The main elements of the armed forces of the Russian Federation, which minimize the likelihood of large-scale aggression against our country, are strategic nuclear forces (SNF). In its current form, the strategic nuclear forces of the Russian Federation are a classic nuclear triad, which includes strategic missile forces, naval strategic forces and strategic Aviationcapable of striking an order of one and a half thousand nuclear charges. The ratio of the number of charges between the components of the strategic nuclear forces can vary, but in general, the strategic nuclear forces structure inherited by Russia from the USSR is preserved. The ground component of strategic nuclear forces is predominant.




Tactical nuclear weaponThe weapons of the Russian Federation are about two thousand warheads for various purposes.

According to the existing version of the military doctrine, the Russian Federation reserves the right to use nuclear weapons in response to the use of nuclear and other weapons of mass destruction against it and (or) its allies, as well as in case of aggression against the Russian Federation using conventional weapons when threatened the very existence of the state.

The structure of the United States SNF generally corresponds to the structure of the Russian (USSR) SNF, with the difference that the naval component is dominant in the United States.

In other countries of the nuclear club, there is about the same picture, adjusted for the absence or underdevelopment of some components of the strategic nuclear forces and the lower potential of carriers and warheads.

A distinctive feature of the strategic nuclear forces of Russia, the United States and other countries of the world is a narrow specialization: ensuring the deterrence of the enemy from a full-scale attack, including with the use of nuclear weapons. Strategic nuclear forces can not prevent the enemy, to carry out hostile actions, such as organizing coups d'état, organizing local conflicts on the borders or even on the territory of the object of aggression, taking measures of economic and political pressure and other similar hostile actions. In this regard, the SNF is a useless load on the state budget and the armed forces, limiting the development of general-purpose forces.

After the collapse of the USSR, the developers of the US nuclear strategy concluded that the new era of international relations is characterized by the presence of numerous potential opponents, sources of conflicts and unprecedented challenges, as well as a spectrum of difficultly predictable scenarios. Compared to the era of the Cold War, the world has become more dangerous and unpredictable for the United States. As a result, the existing containment policy, which was based on a nuclear confrontation with one country, the Soviet Union, must be adapted to the new conditions.

According to the new US nuclear strategy, the traditional triad of nuclear forces was supposed to be transformed into a triad consisting of nuclear and non-nuclear strategic forces, active and passive anti-missile defense systems (PRO) of global coverage, as well as a flexible, capable of recreating infrastructure of testing, production and the combat use of strategic nuclear and non-nuclear weapons united by a communications, reconnaissance and control system based on new information technologies.


Image taken from pentagonus.ru


In the new US nuclear triad, components such as the presence of a global missile defense system, a non-nuclear component of strategic forces in which it was planned to include means of rapid global strike, and a highly effective command and control intelligence system to quickly identify targets should be highlighted.

Also, low-power nuclear charges were considered as means of operational use, the use of which, according to the US, can be justified in some regional conflict scenarios. For some time the theme of the so-called active clean nuclear charges, which leave virtually no radioactive contamination after themselves and can be widely used in local conflicts. However, no detailed information on this area is currently available.

In recent years, the Russian Federation is facing increasing pressure from Western countries, primarily the United States. The main instrument of the United States in this matter is an instrument of economic sanctions. Using the available economic and political instruments, the United States imposes participation in sanctions against the Russian Federation to countries one way or another connected with the American economy.

In addition, military rhetoric is escalating. Under the guise of alleged breaches by Russia of a treaty on the elimination of medium-range and shorter-range missiles (DDSMD), the United States threatens to withdraw from this treaty, as they previously withdrew from the ABM treaty.

The list of existing and potential threats at the beginning of 2019:

The threat of US withdrawal from the INF Treaty, expressed in the ultimatum form, is already 2 February 2019, Washington will be able to start the procedure for exiting the agreement.


For Russia, the deployment of medium-range missiles and cruise missiles means a significant reduction in the time taken to make a decision and launch a retaliatory strike, as well as a decrease in the number of missiles for retaliation.

Placement of launchers of conventional weapons on the borders of the Russian Federation, positioned as elements of US missile defense.

Actually, this can be considered as preparatory measures for the previous item. In the event that the United States leaves the INF Treaty, cruise missiles with a nuclear and conventional warhead can be deployed in universal launchers. In the future, as the United States develops medium-range missiles, they can be placed on the same bases of US vassals, where missile defense elements are now deployed.

Economic sanctions.

The list of economic sanctions is constantly expanding and has a significant impact on the Russian economy. In addition to the sanctions that are already in force, the uncertainty factor for both parties has a significant effect. In particular, the supplier of sophisticated high-tech equipment may in the future abandon its support services, under the pretext of a new package of sanctions, in turn, the Russian buyer must take this factor into account when purchasing. The complete import substitution ... Firstly, in the conditions of the modern world, with a monstrously overgrown technology tree, it is not at all capable of any country in the world, including the United States. Secondly, it is definitely impossible in Russia, given the collapse of the industry for several decades and the loss of many critical industries.

Creating hostile regimes and hotbeds of tension on the borders of the Russian Federation.

Geographical isolation - the impossibility of transporting goods, laying pipelines, the impossibility of moving the armed forces. Breaking economic ties and the need to respond to the emergence of a zone of instability. In the future, the provision of bridgeheads for the deployment of nuclear or conventional weapons of medium and shorter range.

Political pressure.

Adoption at the level of international organizations and at the intergovernmental level of declarations and resolutions defining Russia as an aggressor country with an illegitimate regime. Summing up the political base for the further imposition of economic sanctions and legitimization of hostile actions against Russia.

Information impact at all levels.

Blackening of any information originating from Russia, starting from programs News and ending with children's cartoons. Psychological preparation of the population of Western countries for aggression against Russia, focusing on Russia as the main source of world problems. Distortion of historical facts, including the role of the USSR in World War II.

If you extrapolate the above actions, they directly lead to a transition from the Cold War to a real “hot” conflict. And from here to a full-scale nuclear war close. Given the potential of the Russian strategic nuclear forces, it is unlikely that someone will dare to direct armed aggression, but sometimes the logic of the emergence and development of armed conflicts does not meet the expectations of their participants. Example: in the event of an escalation of the situation in Ukraine, a regional conflict with the participation of Russia, Ukraine and NATO countries may begin with unpredictable consequences.

No less serious threat are economic sanctions. As mentioned earlier, in the modern world, no one, even the largest country, can develop normally without interaction with other countries, without adopting someone else's experience and not participating in scientific research. Taking advantage of the attractiveness of its economy, market capacity and high purchasing power of the population, the United States is forcing economic entities from other countries not interested in sanctions against Russia to participate in them under the threat of restricting access to US company technologies and sales markets.

An example of the effectiveness of such sanctions. In April, 2018, the US Department of Commerce imposed a seven-year ban on the purchase of ZTE products by American technology companies because of violations of the sanctions regime against Iran and North Korea. For ZTE, this decision almost turned into a complete collapse of the company, and only “having gone to repentance” in the United States and paying billions in fines, the company was able to stay afloat.

How can we cool the ardor of our Western partners and their accomplices?

As one of the effective means, it is possible to suggest the reorganization of the Russian strategic nuclear forces.


All the measures listed below can be taken simultaneously or in stages in response to the US withdrawal from the INF mode or, for example, exceeding a certain critical threshold of economic sanctions.

1. Exit from all contracts limiting the number and means of delivery of nuclear weapons.

Nuclear weapons are necessary so that war does not start. The smaller it is, the greater the desire to "try." It is guaranteed destruction that makes war unacceptable to all parties. For us, it does not matter at all whether the US will have 10 000 warheads, we need to have enough of them to ensure that all targets are hit in conditions of a retaliatory and retaliatory strike. In this sense, 10 000 warheads in the United States and 5000 warheads in Russia are better than in 1 500 units both in our country and in theirs. Moreover, with an increase in the number of warheads, the factor of difference in the volume of a nuclear arsenal will play an ever smaller role. Moreover, we are already concluding agreements on limitation with the United States, not taking into account the nuclear arsenals of other NATO countries and Israel. With a decrease in the total number of warheads in Russia and the United States, their contribution is becoming more significant.

An exception must be made in this paragraph - to keep the treaty on the non-deployment of nuclear weapons in space.

2. The maximum secrecy in terms of the nomenclature and the number of strategic nuclear forces is similar to how it is implemented in the PRC.

What is the point of helping the enemy to prepare for the first strike, as well as to protect against our retaliatory strike?

3. Shift the emphasis in international cooperation on ensuring maximum awareness of launches, to avoid accidental exchange of nuclear strikes.

4. Inclusion of anti-missile defense elements and high-precision conventional long-range weapons in the Russian strategic nuclear forces.

Modeled on the updated triad of the US Strategic Nuclear Forces, to increase the flexibility of use and effective use in a limited conflict.

5. "Personalization" of a nuclear strike.

At this point it is necessary to dwell in more detail.

Exact lists of nuclear weapons targets are classified. At the end of 2018 of the year, the US National Archives and Records Administration published a list of targets for nuclear missile strikes in the USSR developed by 50-ies of the last century, where item 275 - “population” looks most impressive. The list itself is an 800-page document marked as secret. It was developed by the Strategic Aviation Command in 1956 for the war, which could well have happened about three years after the creation of the list. It was planned to destroy the population, because, in the opinion of the military of that time, the enemy, both soldiers and civilians, should have been demoralized.

According to open sources, a modern list of US targets for Russia is contained in the plan of operations CONPLAN-8044 (perhaps there is already an updated document). In general terms, its content is known.

If necessary, the American president can choose from four options for delivering a nuclear strike (Major Attack Option, MAO). MAO-1 involves an attack on all components of the Russian nuclear forces and the entire infrastructure for the creation and functioning of nuclear weapons: plants, the fleetstrategic aviation, missile silos, radar, satellite communications, telecommunications, etc. In MAO-2, these military targets are supplemented by conventional military bases and large airfields. Both options intentionally spare politicians and a significant part of the army leadership - so that it was with whom to negotiate surrender. With the implementation of MAO-3, a pair of warheads will go to them. And finally, MAO-4 is the most uncompromising bombardment: in addition to all the previous, nuclear strikes are carried out at economic targets - the fuel and energy complex and large, primarily defense, industries. In total, such a blow is designed for 1000-1200 targets and suggests that from 8 to 12 million Russians will die.

It is obvious that in Russia there is a similar document, including certain lists of goals.

This document is proposed to supplement the open part, which includes a dynamic (updated) list of goals.

These goals are the actors of international politics whose actions are directed against the interests of the Russian Federation and whose actions bring closer or may bring the beginning of a “hot” conflict that could develop into a full-scale nuclear war.


Currently, there are a huge number of people who conduct active hostile, anti-Russian activities: journalists, politicians, opening organizations and closed clubs. Often these people and their property are located on the territory of third countries not involved in the conflict. In the case of the outbreak of hostilities, even under the worst scenario, they may hope to sit out in a cozy bunker in New Zealand or in a villa in Latin America.

For those who are poorer:


Bunker "Mini 8 × 12". Price 39 000 dollars. Information from risingsbunkers.com


For those richer:

Power conversion

Bunker "Aristocrat." Price 8 350 000 dollars. Information from risingsbunkers.com


Some politicians may think that his country is too small and does not have military value, so it is unlikely that it will be in jeopardy, and it’s very desirable to provide political capital for opposing the “Evil Empire”.

The task of the fifth point is to convey to those hostile to Russia and their environment, regardless of citizenship, country of residence, profession or position, that in the event of a conflict, their actions will not go unpunished.

In fact, this will make the SNF an element of information warfare.


The list should include an open and closed part. In some cases, only the identity of the goal can be indicated, but the property is not indicated, since she may be in a friendly country. Also for political reasons, most likely, the leaders of the states and their closest circle will not be indicated (although this is not a dogma).

Also in the closed part of the list will be strategic goals - military and industrial facilities from existing secret documents.

A multilateral commission, including representatives of various branches of government and security agencies, should work on creating an open list of goals. After the list of targets is approved, the intelligence structures ensure maximum disclosure of information on the target - real estate objects in property or in rent, place of stay, etc.

Then this information is placed on the official state website, up to indicating the types of warheads that will be applied to specific objects. The site, in addition to the text part, must contain a graphic part on which it will be possible to see in the zone of what damaging factors of a nuclear explosion there will be one or another object. Example of implementation: https://outrider.org/nuclear-weapons/interactive/bomb-blast/.


Image from outrider.org


The open list may include not only people, but also government facilities - for example, the US missile defense base in Romania. Perhaps a clear understanding of how many kilotons will fly to them in the event of a conflict, will force the population to actively counteract the involvement of their country in the conflicts of great powers.

How can the fifth point affect the above threats? Presumably, in addition to exerting psychological pressure directly on hostile individuals, secondary effects may also appear. For example, the cost of land on which objects of potential targets are located will decrease. In turn, this may cause discontent among landowners of nearby plots, refusals to sell or to purchase such plots. Such secondary financial pressure (“nuclear marketing”) may be more effective than an immediate threat to life. In the end, you want to disperse the crowd of a million - announce the collection of money ...

Some countries may even deny the right to enter and purchase real estate on their territory to persons from the list.

In addition to the "stick", it is assumed, and "gingerbread." Since the list is supposed to be dynamic, in the event of a policy change, the adoption of decisions that are positive for Russia, the closure of the US bases, etc., the targets are excluded from the list. Make your own neutral from the use of nuclear weapons - what is not the goal for the politician?

In this decision, it seems to me, there is also some kind of justice in the fact that the consequences of the conflict will be eased not only by some abstract John, who hates Russia, as far as he is receptive to TV news, but by the direct participants and organizers of the show.

Can potential opponents respond to the fifth point symmetrically? Hardly ever. It so happened that the actors of our policy prefer to invest in real estate in Western countries, i.e. they will actually have to strike their territory. As for confiscations, it can be carried out now, within the framework of existing economic sanctions.

Technically, the implementation of the fifth point will require effective interaction between the strategic nuclear forces and reconnaissance structures, as well as, possibly, the creation of compact warheads with minimal power (5-10 kilotons) and dimensions, but with high accuracy.

The smallest ammunition is based on the 152-mm artillery projectile. The combat unit for a ballistic missile, of course, will be more, due to thermal protection and guidance systems, but in general it is possible to hope that modern technologies will make it possible to obtain the necessary product in minimum dimensions.


The smallest nuclear weapon ever used is the 152-mm artillery shell developed by VNIITF. Image from starcom68.livejournal.com


As carriers - medium-range missiles for targets in Europe and Asia and intercontinental ballistic missiles for remote regions. Separately, it is necessary to allocate a promising missile "Sarmat". Its capabilities will make it possible to deliver warheads even to New Zealand, which is often considered a safe place in the event of a global conflict.

Minimizing the size of warheads will increase their number on one carrier, which, in turn, will allow to reduce the cost of deploying this element of the strategic nuclear forces. For Sarmat-type missiles, it is declared from 10 to 15 warheads, depending on power (usually 100-300 kilotons). For low power charges, good results would be on a carrier of this class of order 30-40 warheads.

And finally, the inclusion of conventional means of destruction in the SNF will make it possible to break the destruction of targets into stages when some targets are hit with non-nuclear weapons during the period of threat. For example, the leaders of the same Ukraine will think three times over to bring our nations to a fraternal war, realizing that they themselves will be the first victims. And it's far from a fact that after such a demonstration, the United States or one of the EU countries will decide to “fit in”. As Henry Kissinger said: "Great powers do not sacrifice themselves for the sake of allies."

How much should it be financially costly? It all depends on how many additional targets appear, how much it will be possible to miniaturize warheads, how many and on what carriers they can be placed. Since not in all directions of impact there will be missile defense systems, then on a part of the carriers, it is possible to abandon the means of breakthrough, false blocks, to reduce the cost.

How many warheads do you need, subject to withdrawal from contracts to limit the number of warheads? Here we return to the previous question.

Finally, the voiced scenario can be used as a means of political pressure. Those. plans and intentions can be declared, preliminary preparations begin. In the future, depending on the development of events, this scenario can be partially implemented or canceled completely, as well as fully implemented.

Summarizing, we can say that it is not a fact that Russia will be the initiators of withdrawing from the treaties on the limitation of nuclear weapons. If the US decides that it is profitable for them, then they will do it without hesitation: they do not have the determination to denounce the contracts. One should not rely on the fact that their industry in terms of the production of nuclear weapons is going through far from the best of times. There will be a task - they will solve it, their scientific base and industry are colossal. In my opinion, it is better to take the initiative themselves, rather than swim in the direction of someone else's policies.
Ctrl Enter

Noticed a mistake Highlight text and press. Ctrl + Enter

26 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Same lech 15 January 2019 05: 40 New
    • 9
    • 0
    +9
    Actual article ... but I must disagree with the author on this line ...
    How can we cool the ardor of our Western partners and their accomplices?

    Andrei listed a number of military measures.
    The paradox is that Russia can inflict a military defeat on its enemies guaranteed ... but again this will not be a victory, but only a won battle in a long war with the West ... recovering from the slaps the conquistadors of the West will attack again and can continue to infinity.
    So the emphasis in the confrontation should be on economic measures against the West ... here we are weak ... here we have the Achilles heel in which our enemies constantly beat ... for me this becomes every year more and more obvious.
    In the 60-s of the last century, the West had a big panic after the sharp economic take-off of the USSR ... but unfortunately the mediocre actions of the top leadership of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union nullified the benefits ... then we could start far ahead in the economy.
    I still do not see the prerequisites for solving this problem on the part of the modern leadership of Russia ... there is no clear and real program and action plan for getting out of the economic pit of stagnation ... we are marking time ... we are marking time ... we need talented solutions and people in this plan.
    1. Per se. 15 January 2019 07: 49 New
      • 8
      • 3
      +5
      Quote: The same Lech
      here we are weak ... here we have the Achilles' heel into which our enemies are constantly beating ... for me it becomes every year more and more obvious
      The article, and in my opinion very interesting. To the highlighted, Alexey, suggests a famous anecdote.
      Calls Lavrov Shoigu after the appeal of the President of the Fed. meeting and says: - Listen, Kozugetovich, do not strike in New York, I have a daughter there. Shoigu replies: - Yes, I know, Fursenko also called about the United States. Mizulina asked not to beat in Belgium, Zhirinovsky - in Switzerland, and Zheleznyak - in London. Our others called, the list is really big ... ... Pause. Listen, Lavrov, where to hit then, in which case? - Mmm, well, fuck around Voronezh, there are definitely no ours there.
      Our main weakness is the entry into the alien pole of power, the game by alien rules, not for the good of Russia, invented by the leaders and masters of world capitalism, in which modern Russia finds itself. Our authorities are dependent, they keep their treasures, acquired by overwork, in foreign banks and foreign currency, in fact, they are no longer citizens of Russia. Therefore, our (or ours) Sberbank is not in a hurry to go to our (or ours) Crimea, for fear of sanctions. A lot of strange things happen when, on the one hand, the power puffs up the cheeks (having a legacy from a superpower with a powerful nuclear potential), and on the other hand it wipes off endlessly. Small, but independent of the bourgeoisie, North Korea, which has one and a half nuclear bombs, bends the States, participates in the Olympics, and Russia, capable of wiping the United States from the face of the earth, shamefully sends its athletes in private, under white flags ... We now have one pole of power on the planet, and until we return socialism, all plans to confront the West will be a farce. The only thing is if our old oligarchs want to squeeze out a share from the Anglo-Saxons, in any case, this is the case. I hope that the bad guys will soon be finished with the boys, then, and without the ideas of the "Conversion of Power" with Russia, they will be incomparably more considered.
    2. Shopping Mall 15 January 2019 08: 56 New
      • 3
      • 1
      +2
      Quote: The same Lech
      The paradox is that Russia can inflict a military defeat on its enemies guaranteed ... but again this will not be a victory, but only a won battle in a long war with the West ... recovering from the slaps the conquistadors of the West will attack again and can continue to infinity.
      So the emphasis in the confrontation should be on economic measures against the West ... here we are weak ... here we have the Achilles heel in which our enemies constantly beat ... for me this becomes every year more and more obvious.
      In the 60-s of the last century, the West had a big panic after the sharp economic take-off of the USSR ... but unfortunately the mediocre actions of the top leadership of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union nullified the benefits ... then we could start far ahead in the economy.
      I still do not see the prerequisites for solving this problem on the part of the modern leadership of Russia ... there is no clear and real program and action plan for getting out of the economic pit of stagnation ... we are marking time ... we are marking time ... we need talented solutions and people in this plan.


      The economy is indisputable. It is sad to see in the news that they’ve done it somewhere, somewhere else, and most often we’ve made a new bomb!

      But the economy cannot develop in a vacuum, which we are trying to create with sanctions, in fact, this is the goal, to use the SNF more versatile, more flexible, as a means of putting pressure not only on the states, but also on individuals.
      1. Vladimir Postnikov 15 January 2019 13: 06 New
        • 4
        • 1
        +3
        Quote: AVM
        But the economy cannot develop in the vacuum that they are trying to create with sanctions,

        Do not tell my slippers. Who prevented the current team from developing the economy to 2013? By that time they had been in power for 14 years.
    3. Plate 15 January 2019 20: 49 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      need talented decisions and people in this regard.

      We need people who will make a clear decision to execute these decisions (I apologize for the tautology), and then they will not deviate from it, in spite of any difficulties, opposition from various sides. And, if some decide to sabotage these decisions, they will not be afraid to use force against them.
      When making a decision, the ruler should listen to different opinions, give attention to each of them, each agree to discuss. But when the decision has already been made, the ruler should strictly follow it, not tolerating serious objections. Something like this, if I remember correctly, argued McCiaveli.
  2. g1washntwn 15 January 2019 07: 23 New
    • 6
    • 0
    +6
    About non-nuclear space, the same hat will come out with the Americans as with the INF Treaty, as soon as they have the opportunity they will come out of it. Therefore, space percussion devices (albeit non-nuclear) must be preoccupied and prepared for such a development of events. What American X-37s are testing in high orbit, they do not disclose to anyone, I suppose that the effect of radiation on the hamburger is not at all. They also taught the shuttle to dive in the atmosphere, not for the sake of indulgence either. For the military, space is very promising in terms of not only intelligence, but also missile defense, and quick response, etc., which means that the question is not so much in contracts, but in who will be the first and dominant in this space. This site is not a tribune of Greenpeace, so I ask you not to declare pacifist slogans. Space is considered by the military as a springboard for the deployment of weapons; the US military generally speaks about this openly, so conclusions must be drawn.

    As for a number of the proposals listed:
    1. 1500 YaB, taking into account all US satellites, of course, is not enough. Given the threat to carriers from missile defense and various "global strike", strategic offensive arms need to be reviewed. But there is such an ambush that the Americans have withdrawn from the ABM treaty and the ABM seems to be not a strategic element, according to their assurances (not against Russia and other nonsense), you won’t drag in strategic offensive arms. At one time, they had finished their position and the missile defense had to be signed separately from strategic offensive arms, which undoubtedly was the adoption of a deliberately losing position. In general terms, a separate quantitative-qualitative and conceptual analysis of existing strategic nuclear forces arises under this item.
    2. Close all the same "peace" agreement. If the United States withdraws from the INF Treaty (especially if, under the pretext of the need to conclude with all current nuclear countries), a precedent will be created and the opportunity to withdraw from all bilateral treaties between the United States and the USSR / Russia. Then it will be possible to suspend inspection activities. While the Americans themselves are digging under their foreign policy, no one will interfere with them or give carte blanche in the form of treaty violations.
    3. Again, the existing agreements on the knowledge of all launches imply even now any test and even the exercises of the strategic nuclear forces are being disclosed. Close according to claim 2 and there is a contradiction with this paragraph, even if the disclosure of launches and tests is made in a separate agreement.
    4. The personalization of nuclear warheads in terms of pressure on individual politicians is, frankly, an idea that is ineffective. For people who are ready for the sake of profit and prosperity to cut and publicly eat their mother’s heart (figuratively), the threat in the form of a nuclear warhead is a threat to itself. The American national psychotype is inherently self-centered, but the benefit is higher than the sense of self-preservation. This is also the topic of a separate dissertation on psychology. Do you know why Americans from childhood are taught not to resist robberies? Life is not a goal for them, as such, their principles are brought up on the principle: life is a way to satisfy the needs of your Self. You are robbed - give a little to earn ANYTHING. Personal retaliation is not the task of strategic nuclear forces, it is the work of special services.

    Sorry for the "multi-book".
    1. Lopatov 15 January 2019 08: 58 New
      • 2
      • 0
      +2
      Quote: g1washntwn
      But there is such an ambush that the Americans have withdrawn from the ABM treaty and the ABM seems to be not a strategic element, according to their assurances (not against Russia and other nonsense), you won’t drag it into strategic offensive arms.

      And why "attract". Just get out of START on the pretext of a bias balance due to missile defense.
    2. Shopping Mall 15 January 2019 09: 03 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      Quote: g1washntwn
      4. Personalizing nuclear warheads in terms of putting pressure on individual politicians is, frankly, ineffective. For people who are ready to cut out and eat publicly the heart of their mother (figuratively) for the sake of profit and personal wealth, the threat in the form of a nuclear warhead is a threat to itself. The American national psycho-type is essentially self-centered, but the benefits are higher than the sense of self-preservation. This is also a topic for a separate dissertation on psychology. Do you know why Americans are taught from childhood not to resist robbery? Life for them is not a goal as such, their principles are brought up according to the principle: life is a way to satisfy the needs of your own self. You are robbed - give a little to EARN MORE. Personal retribution is not the task of the SNF, it is the work of the special services. .


      First, not only the United States will be hit. If it is clearly known what a blow will be inflicted on one or another country where there is a missile defense base, for example, then it is very likely to cause discontent among the population of this country, which politician will want to play on this. In this sense, any split in the camp of the enemy is beneficial to us.

      Secondly, the task of personalization is just to exert economic and psychological pressure. Now the economy is highly speculative. Financial speculators play the ruble under the pretext of sanctions, the same applies to real estate. It is unlikely that someone from the list, or his partners, will be pleased with the decline in the market value of his assets, due to the threat of a strike, even if it is rather ephemeral. But for speculators this is a reason, and competitors will not doze, pour oil on the fire.
      1. g1washntwn 15 January 2019 09: 49 New
        • 2
        • 1
        +1
        We constantly warn that the deployment of bases or facilities threatening the security of the Russian Federation on its territory puts these territories on the list of targets. Did it stop someone? The American "investment" and the threat of disobeying the Washington Regional Committee to lose even more of its current and real profits than the ephemeral decline in market value from the unlikely global apocalypse outweighs. The Golden Calf rules the world - this is the sin of this World, it is the Demon who devours it - yes. But the task of strategic nuclear forces is not at all educational and edifying. The task of the strategic nuclear forces is to drive the enemy into a non-viable state. For those who place American objects on their territory, it will not be a fatal blow to these objects, but the physical and total disappearance of the patron and lactating host.
  3. ares1988 15 January 2019 07: 25 New
    • 1
    • 1
    0
    Nuclear blackmail as a method of negotiation? Oh well)
    1. Lopatov 15 January 2019 08: 59 New
      • 2
      • 1
      +1
      Once it happened, during the Caribbean crisis.
      The United States withdrew its missiles from Turkey. True, they continue to yell about their mythical "victory" 8)))
      1. ares1988 16 January 2019 07: 30 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        Which were already about to withdraw a year later. At the same time, the infantry brigade remained in Italy and Great Britain. Do not remind: what happened to Soviet missiles in Cuba?
    2. Shopping Mall 15 January 2019 09: 03 New
      • 4
      • 0
      +4
      Quote: ares1988
      Nuclear blackmail as a method of negotiation? Oh well)


      So nuclear weapons all their history is blackmail.
      1. ares1988 16 January 2019 07: 42 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        So Yes. The question is the degree of its use: it’s one thing to rewrite doctrines and make statements in the spirit of “nuclear weapons - it is, we have it, and you yourself understand everything,” another thing: “I’ve got this Gunpowder by IP, I know where I live, keep it there are seven of me - and just how I press the button! " It simply shows that the country and its leadership have no other arguments and methods. It is unlikely that anyone will be led to such threats, because they don’t believe in the possibility of a nuclear war, but there will be a reason to sigh “you know, these bloodthirsty Russians ...” and ask for a lot of money for defense.
  4. Chichikov 15 January 2019 08: 11 New
    • 1
    • 1
    0
    The task of the fifth point is to convey to those hostile to Russia and their environment, regardless of citizenship, country of residence, profession or position, that in the event of a conflict, their actions will not go unpunished.
    This clause, to Western lizoblyudov with Russian citizenship and living on its territory, it is advisable to apply preventively, without waiting for the conflict itself. Traitor - worse than a fierce enemy!
  5. Decimam 15 January 2019 09: 37 New
    • 4
    • 2
    +2
    "This document is proposed to supplement the open part, which includes a dynamic (updated) list of goals.
    "These goals are actors in international politics whose actions are directed against the interests of the Russian Federation and whose actions bring, or can bring, the beginning of a" hot "conflict that could develop into a full-scale nuclear war."

    A proposal from the category of utopian-agitation, in practice not feasible, even if equipped under each bush at the starting position. Full delirium.
    1. Decimam 15 January 2019 11: 42 New
      • 2
      • 0
      +2
      Judging by the presence of cons, the Arms section is invaded by hamsters from the News, Opinions and Analytics sections. Missing section.
      1. 3x3zsave 15 January 2019 15: 21 New
        • 1
        • 0
        +1
        "The Kalabukhov house has disappeared." How to eat is gone.
        1. Decimam 15 January 2019 15: 22 New
          • 2
          • 0
          +2
          And they will endure galoshes! But really! In the Weapons section today, to neither the mind nor the heart. Similarly - History.
          1. 3x3zsave 15 January 2019 15: 32 New
            • 1
            • 0
            +1
            Yes, it seems that after the holidays have not yet regained consciousness. Although, it’s time to.
  6. Operator 15 January 2019 09: 50 New
    • 1
    • 1
    0
    The author does not take into account fundamental changes in the structure of Russian strategic nuclear forces in the form of adopting the Poseidons and completing the development of the Petrels in the near future - in which case the former will wash away all civilized states of the world into the ocean (since their infrastructure is historically located on the ocean coast), the latter fly to any Australia with new Zealand (so that there are no illusions to sit there).

    And Russian ICBMs with SLBMs and RSDs are just a cherry on the cake.

    In other words - we don’t have a list of point targets, we have a different approach: “Alyosha, sprinkle it with chalk” (C) bully
    1. g1washntwn 15 January 2019 10: 30 New
      • 3
      • 1
      +2
      The fact of the matter is that to "sprinkle with chalk" everyone drooling at Russian resources and territories, you need to return (at least) to 10000 YaB, and we have a bilateral agreement with the Americans that does not take into account all the others. And START in its current form no longer provides a guaranteed reciprocal destruction of the enemy, which distorts the very essence of nuclear weapons and its main deterrent.
      And what this threatens with is clearly visible - some began to actively promote the ideas of nuclear and not-so-neo-blitzkriegs (global strikes) and the permissibility of losing even part of their resources, including human resources, for global dominance (albeit pathetic remnants of civilization).
      1. Operator 15 January 2019 10: 40 New
        • 0
        • 1
        -1
        No one is interested in the opinion of the Limitrophs - whipping boys in the TMV, for whom tactical nuclear weapons both ours and NATO are intended.

        The United States, Germany, France, Britain, Japan, China and India are deciding the issues of war and peace. Our Poseidons and Petrels are focused on these geopolitical centers of power.
    2. voyaka uh 15 January 2019 17: 07 New
      • 1
      • 1
      0
      "- on figs we have a list of point targets, we have a different approach:" ////
      -----
      This is the approach of a doomed, hopelessly loser, deciding
      heroically die, blowing up all the enemies with you.
      In practice, it never works.
      Learn from China. It is gradually building up power: proportionally to economic
      and military. Not screaming about new facilities, but slowly creating and improving
      their. He does not dream, like a teenager, about the death of enemies and his heroic death, but crowds enemies economically and politically ...
      1. Boa kaa 15 January 2019 23: 36 New
        • 2
        • 0
        +2
        Quote: voyaka uh
        Learn from China.

        Good idea! The main thing "on time" is said!
        1. The PRC is a socialist country. (GDP: - "there will be no return to socialism, in the old sense, ...")
        2. China has 1,2 billion people, and Russia has 146 million. 10 has more than one-time population!
        3. Russia is rearming, realizing that the life of the country depends on it. China copy-paste everything that it managed to steal, at the same time buying samples for an 3D printer on an industrial scale.
        4. China after the MAO never “rebuilt”, did not de-industrialize as Russia in 90 ...
        5. Liberians in China in Tian-Enmen Square skated with tanks, and we have a Supreme Council, which opposed EBNya.
        6. In China, corrupt officials are shot, in the Russian Federation - they are "respected people" ...
        - and so you can transfer until the morning. The main thing is whose power in the country, in whose interests the policy is being built ...
        (And you say - "fall in love!" (C). lol
  7. victor50 15 January 2019 15: 38 New
    • 2
    • 0
    +2
    Very interesting! You can argue how this happens in the comments about the effectiveness of the proposed measures, you can add some of your own. The trouble is that we are afraid to decide even for some decisive (sorry for the tautology) actions. And now we are discussing what kind of response will follow if we decide on some of the proposed ones, will it not be bad that we will not be warned about the launch of missiles by the enemy, etc. Let it be bad! But they too! Moreover, they will think, consider that we are in a desperate situation and we have nothing to lose. Here Lopatov gave an example of the Caribbean crisis! You would always act like that - tough, decisively - you would not have to discuss what to do in the situation today! She simply would not have been, as had not been until the end of the 80s. (Over Cuba, a decisive attempt was made to organize missiles, not just in words)! am ) If our opponents knew that we would decide on tough retaliatory measures, he would not dare to behave like that. And until we show him (not in words) that we are ready to die, defending our innocence, but they will die, if not earlier, then with us, the situation will not change. But are we doing this, are we doing this? So far, it seems to me, on the contrary - empty threats and not a single real act. And this is worse than ... silence in response.
    Thanks to the author for the article!