these assessments, one can argue with them, but one thing is indisputable: for both sides of the conflict the losses will be almost fatal, because the state can probably survive after such losses, but it is unlikely to recover.
By the way, other estimates of which we are aware also start from fifty million direct losses in the USA alone. And to imagine that the leadership of a country voluntarily will go to such a terrible step because of someone’s commercial interests is quite difficult. Yes, they are “reptilians”, they are murderers and hanged men, but, oddly enough, for the most part they are also patriots. And for some reason I am sure that the American generals will rather hang their Soros and Rockefellers than give one hundred million Americans to the slaughter.
But, in addition to direct losses, there will be deferred, which in the medium and long term can also be estimated at least in tens of millions of people. There will be a climatic catastrophe: not as cruel as the "scientists" write about it, but still very serious. The consequences can probably be compared with the eruption of a supervolcano like Yellowstone, as a result of which the temperature on Earth will noticeably drop. The result of the fall in the average temperature of at least five degrees is very sad and is not fully computed. But the total, global hunger and the beginning of the next glaciation of the Earth can be predicted with a high degree of probability.
Anticipating objections based on a simple recalculation of the power of ordinary bombs dropped during the Second World War, I note: the specifics of the explosions are still very different. If during a conventional explosion, dust rises by tens, sometimes hundreds of meters, and if there are no strong winds, it quickly settles without rising to kilometer heights with their steady wind flows at a speed of hundreds of kilometers per hour, then a nuclear explosion guaranteed (I will emphasize this word) raises a part dust emission to a height of ten kilometers or more.
Therefore, the danger of a nuclear weapon for climate in comparison with conventional weapons can be safely multiplied by ten, or even by one hundred.
Also, the author’s reasoning about the transfer of industries, including the military, outside the United States, and the mobilization of the resources of the whole world under the flag of the United States and NATO, also look rather dubious.
First of all, if there is a total nuclear exchange, the blows will also fall on American bases outside the metropolis. The military influence of Washington on the allies will instantly come to naught, not to mention the states connected with the USA not by ideological or civilizational ties, but by a commonplace commercial interest. And such, in general, the absolute majority.
The US itself will turn from an economic supergiant into a stunted dying economic dwarf. The dollar will collapse automatically and almost instantly, and if it is used somewhere, then it may be a kindling.
And most importantly, everyone, as far as possible, will try to distance themselves from the distraught superpowers, and neither the United States nor Russia will receive any military or industrial support. Any kind of consolidation of the remaining relatively whole states is possible only on the idea of a general overcoming of the consequences of a total catastrophe, and it is unlikely that even some people will put their own people into this nuclear hell.
In general, everything is quite sad. And it is unlikely that a state that is at the peak of its power and prosperity will go for it. Americans should not be considered idiots - they have achieved so much, also because the analyst has always been greatly honored there.
Now let a few words about the script more real. Namely, the doctrine of limited nuclear exchange, which I mentioned above.
The situation in the world is very difficult. And, unfortunately, it may turn out that Russia will have to decide on extraordinary measures in order to prevent another trampling of its vital interests.
And since Moscow is obviously not ready for a lengthy war of attrition, and the experience of 1941 of the year has too deeply crashed into the genetic memory of the Russian people, we are unlikely to hide the nuclear club for a long time in a zagashnik.
On the other hand, as we clarified above, a full-scale nuclear conflict is clearly not in the interests of both main parties to the alleged conflict. This means that in such a situation the transfer of nuclear “fights” to the territory of third countries looks most logical.
For Russia, in this case, American bases and military facilities in the territory of NATO countries and beyond, with the exception of nuclear states like France and the UK, will be adequate targets. Without affecting the critical infrastructure of these states at the first stage, as a result of even a small nuclear strike on a few number of objects, Moscow can achieve a tremendous panic effect and effectively remove the US allies from the game. In any case, the actual disintegration of NATO and the seizure by the armed forces of Germany, Italy or Spain of American military facilities on their own territory can be predicted with a high degree of probability.
Americans will definitely want to answer. But their problem is that Russia does not have too many military facilities outside its national territory. Yes, the USA can strike at Baikonur, at other objects in Central Asia or in Syria. But in response, they will receive a second, more powerful, wave of nuclear strikes from Russia on their targets. And among them there are a lot of critically important for the entire US military infrastructure: the bases in Okinawa or Diego Garcia, for example, in their military significance, each outweighs all that the Russian Federation has beyond its borders.
But the Americans for the second wave of "response" will have almost no suitable targets: alas, Russia's military presence abroad is very small. Well, except to re-bomb Baikonur. And we will find targets for the third and fourth “call” - the American military presence in the world is extremely wide and diverse, and the goals for our monoblock Topol are just apparently invisible.
And the escalation of the conflict under this option is guaranteed to lead the Americans either to a military catastrophe and loss of influence in the world, or to the need to transfer the conflict to a higher level. But we wrote about him above and came to the conclusion that he is unlikely to seem tempting to someone.
Actually, the whole modern diplomatic game boils down to the fact that Russia has the opportunity to go with trumps that are not even fighting with the combined power of NATO. And to that, in general, there is a lot of indirect evidence: US Secretary of Defense Ashton Carter, an extremely informed person, and not second-hand, will say in his heart that Russia is “rattling nuclear weapons”, then Wesley Clark, a retired high-ranking American general, will suddenly declare that the US will not leave Poland if Russia strikes a nuclear strike on it. Of course, we have such important reservations blamed on the fact that “the American hawks are completely crazy about their Russophobia,” and in fact we are peaceful sheep. But it worked, until V. Putin once said that we do not need a world in which Russia will not remain.
And here, probably, it would be necessary to believe in the seriousness of what is happening, since Putin cannot be counted among the American “Russophobe hawks”.
Firstly, from the fact that I am in some way a monopolist in the topic of discussion of nuclear strikes. In any case, in the public media space I was until now the only one who openly analyzed scenarios of a nuclear conflict. I am even the author of the Doctrine of Limited Nuclear Exchange. It is clear that these issues are being discussed not publicly, with the involvement of highly classified and equally well-informed experts, and not my calculations, but their calculations, lie on the General Staff table, but about fifty years later we will find out.
Secondly, a cursory analysis of Dmitry’s article shows that he followed the beaten path, but not always the right path of apology at the other extreme, which simply rejects old views and concepts, instead offering something almost diametrically opposite.
So, let's try to analyze some theses of Dmitry, and then offer a more realistic, in my opinion, scenario in the event of a military conflict between Russia and NATO.
First of all, I must agree with the author that the “deafening” and all-destructive power of nuclear weapons is a bit exaggerated. The terrible cadres of burned Japanese cities at one time made such a depressing impression on the public that the myth about the fundamental impossibility of nuclear war instantly appeared. True, this myth was not very believed by the military, who, by the nature of their service, need to have stronger nerves. Therefore, the nuclear arsenals of the United States and the USSR steadily grew and strengthened, and the USSR even conducted rather cruel, but probably necessary experiments to study the effects of a nuclear explosion on large concentrations of people and technology.
I do not believe in the terrible and all-consuming picture of the “nuclear winter”, which the most “conscientious” scientists draw it. You see, when we are offered a scenario of such a global cooling because of the dustiness of the atmosphere, that from frost oxygen and nitrogen fall out of the atmosphere to the earth in the form of either frost or snow, I always want to ask: where is the dust in this case? Will it continue to fly freely in the atmosphere, preventing sunlight from penetrating to the surface of the earth? But how, if, according to your “calculations”, there is almost no atmosphere left?
That is, such terrible scenarios are absolutely definitely written not by scientists, but by specialists in duping people. Or just fools, you forgive. And to seriously discuss it does not make sense either in the first or in the second case.
And yet, in no case should one go to the opposite extreme, stating that a major (total) nuclear conflict will have absolutely no climatic consequences.
Also, do not underestimate other aspects of a nuclear strike. In particular, according to a study by Matthew Kroenig, a professor at Georgetown University, America will lose a total of up to 150 cities and about a hundred million inhabitants in the course of two waves of massive strikes by the Russian strategic nuclear forces. One can agree with these assessments, one can argue with them, but one thing is indisputable: for both sides of the conflict the losses will be almost fatal, because the state can probably survive after such losses, but it is unlikely to recover.
By the way, other estimates of which we are aware also start from fifty million direct losses in the USA alone. And to imagine that the leadership of a country voluntarily will go to such a terrible step because of someone’s commercial interests is quite difficult. Yes, they are “reptilians”, they are murderers and hanged men, but, oddly enough, for the most part they are also patriots. And for some reason I am sure that the American generals will rather hang their Soros and Rockefellers than give one hundred million Americans to the slaughter.
But, in addition to direct losses, there will be deferred, which in the medium and long term can also be estimated at least in tens of millions of people. There will be a climatic catastrophe: not as cruel as the "scientists" write about it, but still very serious. The consequences can probably be compared with the eruption of a supervolcano like Yellowstone, as a result of which the temperature on Earth will noticeably drop. The result of the fall in the average temperature of at least five degrees is very sad and is not fully computed. But the total, global hunger and the beginning of the next glaciation of the Earth can be predicted with a high degree of probability.
Anticipating objections based on a simple recalculation of the power of ordinary bombs dropped during the Second World War, I note: the specifics of the explosions are still very different. If during a conventional explosion, dust rises by tens, sometimes hundreds of meters, and if there are no strong winds, it quickly settles without rising to kilometer heights with their steady wind flows at a speed of hundreds of kilometers per hour, then a nuclear explosion guaranteed (I will emphasize this word) raises a part dust emission to a height of ten kilometers or more.
Therefore, the danger of a nuclear weapon for climate in comparison with conventional weapons can be safely multiplied by ten, or even by one hundred.
Also, the author’s reasoning about the transfer of industries, including the military, outside the United States, and the mobilization of the resources of the whole world under the flag of the United States and NATO, also look rather dubious.
First of all, if there is a total nuclear exchange, the blows will also fall on American bases outside the metropolis. The military influence of Washington on the allies will instantly come to naught, not to mention the states connected with the USA not by ideological or civilizational ties, but by a commonplace commercial interest. And such, in general, the absolute majority.
The US itself will turn from an economic supergiant into a stunted dying economic dwarf. The dollar will collapse automatically and almost instantly, and if it is used somewhere, then it may be a kindling.
And most importantly, everyone, as far as possible, will try to distance themselves from the distraught superpowers, and neither the United States nor Russia will receive any military or industrial support. Any kind of consolidation of the remaining relatively whole states is possible only on the idea of a general overcoming of the consequences of a total catastrophe, and it is unlikely that even some people will put their own people into this nuclear hell.
In general, everything is quite sad. And it is unlikely that a state that is at the peak of its power and prosperity will go for it. Americans should not be considered idiots - they have achieved so much, also because the analyst has always been greatly honored there.
Now let a few words about the script more real. Namely, the doctrine of limited nuclear exchange, which I mentioned above.
The situation in the world is very difficult. And, unfortunately, it may turn out that Russia will have to decide on extraordinary measures in order to prevent another trampling of its vital interests.
And since Moscow is obviously not ready for a lengthy war of attrition, and the experience of 1941 of the year has too deeply crashed into the genetic memory of the Russian people, we are unlikely to hide the nuclear club for a long time in a zagashnik.
On the other hand, as we clarified above, a full-scale nuclear conflict is clearly not in the interests of both main parties to the alleged conflict. This means that in such a situation the transfer of nuclear “fights” to the territory of third countries looks most logical.
For Russia, in this case, American bases and military facilities in the territory of NATO countries and beyond, with the exception of nuclear states like France and the UK, will be adequate targets. Without affecting the critical infrastructure of these states at the first stage, as a result of even a small nuclear strike on a few number of objects, Moscow can achieve a tremendous panic effect and effectively remove the US allies from the game. In any case, the actual disintegration of NATO and the seizure by the armed forces of Germany, Italy or Spain of American military facilities on their own territory can be predicted with a high degree of probability.
Americans will definitely want to answer. But their problem is that Russia does not have too many military facilities outside its national territory. Yes, the USA can strike at Baikonur, at other objects in Central Asia or in Syria. But in response, they will receive a second, more powerful, wave of nuclear strikes from Russia on their targets. And among them there are a lot of critically important for the entire US military infrastructure: the bases in Okinawa or Diego Garcia, for example, in their military significance, each outweighs all that the Russian Federation has beyond its borders.
But the Americans for the second wave of "response" will have almost no suitable targets: alas, Russia's military presence abroad is very small. Well, except to re-bomb Baikonur. And we will find targets for the third and fourth “call” - the American military presence in the world is extremely wide and diverse, and the goals for our monoblock Topol are just apparently invisible.
And the escalation of the conflict under this option is guaranteed to lead the Americans either to a military catastrophe and loss of influence in the world, or to the need to transfer the conflict to a higher level. But we wrote about him above and came to the conclusion that he is unlikely to seem tempting to someone.
Actually, the whole modern diplomatic game boils down to the fact that Russia has the opportunity to go with trumps that are not even fighting with the combined power of NATO. And to that, in general, there is a lot of indirect evidence: US Secretary of Defense Ashton Carter, an extremely informed person, and not second-hand, will say in his heart that Russia is “rattling nuclear weapons”, then Wesley Clark, a retired high-ranking American general, will suddenly declare that the US will not leave Poland if Russia strikes a nuclear strike on it. Of course, we have such important reservations blamed on the fact that “the American hawks are completely crazy about their Russophobia,” and in fact we are peaceful sheep. But it worked, until V. Putin once said that we do not need a world in which Russia will not remain.
And here, probably, it would be necessary to believe in the seriousness of what is happening, since Putin cannot be counted among the American “Russophobe hawks”.
Information