Strategic conventional weapon. Damage

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.
Ctrl Enter

Noticed a mistake Highlight text and press. Ctrl + Enter

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

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Monster_Fat 8 August 2019 05: 29 New
    • 6
    • 3
    +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 8 August 2019 07: 34 New
      • 6
      • 0
      +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 8 August 2019 07: 38 New
      • 14
      • 0
      +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.
      From recent: the first nuclear explosion in the DPRK 09.10.2006 was recorded, despite the fact that there was only 0,5kt. Such an explosion can also be caused using conventional explosives, but the isotopic analysis of air samples (even though the explosion was underground) confirmed its “nuclear nature”. And he even revealed that the reason for such a low power, most likely, was the incomplete entry into the reaction of fissile material (the so-called "pop").
      When the Argentinean San Juan DEPL died in 15.11.2017 in the South Atlantic, even here the monitoring services recorded the sound of the “collapse” of its strong hull at an extraordinary depth (estimated the equivalent as 5,6ct), and calculated the area of ​​the boat’s death, which then allowed to find it. By the way, when searching, they even heard the “calibration” control explosion of 100kg of TNT (0,01kt)!
      So if nuclear weapons were used "unauthorized" somewhere, they would have trumpeted the whole world about it. And not one country, but several, and not unfounded, but with a bunch of evidence.
      1. grandson of Perun 8 August 2019 13: 09 New
        • 2
        • 0
        +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 8 August 2019 08: 11 New
      • 2
      • 0
      +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 8 August 2019 16: 36 New
      • 3
      • 0
      +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 8 August 2019 06: 19 New
    • 3
    • 0
    +3
    BSU can only work against a weak adversary who does not have strategic deterrence in his arsenal. And even then, only after multilateral coordination with countries that have such strategic nuclear forces, otherwise such a conventional BSU will instantly become global nuclear. Cruise missiles, in spite of all the secrecy of launch and flight, do not have a sufficient speed for delivering warheads to targets. Hypersonic will be equated to strategic and with the same risks as ICBM / SLBM warheads. Space strike platforms have a significant drawback to nuclear weapons - the cost of creating and maintaining them in orbit in a combat-ready state will exceed the cost of all ground-based strategic nuclear forces. Again, space platforms are quite vulnerable to the enemy's PKO with the corresponding 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 8 August 2019 08: 14 New
      • 2
      • 2
      0
      BSU is designed to ensure 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” retaliation. There is a certain logic in this. (In short: the return-on-line is the launch of its nuclear missiles at the enemy, while the enemy missiles are still in flight, and the response is only after they have exploded, and it became completely clear that this is not a mistake, but a real nuclear war). 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). This is just a theoretical concept. And the practice of all nuclear powers is designed only for a retaliatory strike (silos, PGRK and SSBNs are needed for the nuclear arsenal to survive the first strike of the enemy, and then take part in the retaliatory strike). Non-nuclear ICBMs on SPRN radars are really indistinguishable from nuclear, but it is planned to be applied pointwise, by single launches, and not massive, so as not to provoke a “victim” not understanding apply too fast a nuclear response (the situation is “start or lose”).
      Thus, the authors of the BSU idea expect that there will be no “answer” until the rocket 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 start a nuclear war. This can’t be left unanswered, but since BSU officers didn’t cross the “red line” (didn’t use nuclear weapons or other weapons of mass destruction, didn’t jeopardize the very existence of the state, etc.), and “only” staged a demonstrative flogging, if we we don’t want a full-scale nuclear war (and its really nobody wants), then in applying the "otvetka" you must observe the "gentlemanly" rules of fair fight. If there is nothing proportional to inflict, it remains only to "swallow" this slap in the face. Not to turn from the national pride "the whole world into ruin", in fact?
      So non-nuclear ICBMs need to be taken seriously. Since they are being developed, then someone needs this.
      1. Errr 8 August 2019 08: 42 New
        • 7
        • 0
        +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 8 August 2019 09: 16 New
          • 2
          • 0
          +2
          + In the USA, the police do so. Without waiting for clarification of the fact of "toy" weapons in the hands of the alleged offender. NF is therefore a deterrent, because no one will wait for an explanation. A "single launch" of conventional carriers, according to Yang, does not correspond to the concept global strokes. The launch should and will be just massive and from all sides, no one will wait for it "will the explosions be nuclear or not?"
          1. Errr 8 August 2019 09: 20 New
            • 1
            • 0
            +1
            Yeah ... I absolutely do not care which club will knock the spirit out of me - thermonuclear or conventional.))) hi
          2. Pushkowed 8 August 2019 09: 31 New
            • 0
            • 0
            0
            "Global" means "at any point on the globe."
            it will be massive and from all sides, here no one will wait
            I will upset you: they will. The SNF reaction time is longer than the flight time of ICBMs. Before the SSBN it is still necessary to "get through" and follow all the protocols. And during this time everything will become clear. No one will start a nuclear war over fallen tungsten.
            1. g1washntwn 8 August 2019 09: 57 New
              • 0
              • 0
              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.
              There is only one option to “slow down” the oncoming counter-response - VKS record the self-destruction of targets moving along the trajectory of falling on the Russian Federation. Any other options for "erroneous" launches and promises on the hotline do not work here.
        2. Pushkowed 8 August 2019 09: 24 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          Keywords:
          if I have my own gun
          1. Errr 8 August 2019 09: 38 New
            • 1
            • 0
            +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 8 August 2019 09: 56 New
              • 3
              • 2
              +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 in the BS in the Pacific. Usually they sit near their shores, under the protection of PLO. But maybe they decided to come closer to reduce flight time? The Chinese also have SSBNs. And they did not forget that "in the battle between a tiger and a lion, a monkey wins." 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 8 August 2019 10: 46 New
                • 4
                • 0
                +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 8 August 2019 09: 36 New
          • 5
          • 0
          +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 8 August 2019 08: 47 New
        • 3
        • 0
        +3
        BSU is designed to ensure 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” retaliation

        BSU is designed to saturate missile defense; after BSU, ICBMs with nuclear weapons will go
        1. Pushkowed 8 August 2019 09: 21 New
          • 1
          • 0
          +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" negligent "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” of 60 minutes has been established for BSU, and the flight time of “Minutemans” is only about 30 minutes. This suggests that they are designed for different political and strategic scenarios.
          1. armata_armata 8 August 2019 10: 13 New
            • 0
            • 2
            -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) BSU does not fall under START 3 agreements, since the "partners" swear by oath that the installation of special warheads with nuclear charges is impossible
            By the way, the “standard” of 60 minutes has been established for BSU, and the flight time of “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 8 August 2019 10: 46 New
              • 1
              • 0
              +1
              wait for the enemy to shoot back at BSU to spend a decent amount of missile defense and spend real nuclear charges already
              It’s just that the enemy can get bored with this process and he will decide, since a nuclear war is inevitable, to deliver the “blow 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 was to kill more office hamsters. Nuclear weapons are too expensive to spend on such "goals", especially considering the level of their strategic "significance". The Americans themselves (as far back as the 1960 years) determined that in order to win a nuclear war it was necessary to destroy the 2 / 3 industry and only 1 / 5 people (in fact, loss of life is a collateral damage). Industry is the main goal for nuclear weapons. Forcing the enemy to fight on foot (oil refineries destroyed), making it impossible to make up for losses in technology (metallurgy destroyed, machines stand without electricity) - that's what nuclear weapons were invented for. And, of course, to deprive the enemy of his nuclear arsenal (disarming strike) and the 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 on media - 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 as much damage as possible on the enemy, so that the erupted warheads must be nuclear. And BSU is for local or "limited" non-nuclear wars. This is more political than military means, but it differs from nuclear weapons in that they can not only scare them, but also [within certain limits] really apply them.
              1. armata_armata 8 August 2019 11: 15 New
                • 1
                • 2
                -1
                It’s just that the enemy can get bored with this process and he will decide, since a nuclear war is inevitable, to deliver the “blow 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 was to kill more office hamsters. Nuclear weapons are too expensive a thing to spend on such "goals", especially considering the level of their strategic "significance"

                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 "goals", especially considering the level of their strategic "significance". 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 (in fact, loss of life is a 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 on media - 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 as much damage as possible on the enemy, so the erupted warheads 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 - it 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 8 August 2019 14: 41 New
                • 0
                • 0
                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 8 August 2019 09: 34 New
        • 6
        • 0
        +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 a “retaliation strike”. but even Medvedev did not go for it
        Yes, and this is stupid, given that the main concept of the Americans is a preventive "disarming strike"
      4. garri-lin 8 August 2019 12: 47 New
        • 2
        • 0
        +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 8 August 2019 14: 36 New
        • 3
        • 0
        +3
        Quote: Pushkowed
        Thus, the authors of the BSU idea expect that there will be no “answer” until the rocket 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 start 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” will be enough to deliver a disarming blow to the aircraft control system, disable decision makers and partially disrupt the Strategic Missile Forces - if the control system operates in peacetime (when the leadership is in the offices, the CPSU and the SDV- aircraft 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, even when launching a non-nuclear ICBM, the recognition fails, and according to the data from the SPRN it turns out that a "bus" flies to visit us, then there will be very little time for reaction, there will be no time to think, discuss and call up, the answer will go "to reflexes. "
    2. Pushkowed 8 August 2019 08: 23 New
      • 2
      • 0
      +2
      Orbital platforms are really vulnerable to anti-satellite weapons, but partially-orbital complexes (making in orbit less than the 1 turn, and further along the ballistic trajectory) can only be hit by a missile defense system, like ICBMs. Since part of their trajectory passes 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 outer space is now prohibited by international treaties (although the attitude to such treaties has recently been "cool"), this ban also extends to partially orbital complexes. But the non-nuclear partial-orbital complex is quite legitimate (more precisely, it is “conventional”). Knocking him down is no easier than ICBMs. In addition, unlike it, it can disguise itself as a normal space launch (a civilian launch vehicle that does not attract the attention of an enemy SPRN). We must be prepared for such surprises!
      1. g1washntwn 8 August 2019 09: 29 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        Quote: Pushkowed
        ... knocking him down is no easier than ICBMs

        The Russian satellite inspector will tell you that not everything is so simple in terms of disguising combat platforms as civilian, and at the same time about ways to “evacuate” violators. wink
        1. Pushkowed 8 August 2019 14: 33 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          The satellite inspector is first and foremost satellite. He flies in orbit, making many revolutions. In order to conduct an “inspection” (inspection, damage, destruction, capture ...), he must change his orbit so that it becomes the same as that of the “inspected” vehicle, then synchronize the orbital phase (ie, find himself in the same parts of the orbit) and begin convergence using shunting engines. I don’t know how long it takes, but it is hardly possible to meet the 1 round. A partial orbiter orbits less than the 1 orbit. Theoretical, it can be "inspected" or even "evacuated", but for this you need:
          1) Know in advance the parameters of the orbit (more precisely, its "piece");
          2) Know the start time in advance;
          3) In advance, put the satellite inspector into the desired orbit 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 should I fence the garden when can I use a missile defense (anti-satellite missile)? With its help, it is possible to "remove" a partially orbital apparatus not only from the orbital part of the trajectory, but also from the ballistic (or even from the accelerating) one. The tactics of dealing with such devices are essentially the same as missile defense.
          1. g1washntwn 8 August 2019 15: 04 New
            • 0
            • 0
            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 8 August 2019 13: 17 New
      • 0
      • 0
      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 New
        • 0
        • 0
        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 9 August 2019 00: 28 New
          • 0
          • 0
          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 9 August 2019 08: 01 New
      • 0
      • 1
      -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 8 August 2019 06: 21 New
    • 1
    • 2
    -1
    Uno-uno-uno momento Uno-uno-uno sentimento ...
    In general, everyone died
  4. Potter 8 August 2019 06: 29 New
    • 2
    • 0
    +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 8 August 2019 07: 08 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +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 New
      • 0
      • 0
      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 9 August 2019 08: 24 New
        • 0
        • 1
        -1
        They dreamed about him, but did not dare to translate it on paper.
  5. wave 8 August 2019 06: 57 New
    • 2
    • 3
    -1
    The author, for the article, a triple with a minus.
    About nothing. I got pictures, copied the text.
    Particularly pleased with the "organizational capabilities" :-)
    If broadcasting about strategy, then express accordingly.
    There is a special word for this.
    1. Nikolaevich I 8 August 2019 08: 16 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      Do not shoot the pianist! He plays as he can!
      1. Horse, people and soul 8 August 2019 09: 44 New
        • 1
        • 0
        +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 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      Quote: val
      About nothing. I got pictures, copied the text.


      The article is to some extent the preamble to the second part, the text is nowhere to be “copy-paste”.
      Without illustrations, it somehow dullly turns out.
  6. Undecim 8 August 2019 08: 16 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +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 allow options that at the disposal of the "leadership of an unfriendly non-nuclear country" can there be similar weapons?
    1. Shopping Mall 8 August 2019 11: 48 New
      • 0
      • 0
      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 allow options that at the disposal of the "leadership of an unfriendly non-nuclear country" can there be similar weapons?


      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 8 August 2019 08: 25 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +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 8 August 2019 08: 38 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    Quote: Pushkowed
    ... By the way, when searching, they even heard the "calibration" control explosion of 100 kg of TNT (0,01ct)! ....

    A small clarification to the excellent commentary is not 0,01ct, but 0,0001ct, right?
    1. Pushkowed 8 August 2019 08: 54 New
      • 0
      • 0
      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 8 August 2019 09: 16 New
    • 3
    • 3
    0
    In nature, there is no such beast 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, the "strategic convention weapon" is 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 8 August 2019 09: 36 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +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, it 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 8 August 2019 10: 15 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    So far, the most working KR scheme with conventional warheads ... a massive raid solves the same problems as nuclear weapons.
    1. garri-lin 8 August 2019 13: 03 New
      • 0
      • 0
      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 8 August 2019 13: 21 New
        • 0
        • 0
        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 8 August 2019 14: 09 New
          • 0
          • 0
          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 8 August 2019 14: 21 New
            • 0
            • 0
            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 8 August 2019 14: 41 New
              • 0
              • 0
              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 8 August 2019 14: 44 New
                • 1
                • 0
                +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 8 August 2019 15: 01 New
                  • 0
                  • 0
                  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 8 August 2019 15: 02 New
                    • 0
                    • 0
                    0
                    I figuratively took Turkey ....
                    1. garri-lin 8 August 2019 15: 07 New
                      • 0
                      • 0
                      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 8 August 2019 15: 09 New
                        • 0
                        • 0
                        0
                        And do you strike a nuclear strike against the Islamists, in the highlands .... what will be the effect? КР there nafig are not needed - these are tests of КР and their carriers. There, the main problem is the land occupation of the territory by "our" troops.
                      2. garri-lin 8 August 2019 15: 43 New
                        • 2
                        • 0
                        +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 8 August 2019 16: 07 New
                        • 0
                        • 0
                        0
                        If it is possible to solve the problem conventionally, why use nuclear weapons?
                      4. garri-lin 8 August 2019 16: 23 New
                        • 1
                        • 0
                        +1
                        If you can send a special forces group or a drone, then why launch an ICBM with a conventional warhead?
                      5. Zaurbek 8 August 2019 16: 28 New
                        • 1
                        • 0
                        +1
                        And if it’s Iran ... and your special forces from a UAV or a fighter will be shot down?
                      6. garri-lin 8 August 2019 16: 42 New
                        • 0
                        • 0
                        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 New
                        • 0
                        • 0
                        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 8 August 2019 17: 10 New
                        • 1
                        • 0
                        +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 New
                        • 0
                        • 0
                        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 8 August 2019 17: 29 New
                        • 0
                        • 0
                        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.
    2. Zaurbek 8 August 2019 15: 11 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      Turkey differs from Syria in that Turkey is a state with infrastructure, and Syria is semi-Afghanistan.
  • Zaurbek 8 August 2019 14: 45 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BH9ULuskKqY
  • Zaurbek 8 August 2019 14: 45 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Roughly speaking, the most effective CD with NSC is targeted, powerful.
    1. garri-lin 8 August 2019 15: 02 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      And it is incomprehensible to fly or not.
      1. Zaurbek 8 August 2019 15: 10 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        Yes, but this is decided by the number of CDs per target. + or - million dollars
        1. garri-lin 8 August 2019 15: 46 New
          • 0
          • 0
          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 8 August 2019 15: 47 New
            • 0
            • 0
            0
            For a non-nuclear strike, this is uncritical. Where we want to fly or swim.
          2. Zaurbek 8 August 2019 15: 48 New
            • 0
            • 0
            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 8 August 2019 15: 55 New
            • 0
            • 0
            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 8 August 2019 16: 27 New
            • 0
            • 0
            0
            Someone has the means ... someone does not. Many who can respond to US ships ms KR?
          5. garri-lin 8 August 2019 16: 37 New
            • 0
            • 0
            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 8 August 2019 16: 40 New
            • 1
            • 0
            +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 8 August 2019 16: 47 New
            • 0
            • 0
            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 8 August 2019 16: 51 New
            • 0
            • 0
            0
            What about the CHP? And nuclear power plants ... and fuel terminals?
          9. garri-lin 8 August 2019 17: 06 New
            • 0
            • 0
            0
            Even in small countries there are more than one such object.
  • jungler 8 August 2019 13: 15 New
    • 0
    • 0
    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 into the window and explodes ... The enterprise DOESN’T WORK anymore. ABSOLUTELY. Then there will be other owners .. I think that nuclear weapons are unnecessary. 1. DATABASE of the place of residence and location of the property of the HEADS and their families of the enemy. 2. High-precision weapons capable of hitting EXACTLY these military, financial and political chiefs together with their families, palaces and mansions, islands, including physically the buildings of BANKS with THEIR accounts. A PEOPLE - P BOATER. WHY THROAT? Why, for example, if Churchill and Co.’s mansion had been bombed during 2MB, I’m sure the war would have gone the other way. By the way, the destruction of Dresden, for example, carried out this idea. party of war ")
    1. g1washntwn 8 August 2019 14: 05 New
      • 0
      • 0
      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 8 August 2019 15: 05 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      The hard worker and the plant will be needed by the NEW authorities. Now the topic of extermination of the population is not considered. Although our BRs are aimed at "soft" targets in the USA, taking into account their lower accuracy and high power .... but we don’t want the first gift, our strike is reciprocal.
      1. g1washntwn 9 August 2019 08: 21 New
        • 0
        • 0
        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 8 August 2019 15: 25 New
      • 2
      • 0
      +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
      At the time Winnie came to power, everything had already been decided - the United States had too invested in preparing for war to release such a chance on the brakes. In addition, the possible loss of Runway No. 1 hit hard according to their plans. So in place of Winnie would have come another hawk - and it all repeated like old.
  • Operator 8 August 2019 15: 20 New
    • 1
    • 1
    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 mines of ICBMs and underground command posts of medium laying).

    Try disguising 1000 telegraph poles as peaceful space satellites laughing
  • BAI
    BAI 8 August 2019 15: 59 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +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.
  • evgen1221 8 August 2019 16: 30 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +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 New
      • 0
      • 0
      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 8 August 2019 18: 47 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        Search the net for new Trident rocket fuses that supposedly increase timing, charge power and the probability of hitting defenses. PU.
        1. wave 8 August 2019 18: 49 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          There is a photo here, but you need to leaf through.
          http://samlib.ru/comment/s/semenow_aleksandr_sergeewich333/photo-1
  • wave 8 August 2019 18: 40 New
    • 1
    • 1
    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 "The war in the process" Process ", or a smart navigator."
    Search by name is.
    1. wave 8 August 2019 18: 41 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      http://samlib.ru/s/semenow_aleksandr_sergeewich333/war.shtml
  • Prometheus 9 August 2019 22: 02 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    The article is sensible and interesting. Only problems with spelling spoil the picture in places.
  • samaravega 15 August 2019 11: 19 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    I apologize for the wording, I risk "excommunication", but I can not write in another way - I will sin against the truth. "Strategic Conventional Weapons" - a rare nonsense. Look at the fundamental differences between STRATEGIC weapons and TACTICAL (operational-tactical, etc., etc.). They are (differences) in purpose. The strategic should withdraw ANY adversary from the war as an entity. No "conventional" missiles, even super accurate ones, are capable of this. Even the single use of nuclear weapons is not a panacea. There are many examples, from Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Korea, Vietnam and Afghanistan, to Iraq, Syria and Yemen. Many "decided" our Tu-22 and Tu-95 in Syria? After their “numerous” and “very accurate” attacks as “cast iron” (honestly, I don’t understand how you can “accurately” hit with 12.000 m air bombs, are all winds at all heights known and processed by the onboard computer?), And high-precision RC , Hundreds of casualties from PMCs and dozens from the Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation were needed, apparently, "to consolidate success."
    ICBMs with titanium rod warheads are super. I live in Samara, one of the many factories is Progress, the former aircraft factory No. 1, used to be the first plant in Russia to have mastered the production of aircraft under Nikolashka the Bloody, in 1912 it was called Dux. So, if suddenly an ICBM will be able to provide the highest accuracy (now really not achievable) and “lay” all 1 km square tungsten rods exclusively on the territory of this plant (that is, not a single rod will go beyond the fence, everything to the plant), taking into account the total area of ​​the enterprise, it is necessary for the ICBM to go EXCLUSIVELY into the assembly shop, otherwise the company will stand up for one or two days (and that is not a fact), and then continue to collect ICBMs, satellites and all other nonsense. This is only one of the factories of not the largest city of Samara. How many ICBMs need to be "blown up" to disable all enterprises of the same city, at least with a probability of 70%?
    Now about the cost. As a tanker by training, I can safely assure you that BPS with tungsten cores are significantly superior in armor penetration to BPS with depleted uranium cores, which are so “loved” in the USA. This is love for convenience: in the days of the USSR, not everyone decided money, and even the deservedly richest country (USA) simply did NOT physically ENOUGH tungsten for the production of BPS for its tanks. Not from a good life, they, who sacredly honor the life and health of the soldiers of their Mercenary Army, got involved in depleted uranium, which "fonit" in any way, and much longer than any person lives. Question: where will tungsten come from for the “conventional” ICBMs? Compare the weight of the BPS core and the cast weight of the Minuteman or Trident.
    With a big stretch, “conventional strategic” 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 issue.