Military Review

Strategic conventional weapon. Damage

101

Nuclear weapons


The appearance of the atomic bomb gave rise to a new class of weapons - strategic. Some time after the advent of nuclear weapons (NF) in the USA, and then in the USSR, it was considered as a weapon of the “battlefield”, scenarios of its use were actively worked out, large-scale exercises were conducted. It was believed that the use of nuclear weapons in the course of real hostilities was only a matter of time.



The atomic bombs “Kid” (in the foreground) and “Fat Man” - the beginning of the era of strategic weapons


Meanwhile, the number of nuclear weapons in the United States and the USSR was growing rapidly. At a certain point, it became clear that its use threatens not only the mutual annihilation of the warring parties, but also the emergence of significant risks for the very existence of human civilization. Nuclear weapons have transformed from “weapons of war” to “weapons of intimidation”, nuclear parity has been achieved that does not allow the Cold War to go into the hot phase. At the peak of the Cold War, the number of nuclear warheads in the United States was about 30 000 units, in the USSR - 40 000 units.

Despite the fact that there was a cold war between the USA and the USSR, “hot” military conflicts took place almost continuously in the world, in which both superpowers were directly involved and often suffered very noticeable losses. However, not a single superpower, apart from the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, has ever used nuclear weapons in military conflicts. Thus, nuclear weapons became the first weapons that are not actually used, but at the same time the costs of their creation and maintenance are very high.

Depending on the carriers, nuclear weapons are either allocated as a separate type of armed forces, as is done in Russia - Strategic Missile Forces (Strategic Missile Forces), or is part of the Air Force / Air Force fleet (Navy). There is also a tactical nuclear weapon (TNW) for various purposes, however, one way or another, in the existing conditions, its use can be justified only in the event of a global conflict, so that it can also be attributed to some extent to strategic weapons.

As mentioned earlier, nuclear weapons used to deter the enemy from full-scale aggression are useless in local conflicts. Information periodically pops up about the military’s readiness to use tactical nuclear weapons in local conflicts, such statements in particular came from the lips of some US military and politicians. Sometimes even information was voiced that tactical nuclear weapons were already used by the same US or Israel, but there was no evidence of such use.

One of the interesting directions is the creation of the so-called “clean” nuclear weapons, which ensures minimal pollution of the surrounding area with the products of radioactive decay, however, apparently, such studies are currently at a dead end. In attempts to reduce the size of nuclear weapons, various exotic fissile materials, such as the hafnium isomer 178m2Hf, were considered as “fillings," but for various reasons no real weapons were created on the basis of these studies.

Former chief of staff of the US Air Force, General Norton Schwartz, said that America has a high-precision tactical nuclear weapon with a low emission of radiation and with the minimum possible "incidental losses" for the civilian population. Obviously, what was meant was not a “clean” nuclear weapon, but the latest modification of the B61-12 nuclear bomb with an accuracy of hit from 5 to 30 meters and with a TNT equivalent power adjustable from 0,3 to 300 kilotons.

Strategic conventional weapon. Damage

B61-12 Nuclear Bomb with Widely Variable Power


Despite the optimism of the US military, it is likely that low-power nuclear bombs will remain in storage, unless of course the situation in the world does not go “apart”, since their use will lead to extremely negative political consequences and can cause a global conflict. If the United States nevertheless decides to use nuclear weapons, then this will automatically release “genie from the bottle”, which is possible for one, then it can be for others, after the USA, other countries can start using nuclear weapons as well - Russia, China, Israel.

Nuclear weapon carriers


In addition to the nuclear charges themselves, strategic nuclear forces also include their carriers. For the Strategic Missile Forces and the Navy, such carriers are intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs), located respectively in mines, on mobile ground platforms or on strategic missile submarine cruisers. For the Air Force, the carriers of nuclear weapons are primarily strategic missile-carrying bombers.

The greatest involvement in local wars is played by strategic bomber bombers, which are actively used to deliver massive strikes against the enemy with free-falling and guided munitions with conventional warheads. It can be noted that from the point of view of nuclear deterrence, missile bombers are the most useless component of the nuclear triad, primarily because in the event of a sudden attack, aircraft with a probability close to 100% will not be refueled and equipped with nuclear weapons. Given the compact basing of missile-carrying bombers at several air bases, this will allow the enemy to destroy them with a first disarming strike. In addition, their weapons - long-range cruise missiles (CR) can be detected and destroyed by almost all types of tactical aircraft aviation and air defense equipment of the enemy. Part of the situation can be corrected by the development of long-range aeroballistic missiles with a nuclear warhead, but taking into account the remaining problem of destroying carriers directly at airfields, the feasibility of this can be called into question.

The most active in local conflicts use their US bombers, to the extent that some aircraft are completely withdrawn from the strategic nuclear forces and are intended only for delivering conventional weapons.


American strategic bombers B-52, B-1B, B-2


Russian strategic aviation was also noted during the military operation in Syria, using cruise missiles (which can be considered as field tests and a demonstration of force) and free-falling bombs.


Russian long-range bomber bomber Tu-22M3, strategic bomber-bomber Tu-95MS and Tu-160


Using ICBMs in local conflicts is much more complicated. In the USA there is a program “Fast global strike” (BSU). Within the framework of the BSU program, it was supposed to provide the US armed forces with the opportunity to strike at a target anywhere in the world for 60 minutes from the moment the order for destruction was issued. As the main means of defeating BSU, ICBMs in non-nuclear equipment, hypersonic weapons and space platforms.

The creation of space-based strike platforms is currently apparently undergoing preliminary research, although it could be a serious threat in the future. The first samples of hypersonic weapons are being tested and can be put into service in the coming years.


X-51A orbital strike platform concept and hypersonic rocket


However, the simplest solution is non-nuclear ICBMs. The United States is considering the possibility of equipping strategic Ohio submarines of the Trident II ICBM with a non-nuclear warhead, including four warheads with a satellite navigation system and several thousand tungsten rods or a monoblock warhead weighing up to two tons. According to the calculations, the speed of approach to the target should be about 20 000 km / h, which eliminates the need for explosives, ensuring the destruction of targets by the kinetic energy of the damaging elements. When using warheads with striking elements in the form of tungsten pins directly above the target, warheads are detonated, after which a tungsten shower is likely to destroy all life on an area of ​​about one square kilometer.


Fast global strike pattern


In addition to technical difficulties, political obstacles arose in the implementation of the BSU concept. In particular, the use of US ICBMs in non-nuclear equipment in some situations can provoke a massive retaliatory strike by Russia or China. Nevertheless, developments in this direction are continuing, in the START-3 agreement non-nuclear ballistic missiles are counted as ordinary ICBMs with nuclear warheads. According to the US command, the number of ICBMs in non-nuclear equipment will be limited, so they are not able to significantly weaken the defensive capabilities of the United States, while the real threat of using such weapons will give far more military and political dividends.

Until plans to deploy ICBMs in non-nuclear equipment are realized, their only real use is the infrequent launch of satellites into orbit, and disposal by launch as part of the exercises.


The RS-20 Dnepr booster rocket (SS-18 Satan according to NATO classification) successfully launched into orbit of 33 private satellite from 17 of different countries


Strategic Conventional Weapons


To what extent can the use of strategic weapons in non-nuclear equipment be effective in the framework of the activities of the Russian armed forces? It can be assumed that in some cases the effect that restrains from hostile actions, achieved by equipping strategic carriers with conventional warheads, may be higher than from nuclear weapons.

The recognition by the leadership of any unfriendly non-nuclear country that it can at any moment be destroyed by weapons, from which there is practically no protection, will greatly contribute to their adoption of reasonable and balanced decisions. The objectives of the second level can be considered a military base, ships at the pier, large industrial facilities, infrastructure elements of the fuel and energy complex.

Thus, the objective of strategic conventional weapons can be formulated as causing damage to the enemy, significantly reducing their organizational, industrial and military capabilities from a distance that minimizes or excludes the likelihood of a direct military collision with the enemy’s armed forces.

Based on the task to be solved, an approximate composition of forces and means can be formed that can be effectively used to solve problems with strategic conventional weapons, which we will discuss in the next article.
Author:
Photos used:
inosmi.ru, topwar.ru
Articles from this series:
Power conversion
Nuclear submarines - carriers of cruise missiles: reality and prospects
Hypersonic "Dagger" on the Tu-160. Reality or fiction?
The militarization of space is the next step for the United States. SpaceX and lasers in orbit
Atomic Multifunctional Submarine Cruiser: Asymmetrical Response to the West
Atomic Multifunctional Submarine Cruiser: Paradigm Shift
101 comment
Ad

Subscribe to our Telegram channel, regularly additional information about the special operation in Ukraine, a large amount of information, videos, something that does not fall on the site: https://t.me/topwar_official

Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. Monster_Fat
    Monster_Fat 8 August 2019 05: 29
    +3
    There is unverified data on the Internet about the use of low-power nuclear weapons against underground shelters in Afghanistan. The Taliban called on the atomic energy agency (or whatever) to check such cases, but they always refused, and the increased radioactivity in the samples at the site of the explosions was allegedly explained by the uranium bodies of penetrating ammunition.
    1. Basil50
      Basil50 8 August 2019 07: 34
      +6
      Yeah, but for some reason, samples * were collected and presented * then French or English experts * accidentally * strolling in those places.
      Remember how you collected samples of evidence of the use of chemical and bacteriological weapons by similar specialists from those same countries. In the same places. Often, evidence samples were collected * nearby *. * Locations * The collection of samples of evidence of radiation or the use of chemical and weapons tanks overlapped.
    2. Pushkowed
      Pushkowed 8 August 2019 07: 38
      +14
      In the modern world, it is practically impossible to conduct a nuclear explosion unnoticed. Even underground and underwater explosions of low-power devices are easily recorded seismically (acoustically), and air sampling and its isotopic analysis allow much to be said about the design of the tested charge. In Russia, the Special Control Service is involved. Similar structures exist in other countries. Due to the very fact of the existence of international contradictions, it will be unlikely that they will all conspire to conceal the fact. So any nuclear explosion will immediately become known to the world community. The 22.09.1979 explosion in the southern Indian Ocean (presumably Israeli) did not go unnoticed, although it was no more powerful than 3kt.
      Recently: the first nuclear explosion in the DPRK on 09.10.2006 was recorded, despite the fact that it was only 0,5kt. Such an explosion can be carried out with the help of ordinary explosives, but the isotopic analysis of air samples (for nothing that the explosion was underground) confirmed its "nuclearity". And even made it possible to reveal that the reason for such a low power, most likely, was in the incomplete entry into the reaction of fissile matter (the so-called "pop").
      When the Argentine diesel-electric submarine "San Juan" died on November 15.11.2017, 5,6 in the South Atlantic, even here the monitoring services recorded the sound of the "collapse" of its solid hull at a prohibitive depth (estimated the equivalent as 100 kt), and calculated the area of ​​the boat's destruction, which then allowed to find her. By the way, while searching, they even heard a "calibration" control explosion of 0,01kg of TNT (XNUMXct)!
      So if nuclear weapons were used somewhere "unauthorized", it would be trumpeted to the whole world. And not one country, but several, and not unfounded, but with a bunch of evidence.
      1. grandson of Perun
        grandson of Perun 8 August 2019 13: 09
        +2
        Quote: Pushkowed
        control explosion of 100kg of TNT (0,01ct)

        Two tac toe missed. 100 kg = 0,1 t = 0,0001 ct
    3. Nikolaevich I
      Nikolaevich I 8 August 2019 08: 11
      +2
      Quote: Monster_Fat
      There is unverified data on the Internet about the use of low-power nuclear weapons against underground shelters in Afghanistan.

      That's it ! "Not tested"!
    4. your1970
      your1970 8 August 2019 16: 36
      +3
      Quote: Monster_Fat
      increased radioactivity in samples at the site of the explosions,
      -Rocks always luminesce very strongly. In general, everything that is extracted from a depth of more than 50 meters is phonite, especially granite ...
  2. g1washntwn
    g1washntwn 8 August 2019 06: 19
    +3
    BSU can only work against a weak adversary that does not have strategic deterrent weapons in its arsenal. And even then only after multilateral agreement with countries that have such strategic nuclear forces, otherwise such a conventional BSU will instantly become a global nuclear one. Cruise missiles, in spite of all their secrecy of launch and flight, do not have a sufficient speed of delivery of warheads to targets. Hypersonic will be considered strategic and with the same risks as ICBM / SLBM warheads. Space strike platforms have a significant drawback over nuclear weapons - the cost of their creation and maintenance in orbit in an operational state will exceed the cost of all "ground" strategic nuclear forces. Again, space platforms are quite vulnerable to enemy anti-missile defense systems with the appropriate potential. In short, a non-nuclear BSU is being developed only against countries that do not have the ability to strategically respond to this kind of aggression.
    1. Pushkowed
      Pushkowed 8 August 2019 08: 14
      0
      BSU is calculated that the "victim" (if it is a nuclear power) does not use the concept of a retaliatory strike, but is only true to the idea of ​​a "pure" retaliatory strike. There is a certain logic in this. (In short: counter-counter is the launch of our own nuclear missiles at the enemy while the enemy missiles are still in flight, and the response is only after they exploded, and it became finally clear that this was not a mistake, but a real nuclear war). A retaliatory strike can be inflicted by mistake (false triggering of an early warning system) or as a result of provocation by a third party, so no one is going to use it (yes, and Russia too). This is just a theoretical concept. And the practice of all nuclear powers is designed only for a retaliatory strike (silos, PGRK and SSBN are needed for the nuclear arsenal to survive the first enemy strike, and then take part in the response). A non-nuclear ICBM on early warning missile radars is really indistinguishable from a nuclear one, but it is planned to use it pointwise, with single launches, and not massive ones, so as not to provoke a "victim" not understanding inflict too fast a nuclear response ("run or lose" situation).
      Thus, the authors of the BSU idea expect that there will be no "response" until the missile hits the target. and when it hits, the "victim" will understand that the missile was non-nuclear, so there seems to be no reason to unleash a nuclear war. This cannot be left unanswered, but since the BSU officials did not cross the "red line" (they did not use nuclear weapons or other weapons of mass destruction, did not endanger the very existence of the state, etc.), but "only" staged an indicative flogging, then if we we do not want a full-scale nuclear war (and its really no one wants to), then in applying the "answer" one must observe the "gentleman's" rules of fair fight. If there is nothing to inflict a commensurate response, all that remains is to "swallow" this slap in the face. Can't turn the whole world to dust out of national pride, really?
      So non-nuclear ICBMs need to be taken seriously. Since they are being developed, then someone needs this.
      1. Errr
        Errr 8 August 2019 08: 42
        +7
        Gentlemen's rules speak? Is it like you were pointed a gun, and you keep Olympic calm? Well, whatever you want, and if I have my own gun, I will shoot first. Let the bastard not even hope for a gentleman's instillation.
        1. g1washntwn
          g1washntwn 8 August 2019 09: 16
          +2
          + In the US, the police do just that. Without waiting for clarification of the fact that the weapon is "toy" in the hands of the alleged offender. Nuclear weapons are therefore a deterrent, because no one will wait for an explanation. And the "single launch" of conventional media, as Yang writes, does not fit the concept at all global blows. The launch should be and will be just massive and from all sides, here it is certain that no one will wait "will the explosions be nuclear or not?"
          1. Errr
            Errr 8 August 2019 09: 20
            +1
            Yeah ... I absolutely do not care which club will knock the spirit out of me - thermonuclear or conventional.))) hi
          2. Pushkowed
            Pushkowed 8 August 2019 09: 31
            0
            "Global" means "anywhere on the globe".
            it will be massive and from all sides, here no one will wait
            I will upset you: they will. The reaction time for strategic nuclear forces is longer than the flight time of an ICBM. You still need to "get through" to SSBNs and follow all protocols. And during this time, everything will become clear. Nobody will start a nuclear war over the fallen tungsten.
            1. g1washntwn
              g1washntwn 8 August 2019 09: 57
              0
              1. BSU is created according to the model of strategic nuclear forces, but with conventional warheads
              2. To break through the air defense / missile defense (if the enemy has one), a single launch is ineffective, a massive launch is needed (at least for a control strike)
              Add 1 + 2 and analyze the result from the point of view of pure logic.
              By the reaction time of the Strategic Missile Forces, you are not at all aware of the protocols, timings, and nuclear doctrine as a whole. They generally violet that there is flying uncoordinatedly flying in our direction, even in the singular.
              The option to "slow down" the counter-counterpart is available only in one case - the aerospace forces record the self-destruction of targets moving along the trajectory of the fall on the RF. Any other variants of "wrong" launches and promises on the hotline do not work here.
        2. Pushkowed
          Pushkowed 8 August 2019 09: 24
          0
          Keywords:
          if I have my own gun
          1. Errr
            Errr 8 August 2019 09: 38
            +1
            If you are aware that the nuclear power has the means of the so-called BSU, then I personally do not care what to answer. On a global (nuclear or non-nuclear - no difference) strike, only one single answer is possible - a reciprocal-counter. You don’t even have to think about any answer here, because it is simply ridiculous. And this reciprocal counter must necessarily be nuclear, since no one at the time of the operation of the SPRN is able to clearly classify the type of adversary warheads. There should absolutely not be any unpunished actions, because impunity corrupts.
            1. Pushkowed
              Pushkowed 8 August 2019 09: 56
              +1
              SPRN detected a massive launch of SLBMs from the Philippine Sea. Analysis of the trajectories shows that they are flying to Russia. You are the commander in chief. You have 15 minutes to decide whether to strike back.
              And for whom?
              The Americans have a couple of SSBNs now on the BS in the Pacific Ocean. Usually they sit near their banks, under the protection of PLO. But maybe they decided to come closer to shorten the flight time? The Chinese also have SSBNs. And they did not forget that "the monkey wins in the fight between the tiger and the lion." Who is friend and who is enemy?
              Your actions?
              [I mean, retaliation is a propaganda myth. If it were a real strategy, then the ICBMs would be kept in open areas. So they start faster and do not have to spend money on all kinds of silos, PGRK and SSBNs.]
              1. Errr
                Errr 8 August 2019 10: 46
                +4
                But you still drove me into a tailspin !!!))) But I did it. I didn’t have time to flop.))) The USA or China? Eagle or dragon? Personally, I would not touch the scales, but I would understand the feathers in full. And if suddenly this very feather-bearer doesn’t like the train of my thoughts, then let him stubbornly scratch his bald head up to the full and final reason.
                As a person who is generally peaceful, I thought too much, but many thanks for your question. You have completely dispelled my doubts. It turns out that any life form has a certain rating of dangerous factors in the sense of priority attention to them. And in accordance with this elementary principle, it is simply necessary every time in the first place to stop the greatest threat in one way or another. That's all.
                Thanks again. Plus. hi
                P, s. The warheads are already gone. Nothing can be changed already.)))
        3. Lopatov
          Lopatov 8 August 2019 09: 36
          +5
          Quote: Herrr
          Is it like you were pointed a gun, and you keep Olympic calm?

          Right And you are waiting for which bullet will fly to your belly, regular or explosive. In accordance with this charge your gun and shoot back. If you can.
      2. armata_armata
        armata_armata 8 August 2019 08: 47
        +3
        BSU is calculated on the fact that the "victim" (if it is a nuclear power) does not use the concept of a retaliatory strike, but is true only to the idea of ​​a "clean" retaliatory strike

        BSU is designed to saturate missile defense; after BSU, ICBMs with nuclear weapons will go
        1. Pushkowed
          Pushkowed 8 August 2019 09: 21
          +1
          BSU is designed to saturate missile defense; after BSU, ICBMs with nuclear weapons will go
          What is the point of warning the enemy of the intention to launch a nuclear strike by preliminarily applying a BSU? And if the enemy in this case manages to deliver a preemptive strike?
          Non-nuclear warheads for the BSU are few, they can not be oversaturated with missile defense. If you try to oversaturate missile defense, then there are false targets on ICBMs, and you also need more nuclear warheads themselves. The principle of oversaturation: something will be knocked down, but the rest will hit their goals. Nuclear and non-nuclear blocks have a different principle of action, different destructive ability, respectively, and they must be given different goals.
          Finally, why bother to think of some kind of BSU there in the presence of ICBMs with nuclear weapons?
          The meaning of BSU is a whip for "educating" careless "partners" no risk of a nuclear war. If you already decided on a nuclear war, then no BSU is needed here.
          By the way, the "standard" for the BSU is 60 minutes, and the flight time of the "Minutemans" is only about 30 minutes. This suggests that they are designed for different political and strategic scenarios.
          1. armata_armata
            armata_armata 8 August 2019 10: 13
            -2
            What is the point of warning the enemy of the intention to launch a nuclear strike by preliminarily applying a BSU?

            The meaning is obvious, wait until the enemy shoots off at BSU to spend a decent amount of missile defense and spend real nuclear charges further
            Non-nuclear warheads for BSU are few, they can not be oversaturated

            This is a matter of time and not more than in 19 are not numerous by the year 25 is quite enough and with reserves
            Nuclear and non-nuclear blocks have a different principle of action, different destructive ability, respectively, and they must be given different goals.

            The purpose of the city is the first volley of the BSU, if it is missed will be fatal destruction, the population does not have time to take refuge, panic. This will be followed by a strike with the use of nuclear weapons, even if most of the missiles knock down the remains guaranteed to destroy the population.
            A variant of the event in which BSU is shot down, the poor poorly manages to evacuate to the remaining GO facilities, the air defense remains without missile defense, most nuclear strikes reach the target; the population is also guaranteed destroyed
            Finally, why bother to think of some kind of BSU there in the presence of ICBMs with nuclear weapons?

            1) the production of BSU is cheaper than the manufacture of nuclear weapons
            2) BGU does not fall under the START-3 type treaties, since the "partners" swear by oath that the installation of special warheads with nuclear charges is impossible
            By the way, the "standard" for the BSU is 60 minutes, and the flight time of the "Minutemans" is only about 30 minutes. This suggests that they are designed for different political and strategic scenarios.

            Or that they are designed specifically for the first blow
            1. Pushkowed
              Pushkowed 8 August 2019 10: 46
              +1
              wait for the enemy to shoot back at BSU to spend a decent amount of missile defense and spend real nuclear charges already
              But the enemy can get bored with this process and he decides, since a nuclear war is inevitable, to strike himself "at the appointed time."
              Target city ... guaranteed to destroy the population ... population also guaranteed to be destroyed
              As if the main goal of a nuclear war is to kill more office hamsters. Nuclear weapons are too expensive to spend on such "targets", especially given their level of strategic "importance." The Americans themselves (back in the 1960s) determined that in order to win a nuclear war, it was necessary to destroy 2/3 of the industry and only 1/5 of the population (in fact, the death of people is collateral damage). Industry is the main goal for nuclear weapons. To force the enemy to fight on foot (the oil refineries were destroyed), to make it impossible to make up for losses in equipment (metallurgy was destroyed, the machines are without electricity) - that's what nuclear weapons were invented for. And, of course, to deprive the enemy of his nuclear arsenal (disarming strike) and nuclear industry (so as not to make up for the loss of nuclear weapons).
              But all this in reality is impossible to crank out, because the enemy will answer the same.
              So they came up with BSU - a means of forceful influence on the enemy bypassing the nuclear apocalypse.
              BSU production is cheaper than nuclear weapons manufacturing
              But in terms of carriers - the same. Or even more expensive. This is the main argument against the insolvency of BSU as a "weapon of the first day of a nuclear war." On the first day of the war, it is necessary to inflict the greatest possible damage on the enemy, so that the warheads that have broken through must be nuclear. And BSU is for local or "limited" non-nuclear wars. This is more a political than a military means, but it differs from nuclear weapons in that they can not only frighten, but also [within certain limits] actually use them.
              1. armata_armata
                armata_armata 8 August 2019 11: 15
                -1
                But the enemy can get bored with this process and he decides, since a nuclear war is inevitable, to strike himself "at the appointed time."

                Of course it will, there can’t even be any questions, but by the time the ICBMs reach the enemy’s territory, he’ll already shoot back with whatever he wants
                As if the main goal of a nuclear war is to kill more office hamsters. Nuclear weapons are too expensive to spend on such "targets", especially given their level of strategic "importance"

                Only after the use of nuclear weapons all office hamsters mobilize in an instant, drive to the remaining indestructible enterprises and begin production of military products, they also rake up rubble, eliminate the consequences of blows and naturally continue to launch everything that succeeds in righteous anger. So the human resource is the most economically significant
                Nuclear weapons are too expensive to spend on such "targets", especially given their level of strategic "importance." The Americans themselves (back in the 1960s) determined that in order to win a nuclear war, it was necessary to destroy 2/3 of the industry and only 1/5 of the population (in fact, the death of people is collateral damage)
                But all this in reality is impossible to crank out, because the enemy will answer the same

                Well, you yourself answered and yes, victory in this scenario is possible, but only if your territory has not undergone a retaliatory nuclear strike. And in the 60s for the United States it was still theoretically possible, now it isn’t ... So, we won’t be limited to one industry, we’ll have to get rid of the main resource. Not for nothing that the United States is now actively engaged in the development of biological weapons, which are clearly not 1/5 of the population calculated
                Regarding the dear thing, I completely agree, here BSU appears
                But in terms of carriers - the same. Or even more expensive. This is the main argument against the insolvency of BSU as a "weapon of the first day of a nuclear war." On the first day of the war, the enemy must be inflicted as much damage as possible, so that the warheads that have broken through must be nuclear

                Namely, but in order to inflict the most severe damage on nuclear weapons, it must achieve the goal and preferably in the fullest amount, for this the missile defense system must be forced through and obviously not at the expense of the destruction of nuclear blocks. As for the false targets, well, in the first place, more than once I slipped information that the trajectories of them with the main warhead are different and the missile defense systems can at least recognize them, and even if they hit a false target, they will not cause damage, the BSU may well. And even about different goals, are you sure that, for example, the BSU will not be aimed at the radar of the ABM system, but the nuclear weapons at the object itself?
                And BSU is for local or "limited" non-nuclear wars

                It cannot be for local ones for one reason, too many countries can dress up to discuss its applications, trajectory and so on, of course, and then there can be no talk of any preventive strikes ... And the object that can be hit after transmitting such information can very soon evacuate or acquire missile defense
              2. English tarantas
                English tarantas 8 August 2019 14: 41
                0
                The Americans themselves (back in the 1960s) determined that in order to win a nuclear war, 2/3 of the industry and only 1/5 of the population should be destroyed

                An interesting conclusion, given that industry and the population are often targets located in one place (for nuclear weapons). On the other hand, if there is no industry, that is, the remnants of the army and a mobilization reserve, and if there are no people, then the army is no longer fighting. I think, in fact, large cities are not the last goals in the list of priority, at least this inflicting that unacceptable damage, forcing the enemy to surrender. To destroy industry means to deprive oneself of trophies (although in a nuclear conflict the victory itself is still that trophy)
      3. Lopatov
        Lopatov 8 August 2019 09: 34
        +6
        Quote: Pushkowed
        A retaliatory strike can be delivered by mistake (false positives by the SPRN) or as a result of a third-party provocation, so no one is going to use it (yes, Russia too).

        Sorry, but this is not true. And the oncoming is the main method.
        Under Obama-Medvedev, there were attempts to convince Russia to use the concept of "retaliation." but even Medvedev did not go for it
        Yes, and this is stupid, considering that the main concept of the Americans is a preventive "disarming strike"
      4. garri-lin
        garri-lin 8 August 2019 12: 47
        +2
        What nonsense are you talking about. Do you think that in the event of any blow to key centers of the state, someone will not respond in full force? Yes, in the modern world, any scythe must be answered in full.
      5. Alexey RA
        Alexey RA 8 August 2019 14: 36
        +3
        Quote: Pushkowed
        Thus, the authors of the BSU idea expect that there will be no "response" until the missile hits the target. and when it hits, the "victim" will understand that the missile was non-nuclear, so there seems to be no reason to unleash a nuclear war.

        Ambush is that
        Quote: Pushkowed
        Non-nuclear ICBMs on SPRN radars are really indistinguishable from nuclear

        That is, any launch of a non-nuclear ICBM / SLBM will have to react in exactly the same way as a launch of a nuclear ICBM / SLBM. Because no one can guarantee that these ICBMs are in fact non-nuclear, and not disguised as nuclear ones (and with RGM).
        For two or three "buses" are quite enough to inflict a disarming blow on the control system of the Armed Forces, incapacitate decision-makers and partially knock out the Strategic Missile Forces - if the control system functions in peacetime (when the leadership in the offices, the All-Union Communist Party of the Soviet Union and SDV- communications - at airfields, SSBNs - mostly at bases, PGRK - mostly in hangars).
        And each such launch increases the cumulative probability of a critical error. Because if, when launching even a non-nuclear ICBM, an identification failure occurs, and according to data from the early warning system, it turns out that a "bus" is flying to visit us, then there will be very little time for a reaction, there will be no time to think, discuss and call up, the answer will go to reflexes ".
    2. Pushkowed
      Pushkowed 8 August 2019 08: 23
      +2
      Orbital platforms are indeed vulnerable to "anti-satellite" weapons, but partially-orbital complexes (making less than 1 orbit in orbit, and then along a ballistic trajectory) can only be hit by a missile defense system, like ICBMs. Since part of their trajectory is in orbit, their range is not really limited. Both maximum and minimum: you can hit at least a point on the other side of the planet, at least at your starting point. The deployment of nuclear weapons in space is now prohibited by international treaties (although the attitude towards such treaties has recently been "cool"), this prohibition also applies to partially orbital complexes. But a non-nuclear partial-orbital complex is quite legal (more precisely, "conventional"). Shooting it down is no easier than an ICBM. In addition, unlike it, it can disguise itself as an ordinary space launch (a civilian launch vehicle that does not attract the attention of an enemy early warning system). We must be prepared for such surprises!
      1. g1washntwn
        g1washntwn 8 August 2019 09: 29
        0
        Quote: Pushkowed
        ... knocking him down is no easier than ICBMs

        The Russian satellite inspector will tell you that not everything is so clear in terms of camouflaging combat platforms as civilians, and at the same time - about the methods of "evacuating" offenders. wink
        1. Pushkowed
          Pushkowed 8 August 2019 14: 33
          0
          The satellite inspector is first and foremost satellite... It flies in orbit, making many revolutions. To carry out an "inspection" (inspection, damage, destruction, capture ...), he must change his orbit so that it becomes the same as that of the "inspected" spacecraft, then synchronize the orbital phase (i.e., be in the same part of the orbit) and start approaching with the help of shunting engines. I don’t know how long it takes, but it’s hardly possible to keep within 1 loop. A partial orbiter travels in an orbit for less than 1 orbit. Theoretically, it can be "inspected" or even "evacuated", but this requires:
          1) Know in advance the parameters of the orbit (more precisely, its "piece");
          2) Know the start time in advance;
          3) Put an inspector satellite into the required orbit in advance in order to organize a "rendezvous";
          4) In a very short time (literally several minutes), carry out the approach and all the necessary manipulations, until the device descended from orbit back into the atmosphere.
          This is possible only if the enemy himself will share classified information. And if he wants to avoid the inspection, then he can just pick up the launch time so that not a single satellite inspector has time to do anything (not only we have a space monitoring system).
          The question is, why fence a garden when you can use an anti-missile (anti-satellite missile)? With its help, it is possible to "remove" a partially orbiter not only from the orbital part of the trajectory, but also from the ballistic one (or even from the accelerating one). The tactics of dealing with such devices are essentially the same as missile defense.
          1. g1washntwn
            g1washntwn 8 August 2019 15: 04
            0
            All the most distinguishable objects in orbit (VKS reported the size of a tennis ball) have been cataloged for a long time, only their orbits change is observed. Therefore, orbital platforms, even those declared as failed, are still under surveillance. And in terms of rendezvous speed - for example, the start from the Progress ground to the docking with the ISS is 199 minutes, for the kinetic interceptor with the MIG-31 it is much less.
    3. Butchcassidy
      Butchcassidy 8 August 2019 13: 17
      0
      In my opinion, BSU is an initially flawed concept. What purposes is it used against? Against Mujahideen in Afghanistan? Not seriously. With the same success, you can hammer in nails with a microscope.

      The only one against whom he could theoretically be used is for a decapitation strike on the Russian Federation and China. But neither we nor China will understand and will answer with all the arsenal. Talk that de after a single hit on its territory non-nuclear ICBMs, Russia or China will not answer is pretty stupid. The first who does not understand this is his own population.
      1. Shopping Mall
        8 August 2019 17: 04
        0
        Quote: ButchCassidy
        In my opinion, BSU is an initially flawed concept. What purposes is it used against? Against Mujahideen in Afghanistan? Not seriously. With the same success, you can hammer in nails with a microscope.

        The only one against whom he could theoretically be used is for a decapitation strike on the Russian Federation and China. But neither we nor China will understand and will answer with all the arsenal. Talk that de after a single hit on its territory non-nuclear ICBMs, Russia or China will not answer is pretty stupid. The first who does not understand this is his own population.


        Neither by Mujahideen, nor by superdzhav. Goals - something in between, i.e. states with a sufficiently high military potential and developed infrastructure, but not related to nuclear powers.
        1. Butchcassidy
          Butchcassidy 9 August 2019 00: 28
          0
          And what is the problem now, who needs to be rolled into asphalt without BSU? And what kind of countries are they?

          In my opinion, you are trying to deceive yourself. The BSU concept, coupled with the land-based missile defense in Europe and the naval missile defense component from other directions, was supposed to solve the issue of Russia by military means, the very fact of the existence of which does not suit the United States. But it didn’t work out.

          Where did the nonsense come from about some non-nuclear countries, I even find it difficult to guess.
    4. Chaldon48
      Chaldon48 9 August 2019 08: 01
      -1
      You can hit, for example, along the coast of Miklouho Maklai, but here there is a chance to get about the branch, Miklouho Moklai, our compatriot, it’s insulting!
  3. Amateur
    Amateur 8 August 2019 06: 21
    -1
    Uno-uno-uno momento Uno-uno-uno sentimento ...
    In general, everyone died
  4. Potter
    Potter 8 August 2019 06: 29
    +2
    What kind of missile carrier Tu-33M3? No one knows? It can be assumed that the author’s sight has lost the key on the fig.
    1. Vladimir Teplov
      Vladimir Teplov 8 August 2019 07: 08
      +1
      I also think that the author mixed up Tu 22 m3 and printed Tu 33 m 3
    2. Shopping Mall
      8 August 2019 11: 46
      0
      Quote: Potter
      What kind of missile carrier Tu-33M3? No one knows? It can be assumed that the author’s sight has lost the key on the fig.


      Typo, thanks, corrected.
      1. Chaldon48
        Chaldon48 9 August 2019 08: 24
        -1
        They dreamed about him, but did not dare to translate it on paper.
  5. wave
    wave 8 August 2019 06: 57
    -1
    The author, for the article, a triple with a minus.
    About nothing. I got pictures, copied the text.
    I was especially pleased with the "organizational capabilities" :-)
    If broadcasting about strategy, then express accordingly.
    There is a special word for this.
    1. Nikolaevich I
      Nikolaevich I 8 August 2019 08: 16
      +1
      Do not shoot the pianist! He plays as he can!
      1. Horse, people and soul
        Horse, people and soul 8 August 2019 09: 44
        +1
        Nikolaevich I (Vladimir) Today, 08:16 NEW

        Do not shoot the pianist! He plays as he can!


        Favorite movie about good and evil.

    2. Shopping Mall
      8 August 2019 11: 49
      0
      Quote: val
      About nothing. I got pictures, copied the text.


      The article is to some extent a preamble to the second part, the text is nowhere in "copypasten".
      Without illustrations, it somehow dullly turns out.
  6. Undecim
    Undecim 8 August 2019 08: 16
    +1
    The recognition by the leadership of any unfriendly non-nuclear country that it can at any moment be destroyed by weapons, from which there is practically no protection, will greatly contribute to their adoption of reasonable and balanced decisions. The objectives of the second level can be considered a military base, ships at the pier, large industrial facilities, infrastructure elements of the fuel and energy complex.
    And the author does not admit the possibility that the "leadership of an unfriendly non-nuclear country" may have a similar weapon?
    1. Shopping Mall
      8 August 2019 11: 48
      0
      Quote: Undecim
      The recognition by the leadership of any unfriendly non-nuclear country that it can at any moment be destroyed by weapons, from which there is practically no protection, will greatly contribute to their adoption of reasonable and balanced decisions. The objectives of the second level can be considered a military base, ships at the pier, large industrial facilities, infrastructure elements of the fuel and energy complex.
      And the author does not admit the possibility that the "leadership of an unfriendly non-nuclear country" may have a similar weapon?


      The proposed composition, goals and application scenarios will be in the second article, it is already aimed at publication.
    2. The comment was deleted.
  7. Ehanatone
    Ehanatone 8 August 2019 08: 25
    +1
    The article is a set of common truths known since the GO course.
    A definite minus, I really don’t know how to put it ...
  8. Sergst
    Sergst 8 August 2019 08: 38
    +1
    Quote: Pushkowed
    ... By the way, while searching, they even heard a "calibration" control explosion of 100kg of TNT (0,01ct)! ...

    A small clarification to the excellent commentary is not 0,01ct, but 0,0001ct, right?
    1. Pushkowed
      Pushkowed 8 August 2019 08: 54
      0
      Exactly. Lost a bit in orders of magnitude recourse
      The sound at the death of a diesel-electric submarine is thus obtained 0,0056 ct. And after all heard the same!
  9. Operator
    Operator 8 August 2019 09: 16
    0
    There is no such beast in nature as a "strategic conventional weapon" laughing

    For a simple reason - strategic weapons are directed exclusively against a strategic adversary. For example, for the USA, these are Russia and China. Launching toward one or two of these countries ICBMs with tungsten kinetic destructive elements means triggering a return launch in the United States of Russian and Chinese ICBMs with thermonuclear charges of maximum power.

    Therefore, "strategic conventional weapons" are intended to be used exclusively against third world countries.

    PS Nuclear charges with artificially reduced power are de facto a radiological weapon, since the plutonium fission ratio in their composition is reduced from 100% to 3-5%. Unreacted plutonium will contaminate the affected area for several thousand years.
  10. Horse, people and soul
    Horse, people and soul 8 August 2019 09: 36
    +1
    Thus, the objective of strategic conventional weapons can be formulated as causing damage to the enemy, significantly reducing their organizational, industrial and military capabilities from a distance that minimizes or excludes the likelihood of a direct military collision with the enemy’s armed forces.


    Again, this is only against the "Papuans". The United States will not dare to use such weapons against Russia and China today.

    I’m not sure that any of the words used above is not obscene in VO.
  11. Zaurbek
    Zaurbek 8 August 2019 10: 15
    0
    So far, the most working KR scheme with conventional warheads ... a massive raid solves the same problems as nuclear weapons.
    1. garri-lin
      garri-lin 8 August 2019 13: 03
      0
      Does not solve. For the nuclear equivalent, you need so much CD that it is impossible to do. Just calculate how much you need 300 kg warhead KR to approach in terms of effectiveness to 300000000 kg equivalent of an average warhead.
      1. Zaurbek
        Zaurbek 8 August 2019 13: 21
        0
        Why come closer? KR pointly destroy important objects. On the example of the city of Krasnodar - a dam, thermal power station, substations, communications, railway junctions, bridges. All.
        1. garri-lin
          garri-lin 8 August 2019 14: 09
          0
          ZhDuzly restore in a couple of days. Substations per week. The only thing from your example is difficult to restore this dam. The rest is a matter of the week. The bridges will be replaced by pontoons and will begin to restore immediately. The level of damage from nuclear weapons is an order of magnitude higher.
          1. Zaurbek
            Zaurbek 8 August 2019 14: 21
            0
            So after YaUU will be restored ..... On the military commissar we were told that for the failure of Krasnodar (industry, etc.), 3 pieces of nuclear warheads are needed (I do not remember the power). And so 100 Tomogawks.
            1. garri-lin
              garri-lin 8 August 2019 14: 41
              0
              What is easier to restore, a couple of railway shooters after getting a tomahawk or a dozen shooters and a few kilometers after YABCh? What is easier to use transformers in substations or in addition to transformers to change dozens of poles overturned by a nuclear explosion. And not just pillars but towers along which millionaire wires go? After 3 apples, Krasnodar will not be able to give anything to the country for several months. And after 100 tomahawks, in a week it will work as before. Only angry and more productive. But after 3 Yabch, there will be no one to restore. There will be many victims among the population, and survivors will be demoralized and occupied mainly by wounded relatives and friends. The difference is huge.
              1. Zaurbek
                Zaurbek 8 August 2019 14: 44
                +1
                If this is a global war with nuclear weapons there is no doubt ..... but if it is a conflict with Turkey, let's say ..... nuclear weapons are not omnipotent, its accuracy is lower. if you get into the railway junction ... you can connect the branches ... if you definitely don’t get there, the rails will remain in place.
                1. garri-lin
                  garri-lin 8 August 2019 15: 01
                  0
                  Turkey to Nato. If there is a conflict flowing into the war, it will be extremely dangerous to bring the matter to war. But if the opponent is aggressive, then nuclear weapons will almost certainly have to be used. Against NATO.
                  1. Zaurbek
                    Zaurbek 8 August 2019 15: 02
                    0
                    I figuratively took Turkey ....
                    1. garri-lin
                      garri-lin 8 August 2019 15: 07
                      0
                      Why take Turkey if there is Syria. And a few well-lit in the press strikes of the Kyrgyz Republic and tomahawks at the airfield and gauges. Efficiency is high but damage is quickly fixed.
                      1. Zaurbek
                        Zaurbek 8 August 2019 15: 09
                        0
                        And you will deliver a nuclear strike against Islamists, in mountainous areas .... what will be the effect? CDs are not needed there - these are tests of CDs and their carriers. The main problem there is the overland occupation of the territory by "our" troops.
                      2. garri-lin
                        garri-lin 8 August 2019 15: 43
                        +2
                        Is the Tomahawk strike on the airfield also a test? KR will never replace nuclear weapons. Too big a gap in efficiency between them. And no conventional warheads on strategists will be effective. The mattress is driven. Preparing to shoot a cannon at sparrows. An equal opponent will respond to the full, and the third world is too insignificant goal for such costs. What an ICBM with a warhead of 1 ton will do is a drone can do and it will cost less.
                      3. Zaurbek
                        Zaurbek 8 August 2019 16: 07
                        0
                        If it is possible to solve the problem conventionally, why use nuclear weapons?
                      4. garri-lin
                        garri-lin 8 August 2019 16: 23
                        +1
                        If you can send a special forces group or a drone, then why launch an ICBM with a conventional warhead?
                      5. Zaurbek
                        Zaurbek 8 August 2019 16: 28
                        +1
                        And if it’s Iran ... and your special forces from a UAV or a fighter will be shot down?
                      6. garri-lin
                        garri-lin 8 August 2019 16: 42
                        0
                        Iran is a serious adversary. And there are many goals in his territory. And he can answer very strongly. And on the ships as well. This will already be a full-fledged war with a huge expenditure of ammunition from the agony of the agonist. And that war’s budget will be huge. I remember Matrasia had already suspended the Tomogawk attacks due to the exhaustion of stocks in warehouses. And Iran can also respond to terrorist attacks on the territory of the opponent.
                      7. Shopping Mall
                        8 August 2019 16: 55
                        0
                        Quote: garri-lin
                        Iran is a serious adversary. And there are many goals in his territory. And he can answer very strongly. And on the ships as well. This will already be a full-fledged war with a huge expenditure of ammunition from the agony of the agonist. And that war’s budget will be huge. I remember Matrasia had already suspended the Tomogawk attacks due to the exhaustion of stocks in warehouses. And Iran can also respond to terrorist attacks on the territory of the opponent.


                        This of course he can do anything, especially the attacks. the question is, after the first strike with strategic conventional weapons, it will be another country, with less military and industrial potential, with lost ships and aircraft at airfields, possibly without leadership. After this, it will be much easier to deal with it. And the first strike should be very quick, stunning, not giving time for the dispersal of troops, the evacuation of the government.
                      8. garri-lin
                        garri-lin 8 August 2019 17: 10
                        +1
                        How many conventional warheads are needed for this? What weight? How many of these warheads will the carrier lift? (almost certainly one). How many carriers are needed and how other countries will react to the start of so many carriers. How much will such a blow cost?
                      9. Shopping Mall
                        8 August 2019 17: 14
                        0
                        Quote: garri-lin
                        How many conventional warheads are needed for this? What weight? How many of these warheads will the carrier lift? (almost certainly one). How many carriers are needed and how other countries will react to the start of so many carriers. How much will such a blow cost?


                        About I estimated the number and nomenclature of DIS for the Russian Federation in the following material, it was commissioned, maybe it will be published the other day. And in terms of cost, it is difficult to compare how much will the cost of a ground-based operation to achieve similar goals be?
                      10. garri-lin
                        garri-lin 8 August 2019 17: 29
                        0
                        So the fact of the matter is that the strike does not cancel the ground operation. It just makes it easier and allows you to reduce losses. But the cost of land to reduce is unlikely to succeed.
                      11. Zaurbek
                        Zaurbek 8 August 2019 15: 11
                        +1
                        Turkey differs from Syria in that Turkey is a state with infrastructure, and Syria is semi-Afghanistan.
              2. Zaurbek
                Zaurbek 8 August 2019 14: 45
                0
                https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BH9ULuskKqY
              3. Zaurbek
                Zaurbek 8 August 2019 14: 45
                0
                Roughly speaking, the most effective CD with NSC is targeted, powerful.
                1. garri-lin
                  garri-lin 8 August 2019 15: 02
                  0
                  And it is incomprehensible to fly or not.
                  1. Zaurbek
                    Zaurbek 8 August 2019 15: 10
                    0
                    Yes, but this is decided by the number of CDs per target. + or - million dollars
                    1. garri-lin
                      garri-lin 8 August 2019 15: 46
                      0
                      The number of CDs is also the number of their carriers located close enough to the target. And a large number of carriers will immediately be paid attention to and measures will be taken, and the factor of surprise and numerical superiority will be leveled.
                      1. Zaurbek
                        Zaurbek 8 August 2019 15: 47
                        0
                        For a non-nuclear strike, this is uncritical. Where we want to fly or swim.
                      2. Zaurbek
                        Zaurbek 8 August 2019 15: 48
                        0
                        They will carry out first air defense and radars along the path of the passage of the Kyrgyz Republic and then objects ...
                      3. garri-lin
                        garri-lin 8 August 2019 15: 55
                        0
                        Yes, any accumulation of enemy troops will cause retaliatory measures. And the reserves will be pulled up and the regular units will be fully operational. And in the event of an attack, they will think less and double-check.
                      4. Zaurbek
                        Zaurbek 8 August 2019 16: 27
                        0
                        Someone has the means ... someone does not. Many who can respond to US ships ms KR?
                      5. garri-lin
                        garri-lin 8 August 2019 16: 37
                        0
                        And why against such opponents to make superpurek weapons worth half a budget? Expeditionary forces and aircraft from the nearest base or allied airfield. Better yet, sponsor an opposition.
                      6. Zaurbek
                        Zaurbek 8 August 2019 16: 40
                        +1
                        Two missiles and a destroyed decision-making center and important nodes or a military operation with the loss of people and equipment ...
                      7. garri-lin
                        garri-lin 8 August 2019 16: 47
                        0
                        Two missiles with conventional warheads? Will not be enough. I’ll tell you about the grief of the country's leadership in a period of prejudice in one place going only in Hollywood films. Typically, they are dispersed over bunkers and communicate through secure channels. What is in Russia, what is in China, what is in Iran, what is in America. Two conventional missiles are not enough.
                      8. Zaurbek
                        Zaurbek 8 August 2019 16: 51
                        0
                        What about the CHP? And nuclear power plants ... and fuel terminals?
                      9. garri-lin
                        garri-lin 8 August 2019 17: 06
                        0
                        Even in small countries there are more than one such object.
  12. jungler
    jungler 8 August 2019 13: 15
    0
    The author suggests: "...The objectives of the second level can be considered a military base, ships at the pier, large industrial facilities, infrastructure elements of the fuel and energy complex ... "I don't see much sense in this. Example: A large plant. A meeting of the board of directors and management ... a small ammunition flies through the window and explodes ... The enterprise DOESN'T WORK further. AT ALL. Then there will be other owners .. I think that nuclear weapons are unnecessary. 1. DATABASE of residences and location of property of the LEADERS and their families of the enemy 2. Precision weapons capable of hitting DOT these military, financial and political leaders together with their families, palaces and mansions, islands, including physically the buildings of BANKS with THEIR accounts. AND THE PEOPLE ARE WORKERS. WHY TO STEAD? For example. If during WW2 the mansion of Churchill and Co. was bombed out - I'm sure the war would have gone the other way. the whole "Hitler war party")
    1. g1washntwn
      g1washntwn 8 August 2019 14: 05
      0
      BSU just implies the defeat of decision centers as well. The hard worker people, although on the list of collateral damage, is also a military-industrial resource, so the destruction of the enemy’s population is as necessary as depriving him of other resources. The order and methods may only differ. JBCH got into the factory, along with machine tools grinding shells, people died ... oh, wei, what an irreparable loss for democracy! The survivors began to rebuild the plant and sharpen the shells further ... hello again, what a threat to democracy! Keep your dose of bacteriological, chemical, radiological and other mass genocidal. Or should the US sluggish attempts to completely liquidate its chemical weapons stockpiles and the construction of muddy bio-stations around potential opponents need to be perceived somehow differently? Watching Clinton rejoice at the reprisal against Gaddafi, I would not even hope for their assurances of limited use and other philistine tales.
    2. Zaurbek
      Zaurbek 8 August 2019 15: 05
      0
      The hard worker and the plant will be needed by the NEW authorities. Now the topic of extermination of the population is not being considered. Although our ballistic missiles are aimed at "soft" targets in the United States, taking into account their lower accuracy and high power ... but we do not want the first gift, our strike is a counter-strike.
      1. g1washntwn
        g1washntwn 9 August 2019 08: 21
        0
        Do not confuse non-military and other proxy methods of appropriating resources with purely military, and even more so with nuclear. In the course of the Nazi-Hitler concept of the use of the lesser after the seizure of territories? Here it will be the same. And millions of natives are not needed to extract resources for the beneficiary of this global conflict and are contraindicated by their ideology.
    3. Alexey RA
      Alexey RA 8 August 2019 15: 25
      +2
      Quote: jungler
      A PEOPLE - WORK. WHY TO ROPE?

      Then, what exactly they produce. And as long as the machines and lines that the workers have at the factory work, production cannot be considered disabled. Instead of past directors, new ones will be sent - and the more important the production, the faster the new management will appear.
      Quote: jungler
      For instance. If Churchill and Co.’s mansion had been bombed during WWII, I’m sure the war would have gone the other way.

      But who would let her go the other way ... smile
      By the time Vinnie came to power, everything had already been decided - the United States had invested too much in preparing for the war to let such a chance slip on the brakes. In addition, the possible loss of "Runway No. 1" hit their plans hard. So another hawk would have come to Vinnie's place - and it all repeated like old...
  13. Operator
    Operator 8 August 2019 15: 20
    0
    Quote: Pushkowed
    it can be disguised as a normal space launch (by a civilian launch vehicle that does not attract the attention of the enemy SPRN)

    The only effective non-nuclear weapon space-to-earth is the so-called "Rod of God" - a tungsten striking element the size of a telegraph pole and weighing several tons (designed to disable ICBM mines and medium-sized underground command posts).

    Try disguising 1000 telegraph poles as peaceful space satellites laughing
  14. BAI
    BAI 8 August 2019 15: 59
    +1
    nuclear weapons became the first weapons that are not actually used,

    This is how to look. We can say that it is used constantly to prevent a global nuclear war. Many types of weapons are not used for their intended purpose, but by the very fact of their existence they are decisively changing the geopolitical situation. When was the last time a strategic submarine missile carrier or Topol-M was used for military purposes? And on the account of primacy - this is the Tsar Cannon, which was originally built for intimidation, and not for shooting. You can recall Capacitor-2P and Oka.
  15. evgen1221
    evgen1221 8 August 2019 16: 30
    +1
    To use MBR even in a non-nuclear version in a non-nuclear country, but what country has an MBR does not have cheaper pulyalok? The delirium of amers on the basis of deflated charges.
    1. Shopping Mall
      8 August 2019 16: 51
      0
      Quote: evgen1221
      To use MBR even in a non-nuclear version in a non-nuclear country, but what country has an MBR does not have cheaper pulyalok? The delirium of amers on the basis of deflated charges.


      Disposal of old missiles (new warheads only) + long range, unattainable for other means + high impact efficiency.
      1. wave
        wave 8 August 2019 18: 47
        0
        Find on the net for new fuses for Trident missiles, which supposedly increase the duration, power of the charge and the probability of hitting def. PU.
        1. wave
          wave 8 August 2019 18: 49
          0
          There is a photo here, but you need to leaf through.
          http://samlib.ru/comment/s/semenow_aleksandr_sergeewich333/photo-1
  16. wave
    wave 8 August 2019 18: 40
    0
    I was then a small staffer at the level of the flotilla, but I think that under Andropov they wanted to screw on first.
    The story "War in the process of the" Process ", or a smart navigator".
    Search by name is.
    1. wave
      wave 8 August 2019 18: 41
      0
      http://samlib.ru/s/semenow_aleksandr_sergeewich333/war.shtml
  17. Prometheus
    Prometheus 9 August 2019 22: 02
    0
    The article is sensible and interesting. Only problems with spelling spoil the picture in places.
  18. samaravega
    samaravega 15 August 2019 11: 19
    +1
    I apologize for the wording, I risk "excommunication", but I can’t write in another way - I will sin against the truth. "Strategic conventional weapons" is a rare nonsense. Look at the fundamental differences between STRATEGIC and TACTICAL weapons (operational-tactical, etc., etc.). They (differences) in appointment. The strategic should lead ANY enemy out of the war as an entity. No "conventional" rockets, even super accurate ones, are capable of this. Even a single use of nuclear weapons is not a panacea. There are a lot of examples, from Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Korea, Vietnam and Afghanistan, to Iraq, Syria and Yemen. Did our Tu-22 and Tu-95 in Syria "decide" a lot? After their "numerous" and "very accurate" strikes, both "cast iron" (honestly, I don’t understand how you can "accurately" hit with conventional bombs from 12.000 m, all winds at all heights are known and processed by the onboard computer?), And high-precision cruise missiles , it took hundreds of victims from PMCs and dozens from the RF Ministry of Defense, apparently, "to consolidate the success."
    ICBMs with titanium rod warheads are superb. I live in Samara, one of the many factories is Progress, the former aircraft factory number 1, formerly the first plant in Russia that mastered the production of aircraft under Nikolashka the Bloody, in 1912. It was then called "Dux". So, if suddenly an ICBM is able to provide the highest accuracy (now really not achievable) and "lay" all tungsten rods in 1 km square exclusively on the territory of this plant (that is, not a single rod will go beyond the fence, everything to the plant), Considering the total area of ​​the enterprise, it is necessary that ICBMs fall EXCLUSIVELY in the assembly shop, otherwise the enterprise will stand up for one or two days (and that is not a fact), and then continue to assemble ICBMs, satellites and any other nonsense. This is just one of the factories of not the largest city of Samara. How many ICBMs do you need to “blow in” to disable all enterprises in one city with at least a 70% probability?
    Now about the cost. As a SA tankman by training, I can safely assure you that BPS with tungsten cores are significantly superior in armor penetration to those with depleted uranium cores, which are so "loved" in the United States. This is love by calculation: in the days of the USSR, money was far from deciding everything, and even the deservedly richest country (the USA) simply did not physically have enough tungsten to produce BPS for their tanks. It was not because of the good life that they, who sacredly honor the life and health of the servicemen of their mercenary army, contacted depleted uranium, which "phonites" in any way, and much longer than any person lives. The question is: where will tungsten come from for "conventional" ICBM warheads? Compare the weight of the BTS core and the throw weight of the Minuteman or Trident.
    With a big stretch of the imagination, "strategic conventional" weapons can be considered weapons designed to disable infrastructure: communications, power lines, etc. Some of them were used against Yugoslavia. But this is a separate topic.