Military Review

One in a hundred. American nuclear weapons are negligible compared to Russian

82
On August 8, the American online publication We Are The Mighty published an interesting article authored by Alex Hollings. Behind the high-profile heading "America's nukes are absolutely tiny compared to Russian" weapon insignificant in comparison with the Russian ") followed by reasoning on the differences between the strategic weapons of the two countries. Oddly enough, Russia was recognized as the winner in such a comparison.




American concern


The article begins with a curious observation. The author notes that the attitude towards nuclear weapons in the United States is similar to the views on a space race or the Cold War. This area is considered a relic of a bygone era in which the United States defeated. However, the space race and the arms race are resuming; Russia and China present new models of nuclear weapons.

The United States remains the second largest nuclear weapon and second only to Russia. Russia, in turn, as in the past, is putting its forces into deterrence "by providing Armageddon." After the end of the Cold War, the American side overestimated its victory, which to date has led to the appearance of a serious difference between the arsenals of the United States and other countries.

The author recalls the urgent project of a promising intercontinental ballistic missile for the US strategic nuclear forces. However, as long as this product does not stand on guard, the Minuteman III land-based ICBMs and Trident II submarine missiles will remain in service. Their warheads have the power of 475 and 100 ct, respectively.

The 475-kiloton warhead allows the Minuteman to inflict terrible damage, but this missile is already out of date. A. Hollings believes that such ICBMs have insufficient capabilities to overcome missile defense, and also show insufficient power.

For comparison, WATM recalls the Chinese DF-31 ICBM carrying a combat unit with the power of 1 MT (or 1000 ct - for greater convenience of comparison). This means that the latest Chinese missile is twice as destructive as the main US Air Force ICBM. However, the Chinese achievements do not look very impressive against the backdrop of Russian capabilities.

The author claims that the newest Russian ICBM RS-28 Sarmat (or Satan II) can carry an 50 MT combat unit - 50 000 ct against the 475 ct of the Minuteman III. Thus, a comparison of two missiles in terms of warhead power simply does not make sense behind the obvious superiority of the Russian one.

Chinese and Russian missiles can carry a single-unit warhead or shared with individual guidance units. In this case, the power of warheads is markedly reduced, but it becomes possible to destroy several targets on a large area.

A. Hollings also remembered another Russian “doomsday weapon” - the Poseidon underwater vehicle. This product is capable of carrying a thermonuclear warhead with an output of 100 Mt. Thus, even “Satan-2” is not the “biggest child” of Russian nuclear technology.


Comparison of mushroom clouds from the explosion of warhead missiles Trident II, Minuteman III and DF-31


The author recalls that the nominal power of the warhead is not the only measure of the state’s nuclear potential. However, when it comes to full-blown conflict, these parameters must also be taken into account. In the end, as A. Hollings rightly points out, if the payload of one Russian missile is as powerful as the 105 charges of the United States, concern should be shown.

Nuclear oddities


The WATM publication looks interesting, and the attached illustrations with mushroom clouds from undermining the warheads under consideration are also curious. Nevertheless, an article on the insignificance of American nuclear weapons leaves certain questions.

First of all, it should be noted that A. Hollings' theses are to some extent similar to praise, and the title of the article directly speaks of the superiority of Russian missiles and their payload. This is at least nice.

The WATM author calls the cause of concern the power of the combat unit of the RS-28 missile, which supposedly reaches 50 Mt. However, it should be noted that such a charge power is theoretically the maximum possible in the existing restrictions on dimensions and mass. It is unlikely that such theoretical possibilities should be considered as a real and fait accompli.

According to available data, the Sarmat / Satan II will be able to carry several payload options with different warheads. It is expected that at least 10-12 individual guidance warheads can be used. Thrown weight - 10 tons. In addition, the PC-28 in the future will become the carrier of the Avangard hypersonic planning warhead. In some situations, such a product can be a much more dangerous weapon than traditional warheads with a capacity of megatons.

However, such features of a promising Russian project are ignored in favor of theoretical calculations. However, the possibility of carrying a separable warhead with its advantages and disadvantages is mentioned. For what reason Russian missiles are evaluated so one-sidedly - it is unclear.

A similar situation is with the study of topical US missiles. They are considered only from the point of view of the power of an individual warhead, not paying attention to the presence of RGMs and their characteristic features. With all this, the real warheads for the Minuteman and Trident II missiles are compared with a theoretically possible product, but not with real weapons models. This approach obviously reduces the combat capabilities of American ICBMs and strategic nuclear forces in general. The reasons for this are also unknown.

Three versions


It is no secret that publications in the American media are often used to promote certain points of view on various issues, including in the military-technical or military-political sphere. Looking at the WATM article in this light, several versions can be suggested to explain its content.

One in a hundred. American nuclear weapons are negligible compared to Russian
Nuclear mushrooms from DF-31 and Sarmat missiles


The first version addresses the material issues of the US strategic nuclear forces. Over the past few years, statements have regularly been made about the need to modernize nuclear forces and create new types of weapons and equipment of all classes. A program for the modernization of strategic nuclear forces is proposed, designed for a long period and requiring appropriate funding. Based on its results, the US Army will receive new nuclear weapons, delivery vehicles and troop control systems.

However, such a program is criticized for its high estimated cost. The attempts of the Pentagon and the Ministry of Energy to “knock out” the necessary finances are faced with opposition from various circles. However, a lack of budget does not remove urgent issues.

In such an environment, frightening media publications can be useful that portray lagging behind potential opponents in the area of ​​strategic nuclear forces. In fact, there is a struggle for new programs, finances and even national security. Probably, such goals fully justify incorrect comparisons of ICBMs and warheads.

The second explanation is political. WATM claims that in recent years, Russia and China have secured superiority over the United States in the field of nuclear weapons. Such progress can be declared a consequence of the aggressive plans of Moscow and Beijing, and also make it a formal occasion for appropriate measures in their regard.

As practice shows, the reason for imposing sanctions can be not only the real actions of third countries, but also suspicions of them. Thus, the theoretically possible 50 megaton warhead for Sarmat, with the right approach, can also become the reason for new unfriendly actions against the "aggressors".

However, another explanation is possible that has no connection with finance, technology or politics. A loud headline and a specific article under it can scare, terrify and stun a reader who does not have special knowledge in the field of nuclear weapons, as well as attract an audience to the publication’s website. In other words, Russian industry is capable of making a rocket with an 50-megaton warhead, and the American publication is already advertising on it.

Which of the three versions corresponds to reality is a big question. All of them explain the situation and have the right to life. Perhaps further publications from WATM or actions in the political arena will become evidence for a particular version. In the meantime, we can dwell on the fact that the profile foreign publication praised Russian strategic weapons.

Article "America's nukes are absolutely tiny compared to Russian":
https://www.wearethemighty.com/gear-tech/russian-nukes
Author:
82 comments
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. Russobel
    Russobel 14 August 2019 05: 39
    +3
    By the way, it’s a very correct position to pretend to be a fool.
    To lull the vigilance of other countries, to shout that everything is bad with us, and at this time to plan racquets and new blocks. You are cunning and we are cunning because all this has already passed.
    In the meantime, you can only be afraid.
    So BE AFRAID!
    1. Bacha
      Bacha 14 August 2019 06: 34
      +6
      And also get out of the INF Treaty and rivet a bunch of these missiles and shove it along our border. Type let intercept. They want nuclear weapons to be used for the offensive. In our country, it is a deterrent.
      1. Avior
        Avior 14 August 2019 07: 52
        0
        They have nothing to put on these missiles, their number of tactical nuclear charges is limited
        1. Bacha
          Bacha 14 August 2019 08: 17
          +4
          Have insider information? Or is the conclusion drawn from the press?
          1. Avior
            Avior 23 August 2019 12: 40
            0
            Personally, I’m not fumbling over their nuclear cellars, and you?
            This is generally accepted information.
          2. Sanichsan
            Sanichsan 27 August 2019 16: 16
            0
            Quote: Bacha
            Have insider information?

            in general, the information is open and fairly accurate. in tyrnet is wink just amers every year you need to report to Congress on stocks and how much is spent on the content of this happiness ...
        2. vlad106
          vlad106 23 August 2019 12: 02
          -1
          Quote: Avior
          They have nothing to put on these missiles, their number of tactical nuclear charges is limited

          correct me if wrong.
          Didn't we donate all weapons-grade plutonium and uranium to the Americans for storage during the Russian-American "honeymoon"?
          1. Avior
            Avior 23 August 2019 12: 38
            0
            The problem is not plutonium or uranium, the problem is the weapon itself.
            They have only free-falling bombs for tactical charges, several hundred.
            This plutonium has nowhere to put.
            1. Sanichsan
              Sanichsan 27 August 2019 16: 20
              0
              Quote: Avior
              This plutonium has nowhere to put.

              on the Tomahawk. they were actually launched from the ground platform.
              Of course, this will not work in its pure form, the warhead must be adapted to the Tomahawk, but I think that the Americans are not so stupid as to be unable to do this.
      2. Russobel
        Russobel 14 August 2019 11: 29
        +1
        It is high time to change the doctrine and not only defend themselves but also, if necessary, deliver a preventive strike.
        For overlaid!
        1. vlados
          vlados 15 August 2019 01: 24
          -4
          Come on, to the White House! Or bench press point?
      3. Kalmar
        Kalmar 14 August 2019 13: 39
        +7
        Quote on quote))
        Quote: Bacha
        They want nuclear weapons to be used for the offensive. In our country it is a deterrent.

        Quote: Bacha
        Have insider information? Or is the conclusion drawn from the press?

        Why should they use nuclear weapons? Given the ratio of conventional weapons, it is just beneficial for them in every way to avoid transferring a hypothetical armed conflict to the nuclear plane. And if we take into account that the US does not need a military confrontation with Russia at all, the probability of a real use of nuclear weapons tends to zero at all.

        In general, so far everything looks like another attempt by some military men under the frightening slogans "Russians / Chinese are coming!" knock yourself out a little extra funding. It is understandable that way: terrible billions are invested in the navy, and almost nothing falls to the rocket scientists. It's a shame, sir.
    2. SovAr238A
      SovAr238A 14 August 2019 08: 38
      +7
      Quote: Russobel
      By the way, it’s a very correct position to pretend to be a fool.
      To lull the vigilance of other countries, to shout that everything is bad with us, and at this time to plan racquets and new blocks. You are cunning and we are cunning because all this has already passed.
      In the meantime, you can only be afraid.
      So BE AFRAID!


      Yes Yes...

      They already shouted about "those who have no analogues in the world" ...
      scared. waited until the "partners" began to engage in parity developments.

      now the situation has turned out (it is, however, as always, whistle, not toss the bags) that we ourselves can’t do more than 2-3 pieces,
      and they accelerated their development in response, so fast that they almost caught up ...
      And then they will be able to sell their products in tens and hundreds ..
      And we have no money and never will.
    3. Digital error
      Digital error 15 August 2019 18: 03
      +2
      Quote: Russobel
      we are trickier because all this has already passed

      How did it end to remind? Just planing racquets with a multiple disparate budget is obviously a losing option.
      Perhaps they have a different "doctrine" - for the destruction of our facilities and the infrastructure of the strategic nuclear forces, they rely on precise pinpoint strikes (which, if successful, will allow them to grow rapeseed in Siberia, as they probably hope), but we did not count on accuracy, and megatonnage, which, if applied, will render vast territories of the United States agriculturally unusable for decades.
      In general, according to the title of the article, I would not underestimate the enemy.
  2. Vasily Ponomarev
    Vasily Ponomarev 14 August 2019 06: 11
    +2
    the comparison of explosions is simply ridiculous, the author apparently does not know that the power of an explosion grows in a cubic dependence on power
    1. Shuttle
      Shuttle 14 August 2019 06: 29
      +5
      Quote: Vasily Ponomarev
      the comparison of explosions is simply ridiculous, the author apparently does not know that the power of an explosion grows in a cubic dependence on power

      Perhaps you wanted to say that the destructive effect is not directly proportional to the power of the explosion, but as the cubic root of the power?
      1. Vasily Ponomarev
        Vasily Ponomarev 14 August 2019 07: 21
        +1
        yes, it’s more correct, I just didn’t try to write accurately, I thought it’ll go awry anyway
      2. MBRSS
        MBRSS 14 August 2019 16: 55
        +1
        Pictures of a comparison of nuclear mushrooms, the author of the original, probably built on a line. Type 1 ctn = 1 mm.
        The author of the commenting article did not even bother to mention this nonsense.
        Comments only make sense to read ...
        1. g1washntwn
          g1washntwn 15 August 2019 06: 08
          0
          Quote: MBRBS
          Pictures of a comparison of nuclear mushrooms, the author of the original, probably built on a line.

          This is the only way for a generation educated from street comics to explain.
          There still must be a Superman flying to the rescue in tights, it just got under scaling and turned out to be less than 1 pixel.
    2. AUL
      AUL 14 August 2019 09: 04
      0
      Quote: Vasily Ponomarev
      мощность explosion grows in cubic dependence capacity

      How's that?
      1. Maki Avellevich
        Maki Avellevich 14 August 2019 22: 22
        -2
        Quote: AUL
        Quote: Vasily Ponomarev
        explosion power grows in cubic dependence on power

        How's that?

        well, as the ratio of the radius and area of ​​the sphere.
  3. rocket757
    rocket757 14 August 2019 06: 53
    +4
    One true criterion is the ability to inflict global damage on the enemy, consider destroying !!! -
    And from that we must act. Moreover, always remember that the ENEMY is insidious and always wants to do you harm! by any action!
  4. Avior
    Avior 14 August 2019 07: 50
    0
    Russia has an overwhelming advantage over the United States not in strategic nuclear forces, but in tactical nuclear weapons and their delivery vehicles, which are not regulated by any treaties.
    After Obama destroyed the nuclear Tomahawks, the United States did not actually have any carriers for a guaranteed tactical nuclear strike, and free-falling nuclear bombs are not such.
    The states simply have nothing to answer to Russia and China in this matter.
    1. mark1
      mark1 14 August 2019 08: 06
      +1
      Think they have a problem?
      1. Avior
        Avior 14 August 2019 09: 24
        0
        This is not, I believe, this is their report on the 2018 nuclear situation.
        It got to the point that Trump broke the remake of the tactical charge of strategic SLBMs.
        And they are just getting ready to develop a new cruise missile.
        And Trump is trying to solve the problem of a small number of tactical charges by including their restrictions in the new START treaty, and even taking into account China
        1. mark1
          mark1 14 August 2019 09: 55
          0
          According to official and semi-official data, the gap between us and the United States is not that big (up to 1000 pcs maximum- 6500/7500 half-off.) A large percentage falls on freely falling YaB, but here a remarkable feature is superiority in aircraft carriers, as well as YaB to solve tasks and strategic nature it all depends on what it falls, the range in this case is limited by the carrier.
          1. Avior
            Avior 14 August 2019 10: 12
            +2
            I wrote incorrectly.
            Not by charges, but by weapons
            . According to the Congressional Research Service, the U.S. arsenal currently has approximately 500 non-strategic nuclear weapons, of which 200 are deployed at the alliance's airbases in Turkey, Belgium, the Netherlands, Germany and Italy.


            Nuclear free-dropping bombs, which in fact have only remained from the tactical weapons of the United States, are unsuitable for pinpoint strikes - the carrier can also bring down
  5. thinker
    thinker 14 August 2019 08: 04
    0
    К
    Which of the three versions corresponds to reality is a big question.

    Here, rather than OR, but I. The Triune task.
  6. pylon101
    pylon101 14 August 2019 08: 08
    +5
    Perhaps they simply do not consider nuclear war too probable.
    And for "mastering" taxes, the development of the F 35 is much more profitable.
  7. Undecim
    Undecim 14 August 2019 08: 21
    +1
    In such an environment, frightening media publications can be useful that portray lagging behind potential opponents in the area of ​​strategic nuclear forces. In fact, there is a struggle for new programs, finances and even national security. Probably, such goals fully justify incorrect comparisons of ICBMs and warheads.
    And then how to understand the article by the same author in the same publication titled "3 advanced Russian weapons (that don't actually work)" (Three modern types of Russian weapons that are actually inoperable)?
    In this article, the same Alex Hollings writes "Putin's" invincible "nuclear powered missile is a national embarrassment" - Putin's "invincible" nuclear missile is a national embarrassment - and then, like twice two or four, proves to the readers that "having no real analogies" "Petrel "- nothing more than a propaganda blank.
    It turns out that on August 8, the author scares the readers, and on August 12, waking up with the thought “didn’t I really scare them,” begins to calm them down? As it does not fit.
    1. Dogmatic
      Dogmatic 14 August 2019 08: 51
      +3
      that ordered it and wrote. Man wants to eat
      1. Undecim
        Undecim 14 August 2019 09: 51
        -6
        Judge by yourselves or did you decide to demonstrate your poor warfare?
        1. Dogmatic
          Dogmatic 14 August 2019 10: 07
          +2
          you show your
          1. Undecim
            Undecim 14 August 2019 12: 20
            -2
            The answer is comprehensive, thanks.
    2. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      Andrei from Chelyabinsk 14 August 2019 18: 20
      +3
      Quote: Undecim
      It turns out that on August 8, the author scares the readers, and on August 12, waking up with the thought “didn’t I really scare them,” begins to calm them down?

      Well, why? In fact, he is right, both there and there: today, our strategic ground-based nuclear weapons are more perfect than the American ones, including at the expense of Sarmatia and Vanguard. At the same time, a number of cartoons by Putin - they are cartoons
      1. Undecim
        Undecim 14 August 2019 18: 48
        0
        So I never wrote that he was wrong. I wrote about the "interpretation" of what he wrote.
  8. pafegosoff
    pafegosoff 14 August 2019 09: 15
    0
    Images...
    Right now we will draw you!
    Did you call a locksmith? And then I would send you!
    Simply - profanity.
    I was taught in the mid-1970s to drop nuclear bombs. And to die, because there was no turning back ...
    And here...
    1. cradle
      cradle 16 August 2019 08: 16
      0
      Something went wrong, once alive?
  9. mvg
    mvg 14 August 2019 09: 49
    +3
    After reading the first 3 lines, I guessed the author ... Cyril, damn you journalism ... let's go to locksmiths .. well, you do not pull .. Let go of the cat already. There are 2 journalists who are sick of, but in different ways. Ryabov VO and Yekhorov Championship .. fool Just a scribe .. I now even sometimes read Skomorokhov ..
  10. 3danimal
    3danimal 14 August 2019 10: 00
    +2
    The charge power is selected depending on the purpose and accuracy of the delivery vehicles. At Pershina-2, the KVO was 30m, and at the Pioneer - 500m. Accordingly, the charges are different. And the target is struck more or less equally.
  11. silver169
    silver169 14 August 2019 10: 15
    -2
    Good if it's true. Let the mattresses shake on the mattresses.
  12. ibn.shamai
    ibn.shamai 14 August 2019 10: 17
    0
    Rocket "Blowjob Man"! Sounds! lol
  13. yehat
    yehat 14 August 2019 11: 59
    0
    Quote: Shuttle
    Perhaps you wanted to say that the destructive effect is not directly proportional to the power of the explosion, but as the cubic root of the power?

    rather, we are talking about the fact that the height of the explosion column almost coincides with a linear function of the cubic root of the charge power.
  14. Fisherman
    Fisherman 14 August 2019 12: 01
    0
    We do not need to rejoice and deceive ourselves that some American publication there praises our weapons. Want peace - get ready for war. And we will be able to sing praises about our weapons.
  15. Operator
    Operator 14 August 2019 12: 02
    -3
    ! 0-ton monoblock warhead "Sarmat" is a 50-Mtn "clean" thermonuclear charge in a two-stage design or a 100-Mtn "dirty" thermonuclear charge in a three-stage design.

    ! Poseidon's 0-ton warhead is a 100-Mtn "dirty" thermonuclear charge in a three-stage design.

    Trend however bully

    PS In Russian tactical nuclear weapons (MLRS "Smerch", aircraft missiles, gliding bombs, operational-tactical and cruise missiles), the trend is a 250-Ktn "pure" thermonuclear charge in two-stage design weighing 140 kg, intended for air blasting at height 1,5, XNUMX km above the ground in order to eliminate radioactive contamination of the area.
  16. Valerik1337
    Valerik1337 14 August 2019 12: 51
    -4
    Well, maybe then right now we’ll bang? The world without the US will become better and Russia will thank
  17. smaug78
    smaug78 14 August 2019 13: 44
    0
    Some unknown American from the same unknown Internet publication argued wild nonsense about "terrible Russians" from the series "bears walk the streets and eat passers-by." Why try to develop a conspiracy theory out of such nonsense?
    1. yehat
      yehat 14 August 2019 14: 25
      0
      in some places this joke is real with us,
      here only in Canada, where bears constantly graze in the trash, this is considered normal
  18. Dmitry Vinner
    Dmitry Vinner 14 August 2019 13: 51
    +1
    A conversation of boys from the early Brezhnev era .....
    “I read in the newspaper that we can destroy America twenty times.”
    -And are they us?
    -They are only ten of us.
    - So we are twice as strong as them.
    -So they won’t attack us.
    The conversation of the old people of the late Putin .....
    “I heard from Solovyov that Kedmi said that Russia could destroy America in an hour.”
    -And America is only two of us.
    - So we are twice as strong as them.
    -It's time to show them ......
  19. ben.reis
    ben.reis 14 August 2019 16: 28
    +1
    It is necessary to remove the liberals from the government and the presidential administration, they impede the modernization of Russian weapons, it is possible that they are on the content of the US State Department or the CIA
  20. Sergey to
    Sergey to 14 August 2019 17: 12
    +1
    I have never read a more incompetent article in my life, 475 kt is the power of the YAZ W-88. Never when such charges were not installed on Minuteman-3, 50-megaton charges today do not exist in principle, and if you bring it from the USSR on a "time machine", it will still not fit into Sarmat either by weight of 20 tons in its naked form, in size, diameter - 3,88 meters, on the Minutemans today there are either W-78 / Mk-12A with a capacity of 335 kt, or W-87 / Mk-21 with a capacity of 300 kt. Kirill sincere advice underline "match". you have very serious knowledge gaps.
  21. Newone
    Newone 14 August 2019 17: 55
    0
    They want to beg for development money. And they will beg.
  22. Sancho_SP
    Sancho_SP 14 August 2019 18: 37
    +1
    50 mt. I didn’t read further.
  23. Old26
    Old26 14 August 2019 21: 13
    +3
    Quote: AUL
    Quote: Vasily Ponomarev
    мощность explosion grows in cubic dependence capacity

    How's that?

    It's called "I heard the ringing, but I don't know where it is." In fact, the radius of damage depends on each other, like the cube root of the charge power

    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
    Quote: Undecim
    It turns out that on August 8, the author scares the readers, and on August 12, waking up with the thought “didn’t I really scare them,” begins to calm them down?

    Well, why? In fact, he is right, both there and there: today, our strategic ground-based nuclear weapons are more perfect than the American ones, including at the expense of Sarmatia and Vanguard. At the same time, a number of cartoons by Putin - they are cartoons

    So to speak. Not nuclear weapons themselves are more perfect. Both we and they stopped nuclear explosions at about the same time. But strategic carriers are more perfect.
    Let's not talk about "Sarmat" and "vanguard" yet. "Sarmat" has never flown at all. The "Vanguard" had 5 tests, but purely flight tests, without block "evolutions"

    Quote: yehat
    rather, we are talking about the fact that the height of the explosion column almost coincides with a linear function of the cubic root of the charge power.

    Most likely we are talking about radii ....

    Quote: sergey k
    I have never read a more incompetent article in my life, 475 kt is the power of the YAZ W-88. Never when such charges were not installed on Minuteman-3, 50-megaton charges today do not exist in principle, and if you bring it from the USSR on a "time machine", it will still not fit into Sarmat either by weight of 20 tons in its naked form, in size, diameter - 3,88 meters, on the Minutemans today there are either W-78 / Mk-12A with a capacity of 335 kt, or W-87 / Mk-21 with a capacity of 300 kt. Kirill sincere advice underline "match". you have very serious knowledge gaps.

    laughing
    Yes, I agree, Sergei! On "Minutemans" are W-78 / Mk-12A with a capacity of 335 kt и W-87 / Mk-21 with a capacity of 300 ct. About 200 pieces each.
    On the Trident-2, there is a 76-kt W-4 / Mk-100 and a 88-kt W-5 / Mk-475.
  24. Alien From
    Alien From 14 August 2019 22: 03
    0
    The author apparently forgot that a bad world is better than a good war! !
  25. The comment was deleted.
  26. Chaldon48
    Chaldon48 14 August 2019 22: 33
    0
    It is not difficult to frighten an American layman who does not really know either physics or chemistry, who has very mediocre knowledge in the field of geography.
  27. NordUral
    NordUral 14 August 2019 22: 36
    0
    These are reflections on nothing. How "these" that own my country will fire volleys on countries where their families, children, money, citizenship and so on.
    In fact, the article can say that this is a set of absurdities in technical terms.
    1. Charik
      Charik 14 August 2019 23: 03
      +1
      So this one, as his Russophobe theirs said, in Amer’s banks lies $ 500yards of the Russian elite, what kind of nuclear war is it and whether the Russian elite is now.
      1. CommanderDIVA
        CommanderDIVA 19 August 2019 20: 46
        0
        This Zbigniew Brzezinski said in my opinion but he died a few years ago
    2. your1970
      your1970 10 September 2019 06: 36
      0
      Quote: NordUral
      their family, children, money, citizenship and so on.

      - apparently doesn’t reach you ... even
      if the Russian Federation does not launch a single return launch (not a single !!!) and only the United States strikes:
      1) the oceans and rivers will get radioactivity, the wind will spread. That is, at least in Europe it will be sick. Ecology ....
      2) the global economy will fly into the concrete wall at full speed, not only the supplier of raw materials, but also the giant market for their goods will disappear. In addition, transit from China will become impossible. There is nothing to say about the exchange, they will simply blow them away. And this is about fanatics called money until ...

      If it comes to the use of nuclear weapons, it will not matter where their children / money is. It will be extremely bad in either case ...
  28. Sasha_rulevoy
    Sasha_rulevoy 14 August 2019 22: 54
    0
    Duck and the Americans had the first generation ammunition of the megaton class. The first hydrogen bomb Mk15 was 3,8 Mt, the Mk27 bomb was 1,5 Mt, the Regulus was 1 Mt, the Atlas was 3,5 Mt, etc. As the accuracy of the ammunition increased, so did their power. Why destroy a military plant with 3,5 megatons and then suffer from radioactive fallout ourselves, if 100 kt is enough for it with accurate guidance? And Soviet strategic ammunition also gradually reduced power. The fact that the Chinese continue to carry 3,5 megaton warheads in service does not mean their power, but that in their statements about their systems they are brazenly bluffing, all sorts of "Beidu" and allegedly ballistic missiles hitting the aircraft carrier. In reality, their guidance systems are at the level of the USSR in the 60s, plus or minus ten to twenty kilometers.

    But what the Americans really need to scratch their heads about is their crushing lag in tactical nuclear weapons. Firstly, the START treaties were drawn up so cunningly that even the free-falling B-61 atomic bombs were counted and included in the restrictions of the Americans. With 350 of these bombs in service, the Americans are forced to have 350 fewer warheads. Of these 350, 150 are stored in bunkers in Germany, Turkey and Italy, and at the very first signal of the start of a war with NATO, they should be transferred to the tactical aviation of these countries. This leaves 200 bombs and another 200 AGM-86B cruise missiles. For some reason, the Americans unilaterally got rid of the rest of the TNW (SAM, OTR, Tomahawk, artillery ammunition, anti-submarine and anti-ship weapons). The difference between SNW and TNW is that the enemy learns about the launch of SNW in advance, he has no time to think, he frantically presses the red button while there is time for a response. And he learns about the launch of TNW after the fact. He is informed that an atomic bomb destroyed his tank battalion or ship, and he has many hours to think about whether to respond with all his might, whether the damage suffered is worth it to self-destruct everyone. And, of course, he will not want to self-liquidate. By carefully and quietly destroying his ground forces with low-yield ammunition, there is a chance to win a land war and force the enemy into an "honorable" peace with significant political concessions. And the NSW has more symbolic meaning. The Americans are generally not averse to reducing the strategic arsenal to 200 warheads on each side. In contrast to the Americans, Russia retains, in addition to the 1600 strategic warheads laid down for START, a very powerful arsenal of tactical nuclear weapons, estimated from about 2 to 7 thousand warheads (mainly aerial bombs, OTR, airborne missiles, anti-ship missiles) (although I saw the figure and 20 thousand). And an additional 600 Kh-55 missiles. Against the American 200 AGM-86B and 200 B61. Say after that that Bush and Obama did not work for the FSB.
    1. CommanderDIVA
      CommanderDIVA 19 August 2019 20: 50
      0
      "Tell me after that that Bush and Obama did not work for the FSB" - sooner for the SVR of the Russian Federation
    2. your1970
      your1970 10 September 2019 07: 14
      +1
      Quote: Sasha_rulevoy
      By carefully and slowly destroying his ground forces with low-power ammunition, there is a chance to win a land war and force the enemy

      Those reciprocal actions of the Russian Federation is not supposed to be? Are they a tank battalion, an unused launcher or Vienna / Warsaw for example?
      "Slowly" fool fool .... using nuclear weapons, yeah ...
  29. The comment was deleted.
  30. Sadam
    Sadam 15 August 2019 03: 26
    0
    I read and think what stupid creatures these people are - for the sake of momentary ambitions, they are ready to destroy themselves.
  31. Siberian54
    Siberian54 15 August 2019 07: 55
    0
    The Pentagon and the State Department are preparing their people to withdraw from strategic agreements with the USSR (RF) ..
  32. Old26
    Old26 15 August 2019 11: 40
    +4
    Quote: ffaff
    I’d better briefly outline the REAL PROBLEMS OF RUSSIAN STRATEGIC WEAPONS:

    Clear. Having penetrated all the polymers. The Russian strategic nuclear forces are completely defenseless against the mass of American "first-class weapons", and all around are traitors and do not understand anything, with the exception of the author of the post who knows TRUE IN THE LAST INSTANCE. It is a pity that for such an opus you can put only one minus ...
    Even to comment on this nonsense there is no desire
    1. Ehanatone
      Ehanatone 19 August 2019 10: 39
      +1
      "Quote: ffaff
      I’d better briefly outline the REAL PROBLEMS OF RUSSIAN STRATEGIC WEAPONS:

      Clear. Having penetrated all the polymers. Russian strategic nuclear forces are completely defenseless against the mass of American "first-class weapons"
      Well, at the expense of submarines, the author is right, more than once or twice it was said that it is impossible today to ensure their safety
  33. silver_roman
    silver_roman 15 August 2019 14: 20
    0
    I haven't read such nonsense for a long time. The quoted source reminds me of the shit office of The national intersts. As I understand it, such "sheds" create a certain psychological pressure on the masses in order to cause more panic, and of course the goal is to justify to the people his spending on the military program, the introduction of sanctions, etc. I believe that it is directed against the stupid American people, because such cheap bikes are simply unthinkable among the military and specialized people. They won't believe such nonsense. I especially like the pictures: 1 Mt - one mushroom, 50 Mt - the mushroom is scaled up to 1:50. It is typical for the Yankees to illustrate everything for clarity and do not care that it does not reflect the real state of affairs at all.
    Well, if in essence: there are no warheads of 50 Megatons. Basically, out of 12 individual guidance warheads, there are several tricks. and again 12 blocks - this is just one of the configuration options. 12 blocks - like one will have about 100 Kt, if 6 blocks, then their power will be greater. I think the thought conveyed. Not sure if there are options with 6 blocks. This is an example. Poplar in general 1 block seems to be under 300 CT. I don’t remember Yars. This is if we talk about ICBMs.
    1. Evil Booth
      Evil Booth 23 August 2019 17: 22
      0
      The physical dimensions of the hydrogen bomb, as well as the size of the very powerful nuclear bomb, have been greatly reduced.
  34. vik669
    vik669 15 August 2019 15: 23
    0
    Yes, do not fuss under the ax - little will not seem to anyone!
  35. Old26
    Old26 15 August 2019 16: 44
    +3
    Quote: silver_roman
    Well, if in essence: there are no warheads of 50 Megatons. Basically, out of 12 individual guidance warheads, there are several tricks. and again 12 blocks - this is just one of the configuration options. 12 blocks - like one will have about 100 Kt, if 6 blocks, then their power will be greater. I think the thought conveyed. Not sure if there are options with 6 blocks.


    There was no 50-Mt warhead. Even the 25-megaton BB for the Voevoda did not fit under the fairing. Therefore, although there was a development of BB 15F172 for the "Voevoda", it did not reach flight tests. Well, before deployment, of course, too.
    According to the SALT-70 treaty signed in the late 2s, ICBMs cannot have more than 10 warheads. The treaty was not ratified, although both sides agreed to abide by the parameters of this treaty. But there was most likely hope that the treaty "will order a long life." Therefore, the developers thought and placement and more BBs. But the treaty continued to be respected. According to this agreement, the development of a new heavy missile was prohibited, and therefore it was decided to "call" the new missile a modification of the old one. The missile index was retained (15А18М), but with the BB indices there was an overlay laughing They remained unchanged, with the indices that were supposed to be on the new rocket 15А17. So it turned out that on the 15A18M rocket there appeared combat equipment with the index 15F17x.

    Okay, sorry for a little excursion into the history of the creation of "Voevoda". In short, it was designed for 14 warheads, but according to OSV-2, the number of BBs was limited to 10. The Voevoda's combat stage was two-story. The developers were forced to leave 1 seats for warheads on the 2st and 5nd floor. The 2 seats remaining on each floor were changed (it was no longer possible to place a warhead on them, but at least 4 heavy decoys could be placed ...

    Nobody can say what the kilotonnage of the "Sarmat" will be. Maybe 550 kt, maybe 400 kt. Maybe even less, although I don't think it will be 100 kilotons. It is possible that the Sakrmata will have a variety of combat equipment. At least two options are already visible
    • 10 warheads of a certain power (for example 400 ct)
    • Several maneuvering BB type "Vanguard"
    -------------------------------------
    • Perhaps there will be less BB, but more power (for example, 6 blocks of 550-750 ct each)
    • Perhaps there will be even less BB, but more power (for example, 3 blocks of 2 MT)
    • It may still be possible to have one heavy BB with a capacity (for example) of 8 MT

    But all this is nothing more than idle reasoning. What will happen - only tests will show. The only plus in the START-3 treaty compared to previous treaties is the rule for counting blocks on a medium. It is more difficult to control than the earlier version, but allows you to vary the number of blocks on missiles.

    If earlier ICBMs (SLBMs) ​​had the maximum number of BBs with which ICBMs (SLBMs) ​​were tested, now this is not. Now the count is the number of BB that is on the rocket. For instance. An inspection of American Ohio-class SSBNs is under way. A boat is selected. The hatch covers in the shaft are opened, the head fairings are removed from the products and are considered BB.

    If earlier (in the 90s - early 2000s) there were 2 blocks of the W-8 type or 88 blocks of the W-14 type for Trident-76, then it was considered so. For example, on 2 missiles there are W-88 BBs, and on the remaining 22 missiles, W-76 blocks, then in total the boat had 2 x 8 + 22 x 14 = 324. Now the boats have 20 mines (4 are deactivated). Out of 20 missiles, 2 missiles can be equipped with 4 W-88 BBs, 12 missiles with 8 W-76-1 blocks, and 6 missiles can have one W-76-4 "pop" each with a power of 5 kt. In total, the number of blocks per boat will be 2 x 4 + 12 x 8 + 6 x 1 = 112 blocks. The system turns out to be more flexible and there is always a return potential ...

    Quote: silver_roman
    This is an example. Poplar in general 1 block seems to be under 300 CT. I don’t remember Yars. This is if we talk about ICBMs.

    In fact, according to open data, he has a 550-kt warhead. It is not known what it is on the Topol-M, but there the throw weight is 200 kg more (1,2 tons for the Topol-M in comparison with the 1-ton weight for the Topol). How much is now on the "Yars" - is unknown. But evil foreign languages ​​say that 4 blocks
    1. silver_roman
      silver_roman 18 August 2019 11: 21
      0
      thank you for clarification. very informative. I will be honest, not lilacs in the performance characteristics of ICBMs.
  36. Al_lexx
    Al_lexx 15 August 2019 22: 58
    0
    Thank! Pts funny article. :)
    I mean an article in WATM.
  37. DimerVladimer
    DimerVladimer 16 August 2019 13: 01
    0
    I agree - a scarecrow for the western population.
    The concept of guaranteed unacceptable damage has not been canceled
  38. Prokhorov
    Prokhorov 19 August 2019 23: 14
    -1
    And you, the author, apparently have already prepared a place for yourself in the bunker "for every fireman"
    But your readers do not have such an opportunity.
    So die with your thoughts!
  39. shinobi
    shinobi 20 August 2019 01: 59
    -1
    Heavy-duty warheads are a big deal of politics, but not real application. Now the aspect is shifting towards high-precision defeat. When the radius of reaching 30 meters for a warhead of 25kt does not matter, it doesn’t matter fundamentally. But there are a lot of such blocks in the head part. The era of powerful charges has left the stage at the end of the 80s. And with increasing accuracy, talk began to go about 5i-10i and kiloton charges. This type can be crammed into a regular 152 mm howitzer shell.
  40. Witness 45
    Witness 45 20 August 2019 14: 06
    0
    Comparison of the power of the explosions of American and Chinese nuclear charges by "mushrooms" in the pictures does not correspond to reality, an increase in the power of the charge doubles the radius of destruction by only less than a third. To double it, you need to increase the charge power by 8 times.
    1. Evil Booth
      Evil Booth 23 August 2019 17: 19
      0
      if this is mathematically straightforward, then the charge is more oxygenic and covers much larger areas by the number of division results, and the light spot of the level will be full of fires 2-3 times more in area and not everything will burn there, but it will not be extinguished.
  41. zimzinov
    zimzinov 21 August 2019 12: 08
    0
    About 2 years later, when they stand on duty from 500, it will be possible to deliver a preemptive strike to the United States. To destruction, of course. For why do we need an endless arms race?
  42. Prokhorov
    Prokhorov 23 August 2019 17: 03
    -1
    Cool.
    Russia first orders similar articles from American magazines, and then itself refers to them.
    Idiocy squared?
  43. Evil Booth
    Evil Booth 23 August 2019 17: 18
    0
    and where does the purchase of Greenland and the fact that otted to Moscow not 14 and 4 km, which is available for OTRK. part of the blocks really goes for 50mt, so that with a bunny, when undermining at an altitude of 1 km, the collapses of the entire energy sector are called up and, in a radius of many thousands of kilometers, knocking out all nuclear power plants and other smaller details.
  44. evgenii67
    evgenii67 24 September 2019 09: 36
    0
    oh these pictures. Especially the last picture is 50MT vs 1MT laughing laughing this is a pun, well, let the mushroom from 1Mt rise well by a maximum of 3 km, even in this case 50Mt, but this is funny. children's drawings, I won’t even comment further.