Military Review

Sunset of the nuclear triad. US decapitating weapon

210
Sunset of the nuclear triad. US decapitating weapon

On August 17, 1973, US Secretary of Defense James Schlesinger unveiled the concept of decapitation as a new basis for US nuclear policy. For its implementation, it was supposed to achieve a gain in flight time. The priority in the development of nuclear deterrence tools shifted from the strategic triad to medium and shorter range weapons. In 1974, this approach was enshrined in the fundamental documents on the US nuclear strategy.


Throughout the Cold War, the United States tried to achieve military superiority over the USSR with an obvious determination to move into the "hot" phase when it was achieved. As the USSR quickly became a nuclear power, victory over it became impossible to achieve without crushing the Soviet nuclear shield. As we have already reviewed earlier, do not create the USSR as soon as possible nuclear weapons, The United States would implement one of its plans: Chariotir, Fleetwood, SAK-EVP 1-4a or Dropshot, and would arrange for our country genocide, which was not equal to stories of humanity. It is unlikely that within the framework of one article it will be possible to cover all the US attempts to break nuclear parity, but we can try to single out the most significant of them.

The period of the USSR. Caribbean crisis


The events, later named the Caribbean crisis, are a clear example of the US attempt to achieve the possibility of delivering the first decapitation blow on the USSR, even before the formation of the official concept of such.

PGM-19 "Jupiter" ballistic missiles deployed by the United States in Turkey allowed the United States to deliver a surprise strike to the USSR. The Jupiter ballistic missile flight range was about 2400 km, the circular probable deviation (CWO) of the warhead was 1,5 kilometers with a thermonuclear warhead power of 1,44 megatons.


BRPS "Jupiter"

The short preparation time for the launch, which was about 15 minutes, and the short flight time due to its close proximity to the borders of the USSR, allowed the United States to launch the Jupiter ballistic strike with its first decapitating strike, which could significantly undermine the USSR’s military-industrial power and provide US victory in the war.

Only harsh actions of the USSR, in the form of the deployment of the R-12 and R-14 BRDS in Cuba, as well as the threat of an imminent nuclear war, forced the United States to sit at the negotiating table, which resulted in both the withdrawal of Soviet missiles from Cuba and the American Jupiter BRDS from Turkey.


BRDS R-14

The period of the USSR. BRSD "Pershing-2" and KR "Tomahawk"


It is believed that the Pershing-2 ballistic missile was a response to the Soviet Pioneer RSD-10 missiles with a range of up to 4300-5500 km, capable of hitting targets in Europe. Perhaps this was the official reason for the deployment of the Pershing-2 ballistic missile in Europe, but rather it is a response to the concept of a decapitation strike by US Secretary of Defense James Schlesinger, mentioned at the beginning of the article. By the way, the development of the Pershing-2 BRDS and the Pioneer BRDS began in 1973 alone.


RSD-10 "Pioneer"

In contrast to the Pioneer anti-aircraft missile system, which can be considered a classic deterrent weapon, the Pershing-2 anti-aircraft missile system was originally designed to destroy highly protected objects, such as communication and control bunkers, highly protected missile silos, for which high demands were placed on it in terms of airborne warheads .

The winning company, Martin-Marietta, created a high-tech two-stage solid propellant rocket with throttle engines that allow a wide range of flight ranges to be changed. The maximum range was 1770 km. The Pershing-2 BRDS warhead was a maneuvering monoblock with a variable power of 0,3 / 2 / 10/80 kilotons. To destroy highly protected buried objects, a nuclear charge penetrating 50-70 m was developed. Another factor ensuring the defeat of protected point targets was the KVO of the warhead, which is about 30 meters (for comparison, the KVO of the RSD-10 Pioner warheads was about 550 meters). High accuracy was provided by an inertial control system and guidance system on the final section of the trajectory using the radar map of the area recorded in the memory of the on-board computer of the rocket.


BRSD "Pershing-2"

The flight time of the Pershing-2 BRDS warhead to the objects located in the center of the European part of the USSR was only 8-10 minutes, which made it the weapon of the first decapitation strike, which the leadership and armed forces of the USSR simply could not react to.

Another weapon deployed by the United States in Europe was the Tomahawk cruise missiles. Unlike ballistic missiles, the Tomahawk missiles could not boast of short flying times. Their advantage was the stealth of the launch, as a result of which they would not be detected missile attack warning system (SPRN), low-altitude flight path with an envelope of terrain, making it difficult to detect the Tomahawk missile defense by means of air defense USSR, as well as a fairly high accuracy of hit, with a CVT of about 80-200 meters, provided by an inertial navigation system in the complex (ANN) with a terrain correction system TERCOM.

The missile’s flight range was up to 2500 kilometers, which made it possible to choose its flight route, taking into account the bypass of known air defense zones. The power of the thermonuclear warhead was 150 kilotons.


Ground launcher Ground-Launched Cruise Missile (GLCM) and Tomahawk

It can be assumed that during a sudden decapitation strike, the Tomahawk missile strike would have been hit first from land and underwater carriers. At that time, the USSR did not have over-the-horizon radars capable of detecting such small-sized targets. Thus, there was a likelihood that the launch of the Tomahawk Kyrgyz Republic would go unnoticed.

The launch of the Pershing-2 ballistic missile system could be inflicted in such a way that the targets of the Tomahawk KR and the warheads of the Pershing-2 ballistic missile system would be hit almost simultaneously.

Like the flu virus, which is not particularly dangerous for a healthy body, but extremely dangerous for an immune system with weakened immune systems, Pershing-2 and Tomahawk KRs are not too dangerous for a state with powerful, effectively functioning armed forces, but it is extremely dangerous in that case if there are gaps in the defense of a potential victim of aggression: non-working radar, inefficient air defense system, disoriented and uncertain leadership in their decisions.

At the end of the 80s of the XNUMXth century, the US leadership could not fail to note the weakness of the Soviet nomenclature, readily signing disarmament treaties, and the air defense forces demoralized after the situation with the South Korean Boeing and the incident with Matthias Rust.


One can only speculate in the format of an alternative story how the fate of the USSR would have developed under a different leader

In such circumstances, the United States could well have decided to deliver a sudden advance strike in the hope that no one would dare or have time to “press the button”. Judging by the fact that the nuclear third world war did not start at that time, the United States considered that there could still be people capable of “pressing a button” in the USSR.

The period of the Russian Federation. Invisible aircraft and fast global strike


The collapse of the USSR led to a landslide reduction in the capabilities of the armed forces, including strategic nuclear forces (SNF). Only a huge margin of safety, laid down in the Soviet period in people and equipment, made it possible to maintain nuclear parity with the United States in the late nineties and early XNUMXs.

Nevertheless, the USA did not abandon the idea of ​​delivering a nuclear attack on Russia. As during the Cold War, nuclear strike plans were developed: the “Unified Comprehensive War Plan” SIOP-92 with 4000 nuclear weapons, SIOP-97 2500 targets, SIOP-00 3000 targets, of which 2000 92 goals in the Russian Federation. The SIOP-XNUMX plan, which was being developed just at the time when the new Russian leadership was kissing their gums with American "friends", was especially touching.

From a certain point on, the “decapitating” strike actually changed to a “disarming” one. The reason for this was that in the modern world even an insignificant part of the Soviet / Russian nuclear arsenal is capable of causing unacceptable damage to the United States, therefore, destroying the country's leadership and only part of its nuclear potential is not enough, it is necessary to strive for the almost complete destruction of the enemy’s nuclear potential.

At the time of the collapse of the USSR, top-secret aircraft development programs were completed in the USA, implemented with the widespread use of technologies to reduce the visibility of military vehicles in the radar and infrared ranges - the so-called "stealth" technology. Contrary to popular belief, the so-called invisible planes are not completely invisible to enemy air defenses. The main objective of the stealth technology is only to reduce the detection range and reduce the likelihood of damage, which in itself is extremely important.

If we consider the situation in the context of the stagnation of Russian air defense in the late 1990s and early 2000s, the United States could well count on the use of strategic stealth B-2 bombers as one of the means for destroying Russia's strategic nuclear forces also weakened by the restructuring.


Strategic stealth bomber B-2

It can be assumed that in the wake of the euphoria from the victory in the Cold War, the United States was too optimistic about the degradation of the Russian armed forces. Of course, under the conditions of functioning developed and effective air defense, even aircraft made using the stealth technology are unsuitable as a weapon for delivering a sudden disarming strike.

On the other hand, the situation was different, and the B-2 bombers could well be used to search for and destroy the remnants of the Russian strategic nuclear forces - Topol mobile ground missile systems (PGRK). What could it look like? New START-4 treaty on further reduction in the number of warheads to 700-800 units, carriers to 300-400 units, decommissioning of intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs) UR-100N UTTKh "Stiletto" and R-36M "Voevoda" ("Satan" ») Without extending the terms of their operation, decommissioning of nuclear submarines with ballistic missiles (SSBNs), without the arrival of new ones. In a word, everything that can happen to the armed forces in the absence of political will and normal funding. And then, with a decrease in the capabilities of the Russian strategic nuclear forces below a certain threshold, the United States could well risk playing Russian roulette.

Understanding that stealth aircrafts and non-nuclear-powered cruise missiles could not be achieved even with weakened Russian strategic nuclear forces, in 1996 the United States began to work out the concept of a fast global strike (Prompt Global Strike), BSU. The BSU’s weapons were to be ICBMs and / or SLBMs (ballistic missiles of submarines) in non-nuclear (as stated) equipment, planning hypersonic warheads and hypersonic cruise missiles.


Rapid Global Strike Weapon

A modification of the Trident II SLBM with high-precision non-nuclear warheads was considered as a conventional ICBM.

The main candidate for the role of the planning hypersonic warhead was the DARPA Falcon HTV-2B project.


The concept of the planning hypersonic warhead Falcon HTV-2V

As a hypersonic cruise missile, the Boeing X-51A Waverider, launched from B-52 bombers or other carriers, was considered.


Prototype Hypersonic Boeing X-51A Waverider

From a technical point of view, the BSU concept was hardly a significant threat to domestic strategic nuclear forces. It is unlikely that a non-nuclear warhead, even a high-precision one, will be able to hit ICBMs in protected mine launchers (silos). And from the point of view of the BSU implementation, problems arose - the Trident II non-nuclear SLBMs from the point of view of a missile attack warning system (SPRN) look the same as in nuclear equipment, respectively, their launch can become the reason for launching a full-scale nuclear retaliatory strike. When developing hypersonic gliding warheads and cruise missiles, serious difficulties arose, and therefore, these complexes have not yet been implemented.

Nevertheless, the leadership of the Russian Federation paid close attention to plans for the deployment of weapons within the framework of the BSU concept and demanded that ICBMs and SLBMs be taken into non-nuclear equipment when calculating the number of carriers under the START-3 treaty, as well as carriers in nuclear equipment.

If the Russian Federation were given a slack in the issue of BSU, the United States could well have tried to “accustom” the Russian Special Purpose Ballistic Missile System to regular non-nuclear ballistic missile launches, and later use this to launch a disarming strike against Russia, of course, not with conventional, but with nuclear warheads.

The period of the Russian Federation. After the collapse of the INF Treaty


A new milestone in the preparation of the United States for a sudden disarming strike was the withdrawal from the treaty on limiting the deployment of short and medium-range missiles (INF Treaty). The reason was an alleged violation by Russia of the provisions of this agreement regarding exceeding the maximum firing range of 500 km by one of the missiles of the Iskander operational-tactical missile complex (OTRK), in particular, it is a 9M729 ground-based cruise missile. The comments of the Russian Federation that the ground-based vertical launching installations (UVP) of MK.41 from the missile defense system (missile defense), located in Poland and Romania, are suitable for launching the marine version of the Tomahawk missile launcher.


The official reason for the US to withdraw from the INF Treaty is the KR 9M729 of the Iskander complex in a container

Poorly aligned with the provisions of the INF Treaty, US development of ballistic target missiles, as well as test ground launches aviation AGM-158B cruise missile with a range of 1000 kilometers. There are contradictions between the USA and the Russian Federation according to the classification of long-range unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs).

The secondary reason for the US withdrawal from the INF Treaty is the fact that China is not its member. Most likely this is really an attempt to kill two birds with one stone at once - to put pressure on the PRC and create conditions for the implementation of the scenario of delivering a sudden disarming strike against Russia and China.

Why is an exit from the INF Treaty beneficial for the US? Two main reasons can be distinguished:

1. Ensuring minimum flying time for missiles, which is fully consistent with the concept of a decapitation (disarming) strike of August 17, 1973, US Secretary of Defense James Schlesinger.

2. Reducing the number of targets potentially affected by the strategic nuclear forces of the Russian Federation and China in the United States, by increasing the number of potential targets in the countries of Europe and Asia.

What weapons can be implemented as part of the updated doctrine of a sudden disarming strike?

First of all, this is a new generation of medium-range ballistic missiles. Initially, they will be developed in a non-nuclear version and most likely will be deployed in Europe under the pretext of retaliatory action on the deployment by Russia of the Iskander OTRK. The promising SLBM will be uniquely designed from the very beginning with the possibility of placing a nuclear charge on it.

The key requirement for the new SLBM is likely to be to ensure minimum flying time. This can be implemented in one of two ways (or in two versions at once) - the most gentle path of the missile or the use of planning hypersonic warheads similar to those created in the framework of the Russian Avangard program.

In particular, a promising ballistic missile with a range of about 2000-2250 kilometers is being created as part of the Strategic Fires Missile program. Presumably, the new BRDS will be equipped with a planning hypersonic warhead. By the way, the image of a missile under the Strategic Fires Missile program resembles the Pershing-2 BRDS, maybe it will be the re-incarnation of Pershing-3 at a new technological level?


Image of Strategic Fires Missile launcher and missiles

Within the framework of the BSU program, a promising hypersonic weapon is being developed, literally - Advanced Hypersonic Weapon (AHW). Work on AHW overlaps with the DARPA and US Air Force program to develop the said HTV-2 planning combat unit. Tests under the AHW program have been underway since 2011, and the program itself is considered more realistic than the HTV-2.


Image from the presentation of the Advanced Hypersonic Weapon

It can be assumed that medium-range SLBMs with characteristics similar to ground-based systems can be created on the basis of SLBMs. The fundamental difference between the RF Armed Forces and the USSR Armed Forces in this matter is that the Soviet Navy could well prevent the U.S. Navy from delivering a medium-range ballistic missile strike from a distance of 2000-3000 km, and for the Russian Navy this task is most likely impossible.

With a high probability, the project of the Boeing X-51A Waverider hypersonic missile, also developed as part of the BSU program, will be implemented.


Tests of the Boeing X-51A Waverider hypersonic missile

An additional element of a sudden disarming strike can be stealth AGM-158 JASSM / AGM-158B JASSM ER cruise missiles. The range under development of the JASSM XR may exceed 1500 kilometers. As mentioned earlier, AGM-158 JASSM missiles can be launched from ground launchers. The United States JASSM missiles are not only actively purchasing themselves, but they are also arming their allies. Almost all U.S. military aircraft, including F-158E, F-15, F / A-16, F-18 fighters and B-35B, B-1 and B-2 bombers, should be carriers of the AGM-52 JASSM family of missiles.

The low visibility of the AGM-158 JASSM family missiles can significantly reduce the range and probability of their detection by over-the-horizon radar SPRN RF.


Subtle cruise missile AGM-158B JASSM ER

A more exotic solution may be orbital maneuvering strike platforms, the possibility and conditions of which we considered in the article “The militarization of space is the next step of the United States. SpaceX and orbiting lasers ». Active orbital maneuvering technologies in the United States are being actively tested with the help of the Boeing X-37 orbital test ship capable of quickly changing the orbit altitude in the range of 200-750 km.


Boeing X-37 Orbital Test Ship

However, even without orbital strike platforms in the next 5-10 years, the United States is likely to receive a number of products listed above that will allow a sudden disarming strike with a flight time of less than ten minutes, and possibly less than five minutes, which is significant threat to strategic stability.

Of organizational methods, “buildup” can be applied - creating a series of threatened situations that the Russian Federation can consider as preparation for a strike, but stopping them at a certain stage. The task is to make such situations familiar and raise the threshold for the use of nuclear weapons. In terms of meaning, this is like giving false alarm at a military base every other day, and in a month no one will pay attention to it.

It must be understood that the appearance of weapons to carry out a sudden disarming strike will not mean its guaranteed use, just as Pershing-2 missiles were not used. Obviously, the US is creating opportunity to inflict such a blow, and then they will wait for a convenient the situation for its application, which may not occur.

It should also be noted that the appearance of similar weapons (hypersonic missiles and ballistic missiles) in the Russian Federation does not bear any significant additional advantages in terms of nuclear deterrence, since the systems considered are first-strike weapons and ineffective as deterrence weapons.

Worst of all, what seems to be available opportunity delivering a sudden disarming strike can turn the head of American politicians (the illusion is more dangerous than reality), who will begin to act more aggressively, which, in turn, can lead to uncontrolled development of the situation and escalation of the conflict up to a full-scale nuclear war.

We will talk about the role that the missile defense system (missile defense) plays in preparing for a sudden disarming strike, in the next article.
Author:
Photos used:
russiancouncil.ru, vpk.name, bastion-karpenko.ru, vpk.name, topwar.ru
Articles from this series:
Power conversion
The militarization of space is the next step for the United States. SpaceX and lasers in orbit
Strategic conventional weapon. Damage
Strategic conventional forces: carriers and weapons
Reusable rockets: an economical solution for a quick global strike
Planning hypersonic warheads: projects and prospects
The sunset of the nuclear triad? Air and ground components of strategic nuclear forces
The sunset of the nuclear triad? Marine component of strategic nuclear forces
The sunset of the nuclear triad? Ground and space echelons of SPRN
210 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Ross xnumx
    Ross xnumx 15 January 2020 06: 10
    -1
    Sunset of the nuclear triad. US decapitating weapon

    I do not believe that the United States will use its "decapitation strike" based on the historical past and the present, as long as they know that at least a few YaBG will fall on their territory ...
    I do not exclude the option when a third party can "wedge" on anonymous rights into the struggle between the two countries (exchange of blows) in order to "aggravate" the position of both opponents ...
    1. Tatyana
      Tatyana 15 January 2020 06: 35
      17
      Quote: ROSS 42
      I do not believe that the United States will use its "decapitation strike" based on the historical past and the present, as long as they know that at least a few YaBG will fall on their territory ...

      And I believe that the United States can use its "decapitation strike" not at all from the historical past and present.
      First of all, there are enough Bad Heads for this in the USA. Washington does not have to rely on prudence.
      And secondly. The resource crisis in the capitalist system is actively spurring the United States and the collective West on TMV with Russia. They even in their intentions are not at all embarrassed!

      In addition, it is known that the history of many abnormal militarists does not teach anything.
      Moreover, a war can start simply because of a technical error or because of a mistake by military personnel.
      1. Tatyana
        Tatyana 15 January 2020 06: 45
        +9
        The article is very good and intelligible for those who still doubt that the USA will not start a war because they fear a retaliatory strike.
        The technical means of nuclear weapons and its carriers are no longer given at all as they were in 1960-1970. Therefore, the military doctrines in the USA have already changed and the Washington / Pentagon has long been striving to VICTORY over Russia.
        I would have long ago, based on realities, changed the military doctrine of the Russian Federation from defensive to offensive with the right to launch the first preventive strike for self-defense.
        1. Ross xnumx
          Ross xnumx 15 January 2020 08: 58
          -1
          Quote: Tatiana
          I would have long ago, based on realities, changed the military doctrine of the Russian Federation from defensive to offensive with the right to launch the first preventive strike for self-defense.

          You simply don’t know how to deal with the consequences of such a decision. In my opinion, enough:
          22. In the framework of the implementation of strategic deterrence measures of a power nature, the Russian Federation envisages the use of high-precision weapons.
          Russian Federation reserves the right to use nuclear weapons in response to use against her and (or) her allies nuclear and other types of weapons of mass destruction, as well as in case of aggression against the Russian Federation using conventional weaponswhen the very existence of the state is threatened.
          Decision on the use of nuclear weapons is made by the President Russian Federation.
        2. Grits
          Grits 15 January 2020 16: 42
          +6
          Quote: Tatiana
          I would have long ago, based on realities, changed the military doctrine of the Russian Federation from defensive to offensive with the right to launch the first preventive strike for self-defense.

          Correctly. Let them in this case be afraid of the insidious and unpredictable evil Russians.
        3. Boa kaa
          Boa kaa 16 January 2020 00: 05
          +5
          Quote: Tatiana
          I would have long ago, based on realities, changed the military doctrine of the Russian Federation from defensive to offensive with the right to launch the first preventive strike for self-defense.

          In response to the "Trojan Horse" Gerasimov said that
          Russia is preparing in response "Active defense strategy", in the work of which "military scientists" take part. “The justification of the measures being developed should be the scientific activity of military scientists. This is one of the priority areas for ensuring state security. We must be ahead of the enemy in the development of military strategy, go one step ahead, ”Gerasimov said.
          Active defense involves an offensive with preemptive attacks on the enemy ...
          1. Range
            Range 25 February 2020 18: 48
            0
            Well, Russia doesn’t even need a decapitation blow on Shakali, anyway almost without exception in Penguinstan in Congress and in the Pentagon headless horsemen. No one to decapitate, only to wet ...
        4. Efreytor
          Efreytor 16 January 2020 08: 08
          0
          Tatyana, can you go to cook borsch all the same?
      2. Ross xnumx
        Ross xnumx 15 January 2020 06: 46
        +4
        Quote: Tatiana
        And I believe that the US can use its "decapitation"

        The VO website allows for pluralism of opinions. By the way, not to be confused with pluralism when they spit on the opponent's opinion. Therefore, I propose to announce the list of the recklessness of "bad heads" from Washington against an enemy capable of giving a worthy rebuff ...
        In turn, I have the right to note that the US Army’s massive attacks were carried out only in the war with Vietnam and Iraq. Compare the armies of these countries with the potential of the United States.
        A technical or military error is possible. Only mass cannot she have. In the practice of the USSR Armed Forces, this already happened. Today, this is hardly possible in a theater of war like the EU. What will remain there? Which head of the European country will do this?
        1. Tatyana
          Tatyana 15 January 2020 07: 02
          +7
          Quote: ROSS 42
          the US Army’s massive strikes were carried out exclusively in the war with Vietnam and Iraq. Compare the armies of these countries with the potential of the United States.

          You forgot the Anglo-Saxon carpet bombing of the cities of Germany and Japan.
          In Japan, for example, the nuclear bombs of Hiroshima and Nagasaki cleaned up only 6% of Japanese territory out of 90%. All the remaining 90-6 = 84% of Japanese territory by the Americans was destroyed completely by carpet bombing. Moreover, WWII was already completed.
          You also forgot the carpet bombing of Yugoslavia in 1999. Yugoslavia at that time did not fight with the countries of the West.

          So the Americans and the collective West will not be ashamed of destroying different countries, including Russia. From such successes, with impunity, they simply “blow away the roof in their heads”!
          1. Ross xnumx
            Ross xnumx 15 January 2020 07: 07
            -1
            Quote: Tatiana
            You forgot the Anglo-Saxon carpet bombing of the cities of Germany and Japan.

            You read inattentively !!!
            Quote: ROSS 42
            Therefore, I propose to announce the list of recklessness of "bad heads" from Washington against an adversary capable of rebuffing ...
            1. Tatyana
              Tatyana 15 January 2020 07: 13
              +5
              Quote: ROSS 42
              You have not read carefully !!! Quote: ROSS 42 Therefore, I propose to announce the list of recklessness of "bad heads" from Washington against an enemy capable of giving a worthy rebuff ...

              That's when the war begins, then you will recognize them in person. Now don’t even tell me that they aren’t! They will sit in comfortable anti-nuclear bunkers. In the US, the anti-nuclear bunkers are now a construction boom!
              1. SovAr238A
                SovAr238A 15 January 2020 08: 24
                -9
                Quote: Tatiana
                In the US, the anti-nuclear bunkers are now a construction boom!


                stop talking nonsense!

                links to sellers of bunkers with sales statistics provide.
                in the original language only.
                not from our Urya-media ...
                1. g1washntwn
                  g1washntwn 16 January 2020 07: 44
                  +2
                  Sort out your laziness and learn how to use the search on the Internet. The first link, for example, displays on NY:
                  https://www.nytimes.com/2019/08/13/us/apocalypse-doomsday-capitalists.html
                  . They gave you a fishing rod, and catch the fish yourself.
                  1. eklmn
                    eklmn 17 January 2020 03: 24
                    -1
                    Stupid
                    in the US, you can make money on anything, even on old ballistic missile mines. Someone extravagant with $$$ bought for nothing (there are dozens of them for sale for $ 200k) and redid.
                    Look, you will have fun!
                    https://youtu.be/Ftc6igmfWtk
                    1. g1washntwn
                      g1washntwn 17 January 2020 09: 48
                      +1
                      They are being converted into elite BOMB SHEETS. And buyers are. So, "nizachot".
            2. Nyrobsky
              Nyrobsky 15 January 2020 09: 09
              +5
              Quote: ROSS 42
              Therefore, I propose to announce the list of recklessness of "bad heads" from Washington against an enemy capable of giving a worthy rebuff

              If we consider Russia as an adversary capable of giving a worthy rebuff, then since the Cuban Missile Crisis, ALL the political leadership of the United States with congressmen and senators, including a number of "bad heads" from the Pentagon, is only doing what they do "reckless actions", in other words, they try to stick sherud in a bear den, when the bear himself does not even think of attacking anyone. The list will be very large to list everyone personally, so take the Democrats + Republicans in bulk.
          2. Boa kaa
            Boa kaa 16 January 2020 00: 44
            +3
            Quote: Tatiana
            You also forgot the carpet bombing of Yugoslavia in 1999.

            Kazan ... took, Astrakhan ... took. Shpaka ... did not take! (c) / Ivan Vasilievich changes his profession /
            Ma'am, one should not confuse the massive attacks by cruise missiles with carpet bombing ... yes, during the negotiations, Ahtisaari openly threatened the Yugoslavs with increased bombardments in case of refusal of NATO conditions. But then the carpet bombing did not reach.
            Quote: Tatiana
            the Americans and the collective West will not be ashamed of destroying different countries, including Russia. From such successes, with impunity, they simply “blow away the roof in their heads”!

            Who will put him in prison? After all, he is a monument! (c) / Gentlemen of Fortune /
            1. Russia is still too tough for the NATO States. Of course, they can risk their health, but the prospect of a nuclear desert instead of cities clearly does not suit them ... And the Yankees are well aware of this ...
            2. As for the "roof" in the head - you boldly noticed it! Usually, the "roof" meant the head of the activist ... And then there is the "roof" in the head. But! laughing
            when the war begins, then you will recognize them by sight.
            Yes, they are afraid of contact war like fire (face to face) They pray for "contactless war", moreover, for drones and other robotic combat systems. They are ready to fight, but by proxy ... So blacks, mulattos fighting for US citizenship ... well, maybe we'll see. But not more.
            1. Tatyana
              Tatyana 16 January 2020 01: 26
              +1
              Quote: BoA KAA
              2. As for the "roof" in the head - you boldly noticed it! Usually, the "roof" meant the head of the activist ... And then there is the "roof" in the head. But!

              By the demolished "roof" in the head, I meant the absence of the parietal bones of the skull above the brains of eggheads, without which a head without brains can be, but under hats and caps this is not visible, and not the whole head.

        2. Vladimir_2U
          Vladimir_2U 15 January 2020 07: 24
          -3
          Quote: ROSS 42
          VO site allows pluralism of opinions. By the way, do not confuse with pluralism when they spit on an opponent’s opinion
          In the modern classification, the term "plevalism" is used. ))
        3. g1washntwn
          g1washntwn 15 January 2020 09: 17
          +3
          Quote: ROSS 42
          A technical or military error is possible. Only mass cannot she have.

          In this context, most likely, we are not talking about "mass character" but about the chance of a critical coincidence of circumstances caused by a technical failure. A recent example is Iran and the Ukrainian board. The escalation initiated by the American strike on Soleimani led to an error in the correctness of the decision. The civilian side was shot down. The likelihood of the same scenario with nuclear weapons cannot be ruled out by either side, since in relation to the INF there may not be time to correct the situation at all.
          1. Boa kaa
            Boa kaa 16 January 2020 01: 13
            +5
            Quote: g1washntwn
            escalation led to an error in the correct decision.
            Two words.
            1. "Escalation" led to an increase in the mental tension of the operator of the air defense system, and not to an error in the actions of the calculation. The calculation acted according to the "protocol" in a similar case. Let me explain my idea.
            2. Departure of the Ukrainian side was delayed by 1 hour. He went out of schedule, which was the command of the air defense.
            To make up for time, the board begins to turn outside the corridor to the right, to an important military facility, which was covered by the Iranian air defense system. The transporder probably was, but friend or foe identification systems obviously not.
            10 seconds for the decision to the commander of the calculation (in case of communication failure with KP) was enough to begin to act according to the combat instructions.
            Why did he do that? Yes, because the Jews and Amans did not hesitate to hide behind civilian courts, the Russian reconnaissance aircraft ... And then there were real military operations with a missile strike at Amer military bases ...
            Well, what do you want from a "fighter in the trench"? What is his fault if he followed the "protocol" that led to the tragedy? The perpetrators are sitting much higher ... These are those who did not close the air by starting a database against the Ams ...
            This is my personal judgment as a military pro.
            1. g1washntwn
              g1washntwn 16 January 2020 07: 32
              +1
              I doubt that air defense crews begin to shoot at any mark in peacetime when communication is lost. This is not an assessment of "who is to blame" in a particular situation, but an example of how an "avalanche of errors" begins. Replace the calculation of the air defense missile system with the operator of the RIAC with its own protocols ... The chance that several factors will simultaneously develop and the "start" button is pressed is not at all zero. There are few examples when ICBMs were ready to fly, but they are. In the case of the RIAC, this avalanche will come down in seconds, and then options are possible and they all do not greatly improve health.
              1. Boa kaa
                Boa kaa 16 January 2020 11: 49
                +3
                Quote: g1washntwn
                I doubt that the air defense calculations begin to shoot at any mark in peacetime when the connection disappears.

                In peacetime - yes! But it was precisely NOT PEACE TIME, when the Iranian forces were brought to the highest degree of combat readiness. In such conditions, “it’s better to go overboard than not drink enough”!
                Therefore, the actions of the fighter calculating the air defense system I fully understand and can not judge. He is a soldier of the trench, over which bullets are whistling (in this case, the BRDS). And the executive mechanism should not think and doubt. He must obey orders. In this case, the protocol. Headquarters and commanders should think and foresee everything - this is their job. And the job of calculating air defense systems is to fulfill the task: precisely, efficiently and on time!
                IMHO.
                1. g1washntwn
                  g1washntwn 16 January 2020 12: 58
                  0
                  I'm not looking for the names of those specifically responsible for the Iranian incident. You will be very worried about "who is to blame?" when nuclear warheads start falling on your head? A specific officer of the crew, an AI error or the inaction / inadequacy of the superior command ... or all-inclusive at once ... It will not matter, it will be simply impossible to transfer the nuclear (even local) conflict that has begun to de-escalation. Due to the threats of cancellation by various missile defense systems, a blow will be delivered to the maximum possible damage to the enemy. The higher the speed of your car (RIAC, hyper, space), the less chances of stopping errors no matter where they occurred.
                  In addition, I am even more than confident that propaganda will "reveal" the culprits faster than historians.
                  1. Boa kaa
                    Boa kaa 16 January 2020 13: 17
                    +2
                    Quote: g1washntwn
                    You will be very worried about "who is to blame?" when will nuclear warheads start falling on your head?
                    What does it have to do with it? We are talking about the actions of calculating air defense systems, the operation of an air defense system in combat mode, about the target that is hiding at a guarded object ... That's what it is about.
                    The Persians were waiting for the US response to its bombardment of the Amov bases. Therefore, everything that happened fits into the logic of the development of armed conflict between the parties. And all this began - the Yankees! Well, and who is to blame after that?
                    And then the reasoning in favor of the victims of the shipwreck ...
                    Adieu.
                    1. g1washntwn
                      g1washntwn 17 January 2020 09: 58
                      0
                      Quote: Boa constrictor KAA
                      What does it have to do with it? We are talking about the actions of the calculation of air defense systems, the operation of the air defense system in combat mode ...

                      You do not want to understand that I am not talking about a specific case, but about the decision-making system as a whole. And you are trying to discuss particulars with me. Therefore, really. Adieu.
                      1. Boa kaa
                        Boa kaa 17 January 2020 12: 15
                        +1
                        Quote: g1washntwn
                        I am not talking about a specific case, but about the decision-making system as a whole. And you are trying to discuss particulars with me.

                        It’s strange. And it seemed to me that we were discussing the reasons that led to the tragedy with the death of 178 people ...
                        This is something like in Russian:
                        - about the decision-making system as a whole - the rules;
                        - about a specific case - an exception.
                        What does our case look like? On a rule or an exception to it?
                        PS Sorry for the harshness, I did not mean to offend you.
                      2. g1washntwn
                        g1washntwn 17 January 2020 12: 49
                        0
                        The offended carry water. smile No. The decision-making system is one thing, the cause of a particular case can be either a single failure in this system, or it can be a sequence of such failures, but everything is within the boundaries of this system. The specific case is considered in this particular coordinate system. We can say that the actions of calculating the air defense missile system are the first (target detection) and the very last stage (decision to launch) at which information is processed in this system. The lack of communication (voiced as an option) interrupted the transmission of information for confirmation and approval, the decision (as it turned out now, wrong) was made by the calculation that carried out the launch without having all the available information necessary to make a correct and timely decision. Everything, politicians have found for absolution. But you can look even more broadly, where this system includes political and technical decisions, internal and external, etc. Basically, take any material on business trainings like "How to make decisions quickly and correctly" and put it on this particular case and analyze it. Analytical departments are doing exactly this, they are not looking only for a specific cause of a system failure (systemic not in the sense of repeating, but systemic in the sense of affecting the system), they are looking for the reasons for the imperfection of such systems. That is why it is necessary to consider and look for reasons, for example, the fall of an icicle on the head, a little wider than a thaw and pigeons. It seems so to me.
            2. Alexey RA
              Alexey RA 16 January 2020 16: 46
              +2
              Quote: g1washntwn
              I doubt that the air defense calculations begin to shoot at any mark in peacetime when the connection disappears.

              After the assassination by the Americans of the IRGC commander, Iran now is not at all peaceful time.
              I immediately remember the CD URO "Vincennes", which confused the airliner with a multirole fighter.
              1. g1washntwn
                g1washntwn 17 January 2020 10: 08
                0
                Quote: Alexey RA
                After the assassination by the Americans of the IRGC commander, Iran now is not at all peaceful time.

                Exactly. Who is to blame for the escalation? The whole decision-making system went skidding, from the absence of a ban on flights, to pressing the "start" button by calculation. Actually, the investigation is underway, whether they will tell us the result or not, but need to look at the whole chain of events and not just who specifically and correctly acted by pressing a button. Here Alexander sees above only the actions of combat crew. And I want to examine the whole battlefield.
          2. VALENTINE-37
            VALENTINE-37 16 January 2020 12: 30
            -3
            Departure of the Ukrainian side was delayed by 1 hour. He walked outside the schedule that the air defense command had.
            Hundreds of flights are delayed daily throughout the world. So what?.
            Are you special in the field of fleet or aviation?
            Well, you can familiarize yourself with the algorithm of the display. or with documents of regulations. their work. The network inf is enough.
            Air defense, by the way, different things happen. Army, strategic, aviation.
            1. Alexey RA
              Alexey RA 16 January 2020 16: 49
              +2
              Quote: VALENTIN-37
              Hundreds of flights are delayed daily throughout the world. So what?.

              As an analogue: what would happen if on September 12-13, 2001, an airliner that had flown outside the schedule decided to cut a corner by turning in the direction of the White House or the Pentagon?
              1. Dingo
                Dingo 16 February 2020 21: 52
                0
                The same thing with the Boeing in the Far East ... (though, there RS-135 was hanging around there ... but in neutral waters). A muddy story ...
            2. Dingo
              Dingo 16 February 2020 21: 45
              0
              That's it. Air defense is different ... laughing I confirm this - as a former sergeant, crew commander, operator of the 1st class automated control system (then the "M" was left only to officers, warrant officers and super-conscripts. We are only a confirmation of the class) Service 77-79. ..3 Yaroslavl Air Defense Corps, 6 Red Banner Brigade ...
          3. VALENTINE-37
            VALENTINE-37 16 January 2020 12: 37
            -2
            There was probably a trasporder, but there was clearly no "friend or foe" identification system ...
            Do not write nonsense. We somehow sat in the Dnieper for about 12 hours. Identification died, drove the board to Kiev. They brought, put the block and we flew away.

            1. ak1978
              ak1978 17 January 2020 03: 32
              0
              The question is, what did the transponder transmit? The Iranians didn’t collect the plane ...
              1. VALENTINE-37
                VALENTINE-37 19 January 2020 10: 47
                0
                There is a treasured word, ICAO.
                From the same opera-TKAS.
                If Iran had not been with these systems, no one would have allowed to fly there. laughing
                1. ak1978
                  ak1978 19 January 2020 20: 55
                  0
                  Who produces microchips - he owns the world.
            2. Dingo
              Dingo 16 February 2020 22: 05
              0
              Was it weak without "identification"? request .... The operator would go on vacation ....
      3. carstorm 11
        carstorm 11 16 January 2020 03: 07
        +3
        withdrawal from the ABM Treaty from the INF Treaty. this is an example of recklessness. in fact, from the point of view of politicians, not of the military, these are signs of preparation for war. judge for yourself - who benefits from these steps? whoever has a defensive strategy or vice versa offensive?
      4. Boa kaa
        Boa kaa 16 January 2020 13: 24
        +2
        Quote: ROSS 42
        not to be confused with pluralism when they spit on an opponent’s opinion.
        Right! But then it will be pluralism (!) And not pluralism ... laughing
    2. pmkemcity
      pmkemcity 15 January 2020 07: 10
      +4
      The United States is pursuing exactly the same policy towards Russia as it was towards Japan in the 30s and 40s. With their sanctions, they simply forced Japan to start a war. Will we be able to put the interests of the country above the interests of the homegrown imperialists? I doubt it. Apparently there is some hidden meaning in this eternal desire to make money "somewhere out there", to invest in someone else's economy and then ask the state to protect their private investments. The "state for sale" model, like women on the road, needs "physical" protection (there was such a department in the tax police). The time of spontaneous capitalism, like the time of "individual women", has long passed.
    3. CTABEP
      CTABEP 15 January 2020 10: 15
      +4
      At the beginning and mid-50s, the United States had hundreds of warheads, the USSR, at best, dozens and practically without means of delivery - nothing would have fallen on the territory of the United States. For some reason, the author did not start a war on genocide which raves. The war should build a more convenient world for the victor, if we are not talking about fanatics, who, fortunately, are few in the leadership of the world powers (and that is, there are people who regret that we did not "bang" during the Cuban missile crisis). And what will happen to the world and its economy after a nuclear war, even with one gate, is not at all clear.
      Yes, and the US withdrawal from the INF Treaty was primarily made because of China, which is not bound by treaties and is increasing its missiles of this type, and we have not yet chosen a limit for strategic offensive arms - do guaranteed missile defense for any missile defense systems located in the center of the country - and no one in their right mind would fight globally.
      1. ak1978
        ak1978 17 January 2020 03: 34
        0
        The Soviet army then stood in the center of Europe, and aviation pushed to the ancestral home of the Anglo-Saxons. Now the situation is comparable to the summer of 1918 or even 1942.
    4. Boa kaa
      Boa kaa 15 January 2020 23: 43
      +7
      Quote: Tatiana
      The United States can use its "decapitation strike" not at all from the historical past and present.

      Of course they can, if they are sure that its consequences will not affect the States themselves. But the current Pentagon leadership is not sure of this, and even vice versa.
      Apparently, therefore, about the new concept "Trojan Horse" on February 19, 2019. told US Air Force Chief of Staff David Goldfein.
      “The Pentagon has begun developing a fundamentally new warfare strategy, which the Trojan Horse has already dubbed. Its essence lies in the active use of the protest potential of the fifth column in the interests of destabilizing the situation while simultaneously striking with precision weapons at the most important sites, ”commented the NSSh RF Armed Forces V. Gerasimov.
      1. Tatyana
        Tatyana 16 January 2020 00: 04
        0
        Quote: BoA KAA
        Quote: Tatiana
        The United States can use its "decapitation strike" not at all from the historical past and present.

        Of course they can, if they are sure that its consequences will not affect the States themselves. But the current Pentagon leadership is not sure of this, and even vice versa.
        Apparently, therefore, about the new concept "Trojan Horse" on February 19, 2019. told US Air Force Chief of Staff David Goldfein.
        “The Pentagon has begun to develop a fundamentally new warfare strategy, which has already been dubbed the Trojan Horse. Its essence lies in the active use of the protest potential of the fifth column in the interests of destabilizing the situation while simultaneously striking with precision-guided weapons at the most important targets, ”commented the NSSh RF Armed Forces V. Gerasimov.

        Everything is logical and there is nothing surprising in the appearance of the "Trojan Horse" strategy for the conduct of hostilities in the US / Pentagon.
        The technologies of "color revolutions" in other countries have been successfully tested by Washington / Pentagon, and the results of the destructive house introduced in the victim country create an excellent platform for the aggressor to deliver an unrequited preventive military strike against strategically defensive targets in the country.
        It would be foolish for the enemy not to take advantage of this and not to secure for himself the predominant victory in the war!
      2. VALENTINE-37
        VALENTINE-37 16 January 2020 12: 25
        -2
        V. Gerasimov commented on it by the NSSh.
        I would like the original of the primary source. And our NGSh always knew how to "speak".
        In 1983, I almost burned out of shame.
        And the current ones are not far away. It was necessary, instead of the Ukrainian Su-25, to draw an American electronic warfare "Raven" aircraft that has no weapons at all.
        By the way, the Iranians offset, recognized the downing immediately.
        And the story since 1983, It's not us .. he himself ... And when they took the ass, admitted. tongue

        1. ccsr
          ccsr 16 January 2020 13: 04
          +1
          Quote: VALENTIN-37
          In 1983, I almost burned out of shame.

          You then were the commander of the country's air defense or maybe higher?
          Quote: VALENTIN-37
          American aircraft electronic warfare "Raven" which has no weapons at all.

          When our troops entered Czechoslovakia in 1968, they put paratroopers on an Aeroflot plane - don't you know the concept of "military cunning"? Who could guarantee it wasn't a disguise?
          Quote: VALENTIN-37
          .A when taken by the ass, admitted.

          This is nonsense, because we immediately knew that this plane was shot down, there was a hope that the remains and naturally evidence of the use of missile weapons of our fighter would not be found.
          Everything else that related to the Americans conducting special operations with the Korean Boeing was fully confirmed - for example, the work of the orbital group and US reconnaissance aircraft. So why are you sobbing?
          1. VALENTINE-37
            VALENTINE-37 16 January 2020 13: 27
            -1
            No, on September 1, 1983, I was sitting in Yelizovo and saw all this clutter, as the 865th regiment had cleared the Kal-007 span. It was clear to everyone that they had shot down, and Agarkov's bleating was very unconvincing.
            And when the photo of the start of the Trident was slapped on the MO website and the Bulava was signed, was this also a trick, or a denseness?
            And the reflection in the polished hours of Metropolitan Cyril?
            Although the present have surpassed both Agarkov and all the others.
            Nobody weeps. And you see a paid minus signer? I am an eyewitness of these events, and who you are clear from your post.
            1. ccsr
              ccsr 16 January 2020 13: 48
              0
              Quote: VALENTIN-37
              It was clear to everyone that they had shot down, and Agarkov's bleating was very unconvincing.

              And in Moscow the relevant chiefs knew about it - they were told everything, without taking into account your assessment of the actions of the regiment. By the way, why did you decide that they "wasted", taking into account the fact that the flight of this aircraft was already monitored by the country's air defense systems from the moment they crossed the state border?
              Quote: VALENTIN-37
              And when the photo of the start of the Trident was slapped on the MO website and the Bulava was signed, was this also a trick, or a denseness?

              This misinformation is a common trick to mislead an adversary. By the way, whose site was and was it official?
              Quote: VALENTIN-37
              And the reflection in the polished hours of Metropolitan Cyril?

              What side does this have to do with Korean Boeing?
              Quote: VALENTIN-37
              .And you see a paid minus signer?

              You know better, but if you think you are believed, you are mistaken.
              Quote: VALENTIN-37
              I am an eyewitness to these events

              Who were you in Yelizovo then? Are you another "officer's daughter"?
          2. VALENTINE-37
            VALENTINE-37 16 January 2020 13: 29
            0
            I forgot ... I promised to answer you when discussing the problems of the fleet. I really had a different nickname. So do not write, I will not answer. To you in the company to the Operator-Andrey the very thing. laughing
            1. ccsr
              ccsr 16 January 2020 13: 50
              +1
              Quote: VALENTIN-37
              .I promised to answer you

              Touched by your pioneer oath. By the way, why did you change your nickname so quickly, and what was your name like before?
            2. Dingo
              Dingo 16 February 2020 22: 16
              0
              Valentine, don’t be angry, you ... While I read all this - I’ve heard enough of such bullshit ... Though cry - even laugh ... Don’t worry ...
      3. oprovergatel
        oprovergatel 14 February 2020 10: 07
        0
        And they are not sure because am, in the event of an attack on Russia, it is necessary to simultaneously hit China. For the Chinese are well aware that if Tan decides to attack Russia, with all its nuclear arsenal, then trample, if such an attack succeeds, then China, with its incomparably weaker nuclear arsenal, will just spit on them. Therefore, China in such a scenario will hit the tan. And it’s not at all from a great love for Russia or the depth of a feeling of sincere indignation from garbage created by me, but from a sense of self-preservation.
  2. thanks
    thanks 15 January 2020 06: 46
    0
    Quote: Military Review * Analytics
    It must be understood that the appearance of weapons for a sudden disarming strike will not mean its guaranteed use, how the Pershing-2 missiles were not used.

    Dear author! Nuclear weapons - there have always been and are weapons of deterrence - this is an axiom! It is impossible to intercept all ICBMs both at present and in the past tense. Do you really think that with a flight time of 8-10 minutes "Pershing-2", the RSD-10 "Pioneer" missiles would not fly in response ... For this, the NATO countries were warned - therefore Europe would be the first to burn out in the heat of nuclear madness. At the same time, the number of USSR SSBNs off the coast of the United States was also increased.
    When you write about the circular probable deviation (CEP) of the RSD-10, do not forget about the missile's flight range (D max = 5500 km), it is not entirely correct to compare it with the Pershing-2 (D max = 1400 - 1700 km). Moreover, nuclear warheads slightly neutralize the parameter - the probable circular deviation. It all depends on the objectives of the defeat ...
    1. thanks
      thanks 15 January 2020 07: 14
      -3
      Quote: Military Review * Analytics
      The fundamental difference between the RF Armed Forces and the USSR Armed Forces in this matter is that the Soviet Navy could well prevent the U.S. Navy from delivering a medium-range ballistic missile strike from a distance of 2000-3000 km, and for the Russian Navy this task is most likely impossible.

      Dear author! For this, a Russian missile defense system has been created. Russia is waiting for the armament of the S-500, including the marine versionto stop these threats from the US and NATO countries.
      Quote: Military Review * Analytics
      “The militarization of space is the next step of the United States. Spacex and lasers in orbit»

      The X-ray laser with a nuclear pump according to the SOI program - the United States overworked to do ...
      1. Fan-fan
        Fan-fan 16 January 2020 10: 15
        -5
        Russia is waiting for the arming of the S-500, including the naval version, to stop these threats from the United States and NATO countries.
        Another belief in the "miracle weapon"? Hitler also promised the Germans "Weapons of retaliation"
    2. g1washntwn
      g1washntwn 15 January 2020 09: 28
      +1
      Quote: Mersi
      Nuclear weapons - there have always been and are deterrence weapons

      Not certainly in that way. Any weapon can be used both for defense and for robbery. Everything is determined by whether his opponent has it. Then the attacker's nuclear weapons become an attack weapon, and the attacker's nuclear weapons become a deterrent. This is what the article discusses, with their BSU, missile defense, X-37V and others, they try to lead to a situation where the nuclear weapons of the responding attack due to insignificance ceases to be a deterrent and the profit from the attack is greater than the losses from a retaliatory strike ... even if for this profit will have to burn the whole of Europe with Asia, BV and a hundred or two of American inhabitants.
      1. bk316
        bk316 15 January 2020 14: 23
        +3
        even if for this profit you have to burn the whole of Europe with Asia,

        Profit in what?
        1. g1washntwn
          g1washntwn 15 January 2020 14: 32
          +1
          While the victim is poking around in the ruins, gallop forward. This, by the way, is the official American strategy - to restrain everyone (including the "allies") and ride in front of the locomotive, dismantling the rails for their own prosperity. In the case of a nuclear conflict, this is the same concept of Kennan, but this deterrence is called a knockback strategy. It is important for the United States that the retaliatory strike does not throw back or slow down them more than the enemy.
      2. Boa kaa
        Boa kaa 16 January 2020 01: 30
        +2
        Quote: g1washntwn
        even if for this profit you have to burn all of Europe with Asia, BV and a hundred or two American inhabitants.

        The Yankees do not mind Europe along with Asia and Africa in addition - this is a fact ...
        Therefore, the GDP was open and stated that the strategic nuclear forces retaliatory strike would not only be at the bases / places from which the strike had been inflicted, but also at the DECISION-MAKING CENTERS! And this is for the Yankees like a Faberge sickle!
        They cannot catch our Boreas (all to one!). And after 8 minutes, the maximum of Boreas will be discharged in the States full of BC ... And then the Scythians will say their word, and Poseidon can visit for a visit ... But the Amy will not be able to survive this!
        IMHO.
        1. Fan-fan
          Fan-fan 16 January 2020 10: 17
          -3
          And after 8 minutes, the maximum of Boreas will be discharged in the States full of BC ... And then the Scythians will say their word, and Poseidon can also visit ....

          Dreams, dreams, just pink dreams.
          1. Boa kaa
            Boa kaa 16 January 2020 12: 12
            +1
            Quote: Fan-Fan
            just pink dreams.

            Manilov / Oblomov had dreams when they were bored and dreamed in the works of Gogol / Goncharov ...
            Our Kulibins, unlike literary heroes, realize their dreams with their heads and hands. (Often at the cost of his own life!)
            So, you are wrong. I just wrote about what was allowed to publish in the open press. And how much is there in the zagashnik?
            Do you know what kind of "tweaks" we and the Ams have hidden under the lid of Pandora's box? How many "wonderful discoveries" will a perverted mind prepare? belay
            This is not Pushkin's for you:
            About how many wonderful discoveries
            Prepare the spirit of enlightenment
            And the experience of the son of errors difficult,
            And genius, the paradoxes friend
            And the case, god is the inventor.

            fellow
            That's it, brother Monsieur!
        2. Alexey RA
          Alexey RA 16 January 2020 16: 55
          +1
          Quote: Boa constrictor KAA
          They cannot catch our Boreas (all to one!).

          Do you mean those two SSBNs that we have on combat duty? You remember our KOH and the photo of the Gadzhiev berths. sad

          In addition, the Americans do not need to catch anything - after the death of a long-range missile defense and special operations unit, they can simply meet our SSBNs at the base exit. The US ICAPL will be enough for both our SSBNs and our ICAPL guards. Especially in the Pacific Fleet, where the whole fleet has only one live ICAPL.
          1. Boa kaa
            Boa kaa 16 January 2020 17: 11
            +4
            Quote: Alexey RA
            Do you mean those two SSBNs that we have on combat duty? You remember our KOH and the photo of the Gadzhiev berths.

            Alex, hi
            But what, is the war tomorrow? Still, I look forward to a full clip of 6-7 rkpSN and the new pier in Gadzhimaha timely abandoned Borikov on BG Military danger. What do you think?
            Quote: Alexey RA
            they can just meet our SSBNs at the base exit.

            Of course they can for the time being even with impunity. But why tell me, at every strategic fleet, DEPL brigades are created? Or do you think that the atomic ship is quieter than the submarine in the veil of the MX? And the coastal surveillance system - for the chip?
            Quote: Alexey RA
            Especially in the Pacific Fleet, where the whole fleet has only one live ICAPL.

            Not yet evening! I am sure that the leadership of the Fleet and the Armed Forces will correct this state of affairs. The Pacific Fleet is the most promising of the fleets in terms of deployment of forces in the DMZ. The leadership of the Navy and the armed forces cannot see this. So there will be a holiday on the Far East street!
            Otherwise, no way!
            1. Alexey RA
              Alexey RA 16 January 2020 18: 49
              0
              Quote: Boa constrictor KAA
              Still, I look forward to a full clip of 6-7 rkpSN and the new pier in Gadzhimaha timely abandoned Borikov on BG Military danger. What do you think?

              That's right. But here is the problem according to claim 2 - tracking right from the moment you exit the database - this still does not remove. ICAPL write off more than they build. OVR and PMO are only in the plans, and even projects have not yet been selected.
              Quote: Boa constrictor KAA
              But why tell me, at every strategic fleet, DEPL brigades are created?

              And where are diesel-electric submarines based? Especially at the Pacific Fleet?
              Quote: Boa constrictor KAA
              I am sure that the leadership of the Navy and the Sun will correct this state of affairs

              After 22160, opupey with 20380/85/86 and MRK mania, to be honest, I don't have such confidence. How many fleet chose the base for the new PLO aircraft? And I still don’t remember about "Gren" ... wink
              1. Boa kaa
                Boa kaa 16 January 2020 21: 48
                +4
                Quote: Alexey RA
                But here is the problem according to claim 2 - tracking right from the moment you exit the database - this still does not remove.

                Our 955 at 6,0 knots, you can hear at D = 10 km (5-6 kbt in the sea) And who will Elk / Virginia allow such a distance? At the same time, our little girl hears him at least 1,5 times further ... There is a problem with maintenance, but they are working on it. OBS, that Physicist-1 is on the way ... They probably lie, but still not everything is so hopeless. And then, there is a basic Av PLO. Hilenky, but IPC-corvettes still remained. Therefore, in war, Amaf will not have such a lafa as in the world. And the fact that they kept our rattles of the first generation since leaving the Navy should not be projected onto boats of the 4th generation. If everything was the way you write, the commander of the US Navy in Europe and Africa, Admiral James Foggo, would not be so concerned:
                “I think the Russians will continue to invest rubles in submarines. They have certain [submarines] with extremely high potential. Severodvinsk comes to mind. It is an excellent platform that poses a major challenge [to a potential enemy]. Six new class submarines Kilo in the Eastern Mediterranean and Black Sea with a hybrid diesel-electric power plant is the latest technology, very quiet when running on batteries, it poses a major challenge. "
                Another thing is that so far they are (!) Few. But, not yet evening!
                Quote: Alexey RA
                And where are diesel-electric submarines based? Especially at the Pacific Fleet?
                At the Pacific Fleet - the 19th submarine brigade (Small Ulysses). In the Federation Council - Polyarny settlement, 161st Red Banner, Ushakov Order submarine brigade.
                Quote: Alexey RA
                MRK mania at me
                The whole point is that, to the detriment of the interests of the Fleet, its combat stability and balance, the General Staff of the RF Armed Forces put pressure on the number of KRBD launchers on the ships of the fleet. And the main thing is that they work along the shore ... Well, so "and where in the ass can diamonds come from"!? (C).
                1. ccsr
                  ccsr 17 January 2020 12: 22
                  0
                  Quote: Boa constrictor KAA
                  The whole point is that to the detriment of the interests of the Fleet, its combat stability and balance, the General Staff of the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation put pressure on the number of launcher rocket launchers on ships of the fleet.

                  Just do not hang dogs on the General Staff on naval problems, because the entire naval military doctrine was left at the mercy of Gorshkov, the favorite of our genes. secretaries, and he with his scientific and technical committee of the Navy laid down everything that then had to be cut and still hiccups in terms of costs. Now, as I understand it, some sobering has passed, and the RSMD on small-tonnage ships and the submarine nuclear fleet are becoming the main direction in the development of our Navy, and this pleases any military professional, at least in terms of cost and survival.
                  Quote: Boa constrictor KAA
                  And most importantly, that they worked along the shore ...

                  And rightly so, what is the use of destroying the US Navy, which is located in their naval bases, and does not pose a real threat to our territory. So it’s enough for our sailors to fight the American fleet - their main task is to destroy the territory of the United States, and we need to prepare for this.
                  1. Boa kaa
                    Boa kaa 17 January 2020 12: 53
                    +3
                    Colleague, you are too categorical in your judgments.
                    1. Our Navy is developing and operating in the general system of the armed forces, which is managed by the General Staff. Therefore, to answer the one who ordered the music, and not the performer.
                    2. The Fleet’s construction system is such that the sailors are asked what they need to accomplish their tasks, and the final decision is made by the Defense Council with the submission of the General Staff of the RF Armed Forces. And there, too, not everyone is unanimous - there are groupings and movements, views on the role of the fleet, its components in the struggle at sea and the solution of the strategic tasks facing the RF Armed Forces.
                    3. Gorshkov should not be touched. Grandfather is a great naval leader. Under him, our Fleet went to the Ocean, became a nuclear missile. It was under him that the USSR became a great naval power!
                    4. About your message: "The RIAC on small-tonnage ships and the nuclear submarine fleet is becoming the main direction in the development of our Navy, and this makes any military professional happy."
                    a) The President in the Naval Strategy set the task of having 100 (!) Ocean and DMZ ships by 2020 ... Now we have less than 30 ... Well, what do you say to that?
                    b) small tonnage never solved problems in O- and DMZ due to their performance characteristics: low seaworthiness, autonomy, insufficient air defense / missile defense, anti-aircraft defense ... and, as a rule, the absence of aircraft;
                    c) this situation of professional seafarers cannot please, with the exception of land amateurs who undertake to judge everything without having a clue about it.
                    5. The task of destroying the forces of the enemy fleet in the bases is solved by hitting the Strategic Missile Forces or SSBNs, at worst SSBGs.
                    6. It seems to me that you have assumed an unbearable burden: to determine the tasks that the Fleet will solve!
                    P / S / We could continue to "conduct explanatory work among you." Yes, only a student you are ungrateful and difficult to learn!
                    I am taking my leave for the sim. Boa.
                    1. ccsr
                      ccsr 17 January 2020 13: 36
                      0
                      Quote: Boa constrictor KAA
                      1. Our Navy is developing and operating in the general system of the armed forces, which is managed by the General Staff. Therefore, to answer the one who ordered the music, and not the performer.

                      Come on, you, the naval explorers, have never crawled close to the fleet’s weapons program, so don’t move the arrows - I don’t know this from someone else’s lips.
                      Quote: Boa constrictor KAA
                      2. The Fleet’s construction system is such that the sailors are asked what they need to accomplish their tasks, and the final decision is made by the Defense Council with the submission of the General Staff of the RF Armed Forces.

                      I know perfectly well how any program can be justified or, on the contrary, hacked; there would be a desire for the leadership of the type of aircraft in this. And so it will present the situation to the country's leadership, poorly versed in military matters, that they will only shrug their shoulders and agree. You know no worse than me how many retired naval officers have criticized the current state of things over the past twenty years, expressed their opinion about the future, and the naval leadership, and not the general staff, simply dismissed them. Or wasn’t that?
                      Quote: Boa constrictor KAA
                      3. Gorshkov should not be touched. Grandfather is a great naval leader. Under him, our Fleet went to the Ocean, became a nuclear missile. It was under him that the USSR became a great naval power!

                      But nothing that the great USSR ceased to exist, and that such as Gorshkov and our other military leaders like Ustinov didn’t bother much with what their desires cost the people? To my shame, I have to admit that our former commanders were losing their sense of proportion, so I don’t have to show me popular prints, and there is wine in the collapse of our military’s country, how bitter it is to realize this.
                      Quote: Boa constrictor KAA
                      a) The President in the Naval Strategy set the task of having 100 (!) Ocean and DMZ ships by 2020 ... Now we have less than 30 ... Well, what do you say to that?

                      We went through "huge plans" in the USSR, and the current president will soon leave without reporting, and what we have achieved according to his own program for 2020, which he announced fifteen years ago. As the saying goes, "the hopes of young men nourish ..." - do you hope so?
                      Quote: Boa constrictor KAA
                      c) this situation of professional seafarers cannot please, with the exception of land amateurs who undertake to judge everything without having a clue about it.

                      Do not tear your vest too much, especially since your slogans do not reflect many of the realities that we encountered even during the construction of Nord Stream 2. Do you think that we will be allowed to develop quietly to satisfy your geopolitical desires? Do not count, it may happen that the ships will begin to cut, as it was already under Khrushchev for the sake of the development of the Strategic Missile Forces.
                      Quote: Boa constrictor KAA
                      5. The task of destroying the forces of the enemy fleet in the bases is solved by hitting the Strategic Missile Forces or SSBNs, at worst SSBGs.

                      Unfortunately, this is much more reliable and cheaper for the Strategic Missile Forces, and this will also have to be taken into account when military expenditures are planned.
                      Quote: Boa constrictor KAA
                      We could continue to "conduct explanatory work among you." Yes, only a student you are ungrateful and difficult to learn!

                      I'm afraid that you have neither the knowledge nor the experience to teach me, so find more naive students who will look into your mouth.
                    2. Boa kaa
                      Boa kaa 17 January 2020 13: 46
                      +2
                      Quote: ccsr
                      I’m afraid that you don’t have enough knowledge or experience to teach me,

                      OH MY GOD!!! What a cool pepper! Did you graduate from the academy at least? Maybe he commanded some kind of association? Or still - "a self-taught genius with a dimensionless EGO !?" belay
                      Aggressive you are ours! laughing
                    3. ccsr
                      ccsr 17 January 2020 13: 59
                      0
                      Quote: Boa constrictor KAA
                      Maybe he commanded some kind of association?

                      I have been to Bolshoi Kozlovsky more than once on business, when Gorshkov was still driving there until he left for the "paradise group" - this is enough for you to understand that you will rub someone else.
                    4. Boa kaa
                      Boa kaa 17 January 2020 14: 07
                      +3
                      Quote: ccsr
                      I’ve been to Bolshoi Kozlovsky more than once

                      A courier or something ... With special mail?
                      "I used to be there too" ... but only when they were fighting ... though later than the Mammoths of your herd. However, during the Union, I found both Grandfather and Chernavin ...
                      It surprises me that you blame the collapse of the USSR on the military, not politicians!
                    5. ccsr
                      ccsr 17 January 2020 19: 01
                      +2
                      Quote: Boa constrictor KAA
                      A courier or something ... With special mail?

                      Without special mail, I had to drive my company car with my documents in a sealed briefcase.
                      Quote: Boa constrictor KAA
                      It surprises me that you blame the collapse of the USSR on the military, not politicians!

                      I don’t put all the money on the military for the collapse of the Union, but I’m just trying to explain to you that our higher military still had those heads when, having powerful nuclear potential, ordinary troops also tried to arm everyone with the best in the world. And this required enormous expenses, and this undermined the people's faith that we would live better under the leadership of the CPSU.
                      A simple example that can explain everything to you. A missile cruiser at that time cost approximately 700-800 million rubles, and the cost of the Khrushchev simple five-story building (panel) was 450-500 thousand rubles on average. So it turned out that due to the money allocated for one cruiser, we could build 1500 sixty-apartment buildings (90 thousand apartments), where on average 270-300 thousand people could live, i.e. approximately as many as lived in one Sevastopol. Now think about what the cruiser decided in the strategic war, and what the population of the country would get if we did not have 600 warships, but at least half of this amount.
                      This applied not only to the Navy - the landowners also did God knows what, so they plundered the country under the plausible pretext "This is necessary to protect the Fatherland." As a result, we lost the USSR, but not everyone wants to admit that irrepressible military spending played a big role in this.
                      Unfortunately, understanding this comes with the years when the consequences of this collapse became known and the understanding that this could have been prevented if military spending had been partially cut.
        3. VALENTINE-37
          VALENTINE-37 19 January 2020 10: 55
          0
          If everything was the way you write, the commander of the US Navy in Europe and Africa, Admiral James Foggo, would not be so concerned:
          Is this a concern? Then yes.....
          1. Boa kaa
            Boa kaa 19 January 2020 11: 59
            +1
            Quote: VALENTIN-37
            Is this a concern? Then yes.....

            And what is there to be surprised? After the admiral gave his first interview, he was strongly advised: America above all! And in general, we are an "exceptional!" Think about it if you still want to stay in office!
            The admiral thought, and another interview appeared ... This is first.
            And secondly, amy also "flew" to the moon ... True, the soil is lunar, cassettes with video recordings have mysteriously disappeared somewhere ... J. Before his death, Kubrick presented proof of the lunar "linden". But this is also for the Yankees "dew of God": - They used the pavilion, because all the shooting on the Moon did not work out ... - But what about the radiation? After Karman's belt, she completely kills all living things? - cried unbelievers ... - So we are exceptional !!! - came the answer. - Where are the miracle rocket engines gone? And then you have to buy them from a gas station country! - the witnesses of the apocalypse did not calm down ... To which they received a direct and clear answer: - That's it! the press conference is over, thanks for the questions. Everybody's Free!
            Thirdly. Donya very convincingly crucified that the States were ahead of the rest in hyper weapons ... That the lasers were about to shoot down our ICBMs ... And that there was nothing of the kind in Russia and was not expected in the near future ... And at the exit? Some even here still do not believe that the Vanguards and Peresvet have entered the database. But this is their choice ... The main thing is that the Yankees are swooning from this news ...
            Now about 100% guarantee tracking our submarines.
            Even in the dashing 90s, the Yankees were shocked by the fact that for 9 days our PLA rubbed on the east coast of the USA in the zone of the effective PLO of the Atlantic Fleet, but no one saw it. Up to the team with the Navy CKP to emerge from the tervods and show the flag! Now the US military is forced to admit that 955 is quieter than their Virginia! and this is not the limit! Because 955M will be even more perfect.
            And the last. You can say anything - a language without bones will not break. But in practice, to prove it - well, let them try. And the interview was given purely in a propaganda manner, counting on an imported public, to calm the allies: - Do not write in boiling water! Everything is under control! We are an exceptional nation! Get ready for a lightning disarming strike. There will be no answer - we have everything under control!
            Here's my look at the second interview with James Foggo.
            1. VALENTINE-37
              VALENTINE-37 19 January 2020 13: 02
              0
              We talked with you, though I was under a different NICK.
              And they read my story about the PLB of the KVF and the Pacific Fleet ("Anti-submarine warfare. A view from the USSR").
              http://samlib.ru/editors/s/semenow_aleksandr_sergeewich333/protivolodochnaioborona-2019.shtml
              Comments are also interesting there. tongue
              My VUSovka-070200.
              I think I'm a little aware. At least I knew EVERYTHING about PWB from 1976 to 2015, until the last kashniks and students retired. . Foggo then pinched his tongue so that he wouldn’t tryndel. The case is even worse than he claimed.
              And about the moon. I don’t know who to believe already, but A.A. Leonov, when I signed the photo, hung in my office, when I asked about the moon ... he said that they already got it.
              Were. And he was not going to prove anything to anyone.


  3. VALENTINE-37
    VALENTINE-37 19 January 2020 10: 49
    +1
    after death
    There has never been such a thing. Neither your definition nor fact. laughing
  • sentaniel
    sentaniel 25 February 2020 13: 39
    0
    In the spring of 2015, they already tried to use it.
  • shinobi
    shinobi 15 January 2020 06: 41
    +2
    This is exactly the same horror story I read back in 85. The names of the weapon systems were different, the plan was called SDI, and the general meaning was "guard! The boss is gone!" 35 years later, everything is the same. The US never attacks when there is a chance of getting into the answer is in the teeth. All the more now this probability is 100%. There will be no winners in a nuclear war. The United States does not reach missile silos beyond the Urals and in Siberia in any case, and there are enough missiles to cause irreparable damage in excess. only a few people in the general staff know for sure in service with our fleet. The number of tactical (up to 25 kt inclusive) nuclear weapons is only approximately, the figure is constantly changing due to the replacement of outdated warheads with modern modular ones. It can be installed on any carrier suitable for performance characteristics. The Yankees can bluff and puff even to the point of being blue in the face, they are not afraid of them, but of our "elite." That's who I would gladly repress with confiscation somewhere in Magadan without the right to correspond. Together with their "golden kids".
    1. Vladimir_2U
      Vladimir_2U 15 January 2020 07: 22
      +2
      Quote: shinobi
      This is exactly the same horror story I read back in 85. The names of the weapon systems were different, the plan was called SDI, and the general meaning was “guard! The boss was gone!” 35 years later, everything is the same.
      Interestingly, do you blame Stalin for the surprise attack of Germany in 1941?
      1. ser56
        ser56 15 January 2020 13: 53
        -1
        Quote: Vladimir_2U
        do you blame Stalin for the surprise attack of Germany in 1941?

        1) Is a different point of view possible? The IVS stood at the head of the country, crushed the entire power under itself and bears full responsibility both for the defeat of the Red Army in 1941, and for the Victory in 1945 and its wife for our people.
        2) Do not confuse the willingness to respond to a potential aggressor and the unwinding of the flywheel of the arms race, as it was in the 80s in the USSR ... request Buran Buran for anti-SDI, atomic AB, 3 types of MBT, 2 types of SSBNs and so on, this is too much ...
        1. ser56
          ser56 15 January 2020 13: 54
          -1
          Quote: ser56
          Wives

          price ... one copy ... repeat
        2. Vladimir_2U
          Vladimir_2U 15 January 2020 16: 34
          0
          And you Sinobi (Yuri) really? In fact, two accounts are banned to death on this site. But still I’ll expand my thought:
          Quote: shinobi
          This is exactly the same horror story I read back in 85. The names of the weapon systems were different, the plan was called SDI, and the general meaning was "guard! The boss is gone!" 35 years later, everything is the same

          Quote: shinobi
          The United States never attacks when there is a chance to get an answer in the teeth. Moreover, now this probability is 100%. There will be no winners in a nuclear war. Before the missile silos in the Urals and Siberia, the United States isn’t reached in any situation, and there will be enough missiles to ensure that to cause irreparable damage in excess
          That's about the same thing about Germany and its "prudence" and "the impossibility of a war on two fronts" for Germany and broadcast in the early 40s. and it is possible that the IVS literally had to believe it. Personally, your comment does not stand up to criticism at all.
          1. ser56
            ser56 15 January 2020 16: 58
            +1
            Quote: Vladimir_2U
            And you shinobi (Yuri)

            want a private dialogue - write in a personal ... bully
            Quote: Vladimir_2U
            and it’s possible that the IVS literally had to believe it

            when a leader believes rather than analyzes, it’s sad ... request
            Quote: Vladimir_2U
            otherwise your comment does not stand up to criticism at all.

            and you strain, maybe my thought will come ... repeat
            1. Vladimir_2U
              Vladimir_2U 15 January 2020 17: 01
              -1
              Quote: ser56
              when a leader believes rather than analyzes, it’s sad

              My thought did not reach you, definitely. I will go amb I will cry.
              1. ser56
                ser56 15 January 2020 17: 58
                0
                Quote: Vladimir_2U
                I'll go cry.

                maybe it’s better to learn to write so that your thoughts reach not only you? request
      2. shinobi
        shinobi 17 January 2020 12: 49
        0
        Yes and no. And Koba is in general what side? Let me explain the idea. Yankees are a rabble of emigrants without a single history and over the past 300 years, little has changed. I would even say it got worse than during the time of development. their personal ideology boils down to the simple “My shirt is closer to the body. My house is on the edge, I don’t know anything.” The United States, no matter what the State Department is weaving, has not won on its own in any of the many wars. And they are immediately blown away where the dollar is not has the power and the population is ready to tear the Yankees with their teeth. The closest example from the latter is Korea. Germany is a completely different conversation. It is based on mono-national states with common German roots that have a centuries-old history of self-identity since the time of the Roman conquest. The Roman group is shorter, for which the nation and the state are not empty sound. That is why the Yankees first of all try to plant multiculturalism in Europe and in our country, flood all kinds of emigrants. They succeeded in the EU, thereby turning the national monolith into a motley am Orff mass. If tough, if not even cruel, measures are not taken there, in 10-15 years internal war will flare up there on the model of the Middle East. Yankees knowingly bring their outdated weapons there, there will be something to fight. It will also hook us as neighbors.
    2. Nyrobsky
      Nyrobsky 15 January 2020 09: 53
      +5
      Quote: shinobi
      This is exactly the same horror story I read back in 85. The names of the weapon systems were different, the plan was called SDI, and the general meaning was "guard! The boss is gone!" 35 years later, everything is the same. The US never attacks when there is a chance of getting into The answer is in the teeth. Especially now this probability is 100%. There will be no winners in a nuclear war.

      The value of the article not only lies in the fact that it would be "terrible to catch up", but also in the fact that many "believers" in friendship with the United States would cease to harbor illusions that it is possible to agree with mattresses. We must call a spade a spade - the United States is an enemy, cynical and vile, whose goal is to remove Russia from the political map of the world, otherwise we are all "partners", yes "partners". I saw such partners in the grave. Thanks to the author for the article
      1. ser56
        ser56 15 January 2020 13: 55
        +2
        Quote: Nyrobsky
        otherwise we are all "partners", yes "partners". I saw such partners in the coffin

        do you want to fight? hi But can it evade war and destroy the hegemony of the dollar so that the United States does not have the economic opportunity to maintain / create forces to attack the Russian Federation?
        1. Nyrobsky
          Nyrobsky 15 January 2020 14: 43
          +3
          Quote: ser56
          Quote: Nyrobsky
          otherwise we are all "partners", yes "partners". I saw such partners in the coffin

          do you want to fight? hi

          Where did you find in my phrase that I want to fight? No, if it is possible not to enter the war, then it is better to use it to the maximum. In today's conditions, a bad world is better than a good war.
          Quote: ser56
          But can it evade war and destroy the hegemony of the dollar so that the United States does not have the economic opportunity to maintain / create forces to attack the Russian Federation?

          You say the thing, but this is difficult. If this is done quickly, then not only the US economy will collapse. The crisis skating rink around the world will roll and it will catch us not weakly, because in our National Welfare Fund, all the money in three enemy currencies are stored - 45% in dollars + 45% in euros + 10% in pounds. So it must be done gradually, but it is imperative that it is observed. hi
          1. ser56
            ser56 15 January 2020 15: 41
            +1
            Quote: Nyrobsky
            Where did you find in my phrase that I want to fight?

            Quote: Nyrobsky
            The USA is an enemy, cynical and vile,

            as a yacht is called, so it floats ... rhetoric matters - we call it an enemy, so we are preparing for war ... request
            Quote: Nyrobsky
            In today's conditions, a bad world is better than a good war.

            consensus drinks
            Quote: Nyrobsky
            You say the thing, but this is difficult.

            just stupid things are done ... repeat
            Quote: Nyrobsky
            If you do it fast,

            it’s not necessary quickly, it is necessary to use this mechanism to pressure the USA ... hi
            Quote: Nyrobsky
            NWF all babosy in three enemy currencies are stored

            and this is generally nonsense, both the funds themselves and their storage over the hill ... you need to spend money at home and store it in gold, except for operating expenses ...
      2. Boa kaa
        Boa kaa 16 January 2020 02: 08
        +3
        Quote: Nyrobsky
        The USA is an enemy, cynical and vile, whose goal is to remove Russia from the political map of the world

        Colleague, I propose to look at IT a little more broadly: not only the States, but all the offspring of the Anglo-Saxons! The Englishwoman began to spoil us since the era of Ivan IV the Terrible. Since then, they are surprisingly consistent in their dislike of Russia, Russia, the Russian Empire, the USSR, the Russian Federation ...
    3. Dingo
      Dingo 16 February 2020 22: 33
      -1
      Yuri, in continuation of your thoughts, allow me to quote one. “Russia can have any number of nuclear suitcases and nuclear buttons, but since the 500 billion dollars of the Russian elite are in our banks, you still figure it out: is it your elite, or is it ours already?”
      Zbigniew Brzezinski December 22, 2009
      1. shinobi
        shinobi 17 February 2020 07: 09
        0
        This is no one's elite. And the opinion of the elites, by and large, was of little interest to any of the venturers of the great wars. I will say more, as a rule, they try to cut the elite first and foremost without any shyness in the means for the purpose of selecting funds.
  • Amateur
    Amateur 15 January 2020 07: 01
    -7
    Only harsh actions of the USSR, in the form of the deployment of the R-12 and R-14 BRDS in Cuba, as well as the threat of an imminent nuclear war, forced the United States to sit at the negotiating table, which resulted in both the withdrawal of Soviet missiles from Cuba and the American Jupiter BRDS from Turkey.

    This is when and where were such negotiations?
    If the author means
    On Friday, October 26, at 13:00 Washington time, the White House received a message from ABC News correspondent John Scali about his meeting at the Occidental restaurant with the KGB resident in Washington, Alexander Fomin (real name is Alexander Feklisov)
    - so this is "shpienskie things". Or Khrushchev's radio message
    the letter was decided broadcast on the radioso that it reaches Washington as soon as possible.

    Interestingly, but the author has ever heard of
    Roberta McNamara. As Secretary of Defense in the government of John F. Kennedy, he organized extensive research into various concepts of nuclear war. One of McNamara's initial postulates was to reduce US casualties by striking Soviet strategic assets. After calculating the possible number of missiles that one and the other side will be able to release in three to five years, American strategists have come to recognize the situation of "mutual assured destruction."
    .
    First, by the abundance of English names and obscure numbers, I decided that it was E. Damantsev. But for all the features of his articles, he does not make such factorial errors.
    So this "chernukha" from the new "vsepalschik"
    1. Vladimir_2U
      Vladimir_2U 15 January 2020 07: 20
      +1
      Quote: Amateur
      This is when and where were such negotiations?
      Why not negotiate? Not all successful negotiations are signed before ketchy magazines, if at all.
      On the night of October 27-28, on the instructions of the president, Robert Kennedy again met with the Soviet ambassador Anatoly Dobrynin in the building of the Ministry of Justice. According to Dobrynin’s recollections, “there was a mess in Kennedy’s office, a crumpled blanket was lying on the sofa: the owner of the office immediately slept in fits and starts”. Kennedy shared with Dobrynin the president’s fears that “the situation is about to get out of control and threatens to generate a chain reaction” [34]. Robert Kennedy said that his brother is ready to give guarantees of non-aggression and the speedy lifting of the blockade from Cuba. Dobrynin asked Kennedy about missiles in Turkey.
  • Odysseus
    Odysseus 15 January 2020 07: 35
    +2
    From a military-strategic point of view, a sensible review article (although there are historical and factual inaccuracies, but these are trifles). Thanks to the author.
    But from a political point of view (and the question of any war, especially a global one, is first of all politics), the article is worthless. Why did the author, for example, decide that in the late 80s, when Gorbachev handed over everything to the Americans, the threat of war increased because there would be no one to press the button? This is a complete fantasy. Why attack an enemy who surrenders himself? No one was even going to do this.
    The same is with the modern RF. Why attack it when it itself withdraws money for the West. The essence of the West's policy towards the Russian Federation is the expectation of when it eats up all Soviet reserves and finally transforms from a "post-Soviet" country into a "democratic" country. At the same time, as it weakens, the degree of pressure is slowly growing and objects of pressure are approaching the Russian Federation. That is, this strategy of simmering frogs does not imply any real nuclear wars at all. It is assumed that the Russian Federation will hand over everything itself.
    But it’s just military superiority (and the concept of BSU) that they need so that at the time of the complete disintegration of the Russian Federation the focus of 1917 does not repeat, that is, a force pursuing an independent policy could not manifest itself.
    That is, a real NATO war against Russia is possible just when a patriotic government appears, but it will still be weak because it will get a dilapidated state.
    1. Octopus
      Octopus 15 January 2020 08: 13
      -9
      Quote: Odyssey
      Why attack her when she herself withdraws money for the West.

      Putin is a peacemaker.

      Elegant concept.
    2. verp19
      verp19 15 January 2020 13: 17
      -1
      Quote: Odyssey
      But from a political point of view (and the question of any war, especially a global one, is first of all politics), the article is worthless.

      In Russia, the policy of the West (and the USA in particular) appears only as purely aggressive and aimed at the destruction of Russia. In the West, however, the picture is exactly the opposite. It is obvious that both sides are competing and yet represent the actions of Russia only as retaliatory, and indeed depict the behavior of Russia at least for the period XIX-XXI century as the behavior of a white and fluffy animal, too one-sided.
  • Operator
    Operator 15 January 2020 09: 49
    0
    The only way to prevent a decapitating / disarming strike using RSD is to have the opposite side:
    - ZGRLS, fixing the launch of the RSD of the enemy within the first seconds after their start;
    - a fully automated counter-strike system with minute readiness of strategic nuclear forces;
    - NPA type "Poseidon" with 100-Mtn warheads, inflicting guaranteed damage to the enemy, regardless of whether he has RSD.

    PS For the United States, there is no way to prevent a decapitating / disarming strike using RSDs located on sea carriers, due to the shallow depth of defense (coastal location of the capital and the vast majority of megacities).
    1. ser56
      ser56 15 January 2020 13: 57
      0
      Quote: Operator
      For the US, there is no way to prevent decapitating

      they didn’t bother with this ... let them divert money for this task! drinks
      1. Operator
        Operator 15 January 2020 14: 06
        +3
        Quote: ser56
        they didn’t bother with this

        And in vain - a massive nuclear missile strike "at the appointed time" has not yet been canceled (in the event of a threat to the existence of the Russian Federation in accordance with the current military doctrine).
        1. ser56
          ser56 15 January 2020 15: 14
          -1
          Quote: Operator
          And in vain

          I think not, somehow neither the USSR nor the Russian Federation are ready for this ...
          1. Operator
            Operator 15 January 2020 15: 21
            +3
            It was in the USSR that the categorization of domestic nuclear strikes, still in force, was introduced:
            - retaliatory strike (after the enemy inflicted nuclear attacks on the territory of the USSR);
            - retaliatory strike (after the launch of enemy missiles in the direction of the territory of the USSR);
            - a blow at the appointed time (after an enemy attack using conventional weapons).
          2. Boa kaa
            Boa kaa 16 January 2020 02: 24
            +3
            Quote: ser56
            neither the USSR nor the Russian Federation are ready for this.

            Even as ready! If it is 100% known that a massive blow is being prepared for the Russian Federation, then no one will wait. At least such views were present in the Union Armed Forces.
            Now the intentions have been disclosed to the level of a "retaliatory strike by strategic nuclear forces" ... And what is there in the "red folder" for a special period - "there is a great secret!" (C).
            1. ser56
              ser56 16 January 2020 13: 26
              -1
              Quote: Boa constrictor KAA
              .And what's in the "red folder" for a special period

              about this period will be? The IVS was also waiting ... request
              1. Boa kaa
                Boa kaa 16 January 2020 14: 15
                +1
                Quote: ser56
                and this period will be?

                Will be. It is not known how long, but it will be. And it is determined by the growth of political tension in the relations between the warring parties. The main thing is to respond correctly and promptly to its changes. Do not slurp the moment of transition to direct preparation for aggression .. You need to be prepared for this (country, armed forces, leadership).
                Quote: ser56
                The IVS was also waiting.
                Three days before the attack, the IVS gave the order to bring the troops of the border military units to the BG in an orderly manner. How this order was carried out by the General Staff and the commanders of the military - you probably know. But the political attitude "not to succumb to provocation" played its fatal role ...
                The country and the armed forces were not ready for this war. Stalin knew about this. Therefore, by all means sought to push the inevitable ...
                His main mistake was that he believed the Fuehrer (an airplane specially flew with Adik's personal message) that Germany was not going to attack the USSR, and that the troops were concentrating for the landing on the British Isles (Operation Sea Lion).
                This is his miscalculation, because I could not believe that prudent deutschers would fit into a similar adventure: a war on two fronts!
                1. ser56
                  ser56 16 January 2020 15: 57
                  -1
                  Quote: Boa constrictor KAA
                  Will be. It is not known how long, but it will be.

                  I see no reason to argue with your thesis - questions of faith are not discussed ... request
                  Quote: Boa constrictor KAA
                  And it is determined by the growth of political tension

                  see recent times - allegations of interference with US elections is what? Sanctions? how can you isolate the threat? Or preparation for a strike could be masked by a conflict with Iran / Korea / Mars ... bully
                  Quote: Boa constrictor KAA
                  The country and the armed forces were not ready for this war. Stalin knew about this.

                  since 1930 have been preparing, preparing, but not ready .... request and in 1939, Marshal Voroshilov told stories to the Anglo-Franks about 120 divisions, thousands of tanks and planes .... and where did this go in 1941? repeat
                  Quote: Boa constrictor KAA
                  His main mistake was that he believed the Fuhrer

                  1) What a gullible IVS .... bully However, the question arises - why? Maybe because of the Friendship and Border agreement, which is not customary to recall now? hi
                  2) The issues of faith in interstate relations are funny in themselves ... To deploy an army in the second echelon is not a problem, you can submit as exercises, and bringing SDs to the BG is not a problem at all ...
                  Let's just say that the truth about this period of our history, alas, has not been made public, but now the tendency has gone to hide again ... request
    2. Vladimir_2U
      Vladimir_2U 15 January 2020 17: 07
      0
      I think that you are fighting for Poseidons,
      Quote: Operator
      NPA of the "Poseidon" type with 100 Mtn warheads inflicting guaranteed damage to the enemy, regardless of whether he has RSD

      Quote: Operator
      For the United States, there is no way to prevent a decapitating / disarming strike using RSD located on sea carriers, due to the shallow depth of defense (coastal location of the capital and the vast majority of megacities).
      Now the reasoning is clear to me, although with the words "decapitating / disarming strike" you got excited, how can you decapitate, let alone disarm, the United States by coastal explosions? But as a weapon of retaliation, then yes.
      1. Operator
        Operator 15 January 2020 18: 44
        -1
        You are right: it is really impossible to disarm the United States, but beheading by nuclear strikes on Washington with sea-based Zircons (flight time 6 minutes) and NPA Poseidon (submarine time 6 minutes from the US border) is no problem.
        1. Boa kaa
          Boa kaa 16 January 2020 02: 32
          +2
          Quote: Operator
          to decapitate with the help of nuclear strikes on Washington by sea-based Zircons (flight time 6 minutes) and NPA Poseidon (submarine time 6 minutes from the US borders) - no problem.

          Colleague, what will you do with the CPSU of the US Armed Forces (the plane changes its coordinates all the time!) How can you disable it with what you brought up in the post? But the blow from space - that’s it. Long live the VKS and the orbital Sarmatians (R-38 orb)!
          1. Operator
            Operator 16 January 2020 11: 11
            -1
            If I correctly understood V.V. Putin, a decapitation blow on Washington will be dealt before the take-off of the US CPSU (the international airport is located within the urban area) bully

            Space-based ammunition flight time is equal to or greater than land-based and sea-based ammunition flight time.

            The suborbital modification of the "Sarmat" with a monoblock warhead is designed to engage targets at a maximum range of up to 20000 km. Orbital types of nuclear weapons are prohibited by the relevant treaty.
            1. Boa kaa
              Boa kaa 16 January 2020 11: 38
              0
              Quote: Operator
              Orbital nuclear weapons are prohibited by the relevant treaty.

              You're right. This was forbidden under the Union ... BUT! R-36orb. nonetheless there was! Who is stopping us from making such a R-38 orb and having it in the coffers on the day of judgment? Or do you think that the Yankees will carry cucumbers into space on the X-37V?
              Therefore, we need to do what we need if the United States withdraws from START-3. And they will come out: they need to catch up with us, otherwise the hegemon cannot rule further ... And his hope is not weak to draw us into a new arms race, to prevent us from fulfilling the tasks of the Presidential Message of 15.01.20.
              IMHO.
              1. Operator
                Operator 16 January 2020 11: 45
                +1
                I have already noted that any ammunition placed in low-earth orbit is inferior in flight time, ground and sea ammunition. For example, the flight time of a munition located in orbit passing over a selected target in D hour is at least 30 minutes, and the flight time of a Zircon launching from an SSNS off the coast of North America is 6 minutes.

                The flight time of ammunition located in orbits passing in the "D" hour over the selected target is 12-24 hours.
                1. The comment was deleted.
                2. Boa kaa
                  Boa kaa 16 January 2020 16: 31
                  +1
                  Quote: Operator
                  the flight time of an ammunition located in orbit, per hour "D" passing over the selected target, is not less than 30 minutes,

                  My one post was removed. Therefore, I repeat:
                  The time of orbital bombardment is 5-7 minutes. Therefore, the placement of nuclear weapons in space is prohibited.
                  Don't believe me? Then type in the "time of the orbital strike of the ICBM" in Gug and you will find the truth. hi
                  1. Operator
                    Operator 16 January 2020 17: 00
                    0
                    You confuse ground-based ICBMs (even with orbital range) and ammunition permanently placed in low Earth orbit.

                    For the latter to leave orbit in the general case, a braking pulse is needed, the same as the accelerating pulse of an ICBM - i.e. something weighing several tens of tons will rotate in orbit, and it is absolutely not protected by a mine, mobility or water column - do we need it?

                    In a special case of the passage of an orbit of ammunition over a target, the braking momentum will be insignificant, but it takes about 12 hours to wait for the orbit to coincide with the target - during this time your country will be bombed several times by nuclear weapons from land, sea and air carriers.

                    Plus, mandatory routine maintenance with nuclear charges to replace tritium boosters (due to the self-decay of tritium into helium) every 3 years. Either astronauts will need to launch into orbit in a commercial quantity every year, or launch orbital ammunition and lift it back into orbit - in any case, the party that goes to this method of deploying weapons will be left without pants.

                    Whether it is a suborbital ICBM "Sarmat" - an aluminum structure worked out in the USSR, rests in warmth and comfort in a mine under the protection of a canopy, KAZ "Mozyr" and S-500 (in the future), is groomed and cherished by ground personnel, in any the moment in time is ready to reach any target on the earth's surface with a minute launch readiness time and a 30-60 minute flight time, resistance to enemy countermeasures is provided by fiber-optic underground communication lines, a short active section of the missile trajectory, a stealth-coated BB made of metamaterial with a negative reflection angle electromagnetic radiation in space, as well as a controlled anti-zenith maneuver of the BB on descent into the atmosphere.

                    Quiet, smooth surface and God's grace bully
                  2. ccsr
                    ccsr 16 January 2020 18: 20
                    0
                    Quote: Boa constrictor KAA
                    The time of orbital bombardment is 5-7 minutes. Therefore, the placement of nuclear weapons in space is prohibited.

                    It was banned not by flying time, but refused because of fear of emergency situations in spacecraft when they get out of control and can be a threat to any country in the world - for example, due to a collision with space debris.
                    But even this could be scored if it were not for the costs and complexity of servicing nuclear charges in orbit. Moreover, the bombardment time of 5-7 minutes is preceded by a period of orbital flight around the Earth of 1,5-2 hours, and during this time one of the parties can already release its entire stock of strategic nuclear forces and destroy the enemy. So in this case, the main thing is the usual pragmatic calculation of military professionals, who do not need such weapons and what for, because there are much more reliable means of using strategic nuclear weapons that can guarantee the destruction of the enemy.
            2. ccsr
              ccsr 16 January 2020 13: 08
              0
              Quote: Operator
              If I correctly understood V.V. Putin, a decapitation blow on Washington will be dealt before the take-off of the US CPSU (the international airport is located within the urban area)

              I think you misunderstood him, because the "decapitation strike" is just a warning to the most reckless US politicians, and the reality for them is even worse - almost all of their territory will be destroyed, and the population will be destroyed along with those who hope to sit out in a bunker for a couple of years.
  • smaug78
    smaug78 15 January 2020 11: 13
    +2
    It is believed that the Pershing-2 ballistic missile was a response to the Soviet Pioneer RSD-10 missiles with a range of up to 4300-5500 km, capable of hitting targets in Europe. - a lie from a foolish propagandist
    1. g1washntwn
      g1washntwn 15 January 2020 14: 42
      +3
      This is not copyright IMHO, this is a Western interpretation. Look at their explanations for exiting the INF Treaty and see exactly the same thing.
      1. Operator
        Operator 15 January 2020 15: 15
        0
        Negotiations on Soviet and American medium-range missiles in Europe began in 1980 under Brezhnev and continued under Andropov and Chernenko. The Soviet side only proposed the bilateral withdrawal of RSD from the territory of the European subcontinent (with the goal of placing Soviet mobile RSDs near the Soviet-Chinese border).

        However, Gorbaty once again betrayed the interests of the USSR and signed the American version of the treaty on the elimination of the land-based RSD (together with the RMD). At the same time, the American sea-based IRBMs were completely withdrawn from the treaty and subsequently increased quantitatively as the Arleigh Burke destroyers with universal silo launchers were commissioned.
  • Old26
    Old26 15 January 2020 13: 43
    +3
    Only harsh actions of the USSR, in the form of the deployment of the R-12 and R-14 BRDS in Cuba, as well as the threat of an imminent nuclear war, forced the United States to sit at the negotiating table, which resulted in both the withdrawal of Soviet missiles from Cuba and the American Jupiter BRDS from Turkey.

    The real history of the Caribbean crisis and the events preceding it has not yet been OFFICIALLY written. Only fragmentary, which makes it impossible to cover all events. In fact, it only describes a few weeks from the moment our missiles were deployed in Cuba and about the decision to withdraw the missiles ...

    Quote: CTABEP
    In the early and mid-50s, the United States had hundreds of warheads, the USSR, at best, dozens and practically without delivery vehicles — nothing would have fallen on the territory of the United States.

    In 1950, the USSR had 5 warheads against 369 in the United States. In 1955-1956, the USSR had 200-426 warheads, respectively. And only in 1956 the USSR was able to deliver 126 bombs by air (theoretically). The USA respectively had in the years 1855-1956 2200-3000 only STRATEGIC warheads. In total, 3057-4618 warheads

    Quote: smaug78
    It is believed that the Pershing-2 ballistic missile was a response to the Soviet Pioneer RSD-10 missiles with a range of up to 4300-5500 km, capable of hitting targets in Europe. - a lie from a foolish propagandist

    Well, no? Or do you live in an alternative reality with an alternative chronology?
    • "Pioneer" - the beginning of testing 21.09.1974/31.08.1976/396. In service - from 33/43/XNUMX (XNUMX missile regiment of XNUMX missile divisions of XNUMX missile army. Regiment commander - Doronin AG).
    • "Pershing-2" - the beginning of the test - July 1982. In service since 1983.

    The Americans put the Pershing-2 into service 7 years after the Pioneer was put into service. So who responded to whose deployment began?
    1. g1washntwn
      g1washntwn 15 January 2020 14: 47
      +2
      But why are you modestly silent about Pershing-1A and the Tomahawks who were put on duty in the FRG already in 1969?
  • ser56
    ser56 15 January 2020 13: 46
    0
    "and then they will wait for a convenient situation for its application, which may not arise."
    as history shows, such a situation already existed - in the 90s, but it was not used - why?
    In my opinion, the answer is simple - to ensure 100% effectiveness of a disarming strike is not possible in principle - there is no perfect technique, and besides, 2 sides are fighting! hi
    So this is yet another financing of the military-industrial complex, but gunpowder must be kept dry anyway, and more to advertise retaliatory measures for the inhabitants of opponents ... repeat
    1. g1washntwn
      g1washntwn 15 January 2020 14: 51
      0
      In the USA, there is again a boom in the construction of personal bunkers, it makes no sense to develop paranoia further. Cope themselves.
  • ccsr
    ccsr 15 January 2020 13: 55
    -1
    An explanatory and competent article that is useful to study for those who are interested in the country's defense at a strategic level. At least it is intelligibly explained what we should be most afraid of and what to spend money on in the first place.
    The author Andrei Mitrofanov writes:
    It must be understood that the appearance of weapons to carry out a sudden disarming strike will not mean its guaranteed use, just as Pershing-2 missiles were not used. It’s obvious that the United States is creating the opportunity for such a strike, and then they will wait for a convenient situation for its application, which may not arise.

    There is one fundamental clarification that must be understood in order to correctly assess the situation. Until the Americans can develop measures to quickly evacuate the highest echelons of power and bring at least 90-95% defeat to our warheads with a massive retaliatory strike, they will not think of any attack in any situation, because even a strike of fifty to hundreds of ours warheads are unacceptable to them. Any placement of their attack systems around our borders is certainly dangerous for us, but they are well aware that a return volley will be fired at their territory, and therefore they will always be afraid of us while we pose a real threat of destruction in any situation.
    1. verp19
      verp19 15 January 2020 14: 00
      0
      Quote: ccsr
      There is one fundamental clarification that must be understood in order to correctly assess the situation.


      It is called "nuclear winter". The planet Earth will become too inconvenient for the living of the victors.
      1. Operator
        Operator 15 January 2020 14: 42
        +2
        "Whether there is life on Mars [that is, a nuclear winter], whether there is life on Mars - this is not known to science" (C).

        But a local nuclear war on the European theater of war without affecting the national territories of the Russian Federation, the USA, France and Britain is very likely.
        1. verp19
          verp19 15 January 2020 16: 03
          +1
          those. Does Chernobil per square, or even per cube, do you personally be afraid of?
          One nuclear bomb on the European ... hmm for you theater, for me the continent is still a problem. And I’ll say, not only for me.
          And thank God - the button is not at your hand.
          Radiation walks all over Europe, regardless of the place of the explosion.
          I'm curious - why did you get the idea that the West will certainly start a war against Russia? Both now and in the past. After 1945.
          1. Operator
            Operator 15 January 2020 16: 25
            +3
            It depends on what thermonuclear ammunition and how to use it - if two-stage by air explosion at a height of at least 1 km, then only short-lived (3-5 years) elements will fall out in the form of radioactive fallout.

            If you use three-stage thermonuclear munitions (with the third stage of fission from uranium-238) by ground / surface explosions, then long-lived (up to 22000 years) elements will fall out - like in Chernobyl.

            As a result of a local nuclear war in the European theater of war, radiation contamination will indeed spread to the entire European subcontinent and the Mediterranean region.

            For the Russian Federation, this means a temporary evacuation of the majority of the population from the European to the Asian part of the country, for other European countries (except Britain and France) - the extinction of the population as a result of the complex effect of the damaging factors of nuclear weapons. At the same time, the British and French will be forced to evacuate to North America. As a result, in 3-5 years, the entire European subcontinent will come under the control of the Russian Federation.

            I do not need to "charge" that the West will inevitably start a war against Russia, it is enough for the West to know its consequences for itself.
            1. verp19
              verp19 15 January 2020 18: 01
              -8
              Quote: Operator
              As a result, in 3-5 years, the entire European subcontinent will come under the control of the Russian Federation.

              Have you ever had such an idea that it was precisely because of this appetite that Russia made itself and such enemies? What can Russia trust only? That Russia has always been engaged in expansion and can it be stopped only by force?
              How do you like this view of history?
              1. Operator
                Operator 15 January 2020 19: 46
                +8
                From the very beginning of the existence of the Russian state with its capital in Novgorod, then in Kiev, Vladimir, Moscow, St. Petersburg / Petrograd and again in Moscow, we have a Russian tradition of responding to external aggression (Khazar, Mongolian, German, Polish, Swedish, Turkish , Chinese, British, Chinese, Japanese) the destruction of the aggressor and the annexation of its territory to Russia.

                At the same time, we had and have a bonus - an increase in the depth of defense.

                Currently, this Russian tradition is based on the world's largest nuclear potential and exclusive rocket technology - an inheritance from our ancestors, with light bones near Minsk, Smolensk, Kiev, Vyazma, Moscow Rzhev, Leningrad, Sevastopol, Stalingrad and Kursk, who have lived the worst for decades in Europe, invested in mechanical engineering, and not in light industry and agriculture, etc. etc.

                Therefore, if it is necessary to eliminate the next aggressor within the framework of the Russian tradition, our hand will not flinch.
                1. VALENTINE-37
                  VALENTINE-37 16 January 2020 11: 59
                  -1
                  the existence of the Russian state with its capital in Novgorod, then in Kiev, Vladimir, Moscow,
                  In fact, Muscovy. Russia by the decree of Peter from 1721
                  1. Operator
                    Operator 16 January 2020 12: 01
                    +1
                    In fact, the Russian Land with its capital in Novgorod, according to the Tale of Bygone Years from 862.
                    1. VALENTINE-37
                      VALENTINE-37 16 January 2020 13: 32
                      +1
                      Andrei, I also refused to talk to you, half a year ago, from your idea-fix of Poseidon. If you remember the argument with Timokhin and Klimov. You have already been rated.
                      Learn the story.
                2. verp19
                  verp19 16 January 2020 12: 43
                  -1
                  Quote: Operator
                  At the same time, we had and have a bonus - an increase in the depth of defense.


                  The bonus - an offensive in Asia in the 19th century - collided foreheads with Britain, a total of 1917.
                  Bonus - the Baltics, Western outskirts, Bukovina - the result is "Suddenness 22.06.41/XNUMX/XNUMX."
                  Bonus - Eastern Europe - the result of 1991.

                  Pretty bonuses you have.
                  1. Operator
                    Operator 16 January 2020 12: 54
                    0
                    I clearly wrote: the depth of defense is just a bonus to the world's largest nuclear potential and advanced missile technologies of the Russian Federation.

                    "You will have a squirrel, there will be a whistle," - after applying the above, obviously bully
                    1. verp19
                      verp19 16 January 2020 15: 04
                      -3
                      Quote: Operator
                      I clearly wrote: the depth of defense


                      Defend what? Medvedev's country D.? Or a state where a customs officer found under the floor $ 100 million and 18 tons of gold !!!!!!
                      You don’t understand that your country has already been taken?
                      1. Operator
                        Operator 16 January 2020 15: 13
                        0
                        Do not worry about us - do your own.
                      2. verp19
                        verp19 16 January 2020 15: 30
                        -2
                        Quote: Operator
                        Don't worry about us

                        We are not particularly worried.
                        We are worried that there is someone like you who loves theater and limited nuclear war, who suddenly crawls into a nuclear case and therefore has to build fences around a mental hospital.

                        Are you even aware of what you said above? I did not notice you have a drop of compassion about "
                        Quote: Operator
                        European theater
                        It never occurred to you that people live there. And in one fell swoop they turned them to dust. Thank God only at the cheers forum.
                        Who are you?
                      3. Operator
                        Operator 16 January 2020 15: 47
                        +3
                        Quote: verp19
                        We worry

                        Why should you worry - Russia is not engaged in a "world proletarian revolution", does not have a coat of arms with a globe without borders, and strictly adheres to the principles of international law established by the UN, the International Court of Justice and the United States.

                        If you are not satisfied with the principles of US foreign policy, then break off relations with them, impose economic sanctions, and expel the US occupation forces from your territory - i.e. Become independent of the elephant in the china shop.

                        And do not forget about your own policy - start persecuting the Nazis and their accomplices, stop destroying mutually beneficial economic ties with the Russian Federation, refuse to participate in foreign interventions abroad.

                        Otherwise, do not complain that you will fly, and from both sides.
                      4. verp19
                        verp19 16 January 2020 16: 16
                        -1
                        Quote: Operator
                        strictly adheres to the principles of international law established by the UN, the UN International Court of Justice and the United States.

                        Bravo! Applaud standing! Crimea is ours! Donbas is not yet, but temporarily!

                        Quote: Operator
                        And do not forget about your own policy - start persecuting the Nazis and their accomplices, stop destroying mutually beneficial economic ties with the Russian Federation, refuse to participate in foreign interventions abroad.


                        But what about the communists and their accomplices?
                        Mutually beneficial? Yes! Good. We are listening.
                        Interventions Abroad. Of course. Only after you, however.

                        Quote: Operator
                        expel the US occupation forces from your territory - i.e. Become independent of the elephant in the china shop.


                        Yeah. Right away. So that polite little men come in their place? We somehow played it once in the 44th.
                      5. Operator
                        Operator 16 January 2020 16: 18
                        0
                        Well then do not exact, we will fully realize the US international principles.
                      6. verp19
                        verp19 16 January 2020 16: 32
                        +1
                        Quote: Operator
                        Well then do not exact


                        Those. For you, Russia and the United States are the same?
                      7. Operator
                        Operator 16 January 2020 17: 05
                        0
                        "To live with wolves - howl like a wolf" (C)

                        My condolences.
  • Charik
    Charik 15 January 2020 21: 15
    +5
    Uncle you fucked up, Europe itself every 50-100 years gathers in a heap and crawls to Russia and gets tinsel
    1. verp19
      verp19 16 January 2020 12: 38
      -3
      Baby you imbecile:

      https://geographyofrussia.com/rossijskaya-imperiya-v-1815-1917-gg/

      Look at the map. Or missed the lessons of history.
      The Russian empire is expanding and has to heap and pacify it.

      But then the Americans understood how to:

      George Kennan:

      "At the origins of the Kremlin's obsessive point of view on international relations lies Russia's traditional and instinctive feeling of insecurity. Initially, it was the feeling of insecurity of agrarian peoples living in vast open areas adjacent to ferocious nomads. As contacts are established with the economically more developed West, this feeling increased fear of a more competent, more powerful, more organized community in this territory.But this insecurity instilled fear in the Russian rulers rather than the Russian people, since the Russian rulers were aware of the archaic form of their government, the weakness and artificiality of their psychological organization, the inability to bear comparison or coming into contact with the political systems of Western countries.For this reason, they all the time feared foreign invasion, avoided direct contact between the Western world and their own, were afraid of what might happen if the Russian peoplelearns the truth about the outside world, or the outside world learns the truth about life inside Russia. And they looked for ways to ensure their security only in a stubborn and deadly struggle for the complete destruction of rival powers, never entering into agreements and compromises with them ...
      Part 5: Practical Findings from a US Policy Perspective.

      As a result, we have a political force that fanatically believes that permanent coexistence with the United States is impossible, that the destruction of the inner harmony of our society is desirable and obligatory, that our traditional way of life must be destroyed, the international authority of our state must be undermined, and all this for the sake of the safety of the Soviet regime. This political force, which has completely subjugated the energy of one of the world's greatest nations and the resources of the richest national territory, originates in the deep and powerful currents of Russian nationalism. In addition, this force has a carefully developed and widely spread apparatus for implementing its policies in other countries, an apparatus surprisingly flexible and versatile, it is governed by people whose experience and skills of underground work have no analogues in history. Finally, the reaction of this force in reality is impossible to predict. for her, a huge stock of objective facts about human society is not a criterion by which the worldview is constantly checked and corrected, but just a fairground bag from which individual objects are arbitrarily or purposefully pulled out to confirm an already predetermined worldview. Admittedly, this is an unpleasant situation. We are faced with the daunting task of finding a way to cope with this power. Our diplomacy has not yet encountered problems of such complexity and, I dare to assume, is unlikely to face it in the future. This should be the starting point for the work of our general political headquarters at the moment. This should be approached with the same care and interest as with the solution of the main strategic problems during the war, and, if necessary, with the same material costs. I dont dare offer ready-made answers here. But I would like to express my conviction that it is in our power to solve this problem without running into a general military conflict ... "
      1. Charik
        Charik 16 January 2020 12: 58
        +2
        it’s just a bunch, from the sewage system that’s why you’re having to drive you back with a plunger so that you can breathe freely, and I studied the history of my country in a Soviet school, so there’s a fucking dog
        1. verp19
          verp19 16 January 2020 15: 02
          -3
          Quote: Charik
          and I studied the history of my country in a Soviet school


          And where is your country now? Che did not fulfill his pioneer oath?

          "I (Name, Surname), joining the ranks of the All-Union Pioneer Organization named after Vladimir Ilyich Lenin, in the face of my comrades solemnly promise: to love my Motherland dearly. To live, study and fight, as the great Lenin bequeathed, as the Communist Party teaches. To sacredly observe the Laws of Pioneerism. Soviet Union."

          The laws of the pioneers of the Soviet Union:

          • Pioneer devoted to Motherland, Party, Communism
          • Pioneer prepares to become a Komsomol member
          • Pioneer equals heroes of struggle and labor
          • Pioneer honors the memory of dead fighters and prepares to become the defender of the Fatherland
          • The pioneer is the best in school, work and sport
          • Pioneer - an honest and loyal companion, always boldly standing for the truth
          • Pioneer - comrade and counselor October
          • Pioneer is a friend to pioneers and children of working people of all countries. "

          Scared? Abandoned? Why not underground? Why not a partisan? He betrayed his Soviet homeland; learn how to live?
          He studied ... Don’t tell me the jerk if you can’t understand the difference between historical science and Soviet propaganda, then there’s nothing to say with you.
        2. verp19
          verp19 16 January 2020 15: 21
          -2
          Quote: Charik
          it’s just a bunch of climb out of the sewer that’s why you have to drive you back with a plunger

          A short list of American assessments of Soviet tactics in the negotiations in the 1950s and 1960s:

          resort to rudeness and slander.
          use the negotiation process for advocacy
          demonstrate hostility towards those with whom the Soviets are negotiating.
          be stubborn, try to exhaust and exhaust the opponent.
          to see in compromises a manifestation of weakness.
          behave insidiously and hypocritically, go to various tricks, not paying attention to the truth.
          not make concessions; see concessions as a manifestation of weakness, not goodwill.
          emphasize the grievances and claims of the Soviet Union against the opponent.
  • ccsr
    ccsr 15 January 2020 20: 54
    +2
    Quote: Operator
    But a local nuclear war on the European theater of war without affecting the national territories of the Russian Federation, the USA, France and Britain is very likely.

    With whose participation - tell us in more detail, taking into account the membership in NATO of our neighbors?
    I think that the probability of such a war with Russia is close to zero - we will not consider Saakashvili’s trick as a serious war against us in 2008.
    1. Mityay65
      Mityay65 15 January 2020 23: 43
      +2
      Quote: ccsr
      I think that the probability of such a war with Russia is close to zero

      It seems to me that it's time to wake up: the option of a limited nuclear war in Europe is more likely now than in the late 80s. And this does not depend on the will of the Kremlin.
      I think that it is necessary to face reality. The limited nuclear war in Europe, in the Baltic states or in Ukraine is quite real.
      These two theaters are most likely. But in the same way, the Korean Peninsula took several steps in this direction. And with the assassination of Sulaymaniyah, I’m sure that ayatols in three shifts collect nuclear weapons in a nearby cave, and this is a step towards a nuclear conflict in the BV.
      We need to see what we have with the extension of START-3. The deadline ends in about a year. This is a marker, if the striped dudes do not renew the contract, then - Chao, Paris ...
      1. ccsr
        ccsr 16 January 2020 12: 41
        +1
        Quote: Mityai65
        It seems to me that it's time to wake up: the option of a limited nuclear war in Europe is more likely now than in the late 80s.

        Who is against whom - at least name the participants in such a war with limited use of nuclear weapons.
        Quote: Mityai65
        I think that it is necessary to face reality.

        We’ll try to look that way.
        Quote: Mityai65
        The limited nuclear war in Europe, in the Baltic states or in Ukraine is quite real.

        Ukraine does not have nuclear weapons, which means it cannot start such a war. As for the countries of Europe and the Baltic states, for the most part they are members of NATO, but not all have nuclear weapons. How do you determine that only limited nuclear weapons will be used against us, if the US does not allow anyone at all in its strategic nuclear planning, and they decide what potential they will use against us? How do we determine which attack we will undergo if, for example, there will be a massive take-off of aircraft carrying nuclear weapons and the simultaneous launch of cruise missiles?
        Quote: Mityai65
        And with the assassination of Sulaymaniyah, I’m sure that ayatols in three shifts collect nuclear weapons in a nearby cave, and this is a step towards a nuclear conflict in the BV.

        This option is more real, only if they decide to do it, even if they collect a few dozen charges, realizing that the US can instantly erase them in nuclear dust as soon as the first missile takes off towards Israel. I do not think that the Iranian ayatollahs are so naive that they do not understand what is threatening them. So this option is very doubtful.
        Quote: Mityai65
        We need to see what we have with the extension of START-3. The deadline ends in about a year. This is a marker if the striped dudes do not renew the contract,

        I think that they will not extend, under the pretext that China will not want to enter into such agreements.
        1. Mityay65
          Mityay65 16 January 2020 21: 28
          +2
          Quote: ccsr
          wars with limited use of nuclear weapons.

          Note limited nuclear war do not eat nuclear war. NAV is a concept that did not develop into the doctrine of the second half of the 70s and the first half of the 80s. The authorship is attributed to a brow by the name of Schlesinger, and Weinberger tried to implement it, it was such an MO under Reagan. In fact, this is a plan of war in Europe, developed by the KNS.
          This concept is characterized by 3 main points: war in a limited theater without outgrowing and growing into TMV, war without the use of strategic nuclear forces, war without nuclear strikes in the territories of the metropolitan countries of Russia and the United States.
          Quote: ccsr
          Who is against whom - at least name the participants in such a war

          Well, for example, in the case of the Baltic states, the parties to the conflict are the Baltic tigers themselves, Poland (well, without pan laughingthey’re just torn), possibly Denmark, Great Britain, USA vs Russia and Belarus. Those. NATO members on the northern flank. Russia and the United States will deliver nuclear strikes, but only with tactical nuclear weapons and limitedly on bridgeheads, infrastructure, missile defense bases, airfields, groups, etc., without genocide. Panama will fly most of all sad
          DB Theater - the Baltic states, possibly Poland, the Baltic Sea, and possibly the North Atlantic.
          And I think that satellites will hit, i.e. war in outer space, although this should be avoided, it is very important that the adversary retains the full range of SPRN and reconnaissance equipment.
          Quote: ccsr
          Ukraine does not have nuclear weapons, which means it cannot start such a war.

          When and who asked what Ukraine? They decide without it.
          Quote: ccsr
          if, for example, there will be a massive take-off of nuclear carrier aircraft and the simultaneous launch of cruise missiles?

          The concept of strategic nuclear weapons assumes that TMW will never begin and strategic nuclear forces will not be applied, because it is suicide. Blows will be made and battles will be fought on the territory of NATO allies.
          Quote: ccsr
          The USA can instantly be erased into nuclear dust as soon as the first rocket takes off towards Israel. I do not think that the Iranian ayatollahs are so naive that they do not understand what is threatening them.

          I do not want to discuss in detail a separate fascinating topic of nuclear war in the BV. Iran may bomb US peripheral bases and navy. Iran’s ICBMs will be ready within the next 5 years, I think they already have blueprints, and they got the dviguns and SS in Ukraine. There are many options. Including the one that immediately after Iran, the Saudis will become the owner of nuclear weapons.
          And you immediately bomb Israel ... It’s not necessary at all, especially since Israel has nuclear weapons, and the owners of nuclear weapons are not bombed.
          Quote: ccsr
          I think they will not extend

          I think so too.
          1. ccsr
            ccsr 17 January 2020 12: 07
            +2
            Quote: Mityai65
            Please note that a limited nuclear war is not a war with limited use of nuclear weapons. NAV is a concept that did not develop into the doctrine of the second half of the 70s and the first half of the 80s. The authorship is attributed to a brow by the name of Schlesinger, and Weinberger tried to implement it, it was such an MO under Reagan.

            Yes, they all hung up on everyone's ears, because no "limited nuclear war" between the US and the USSR, by definition, could not be. And all military specialists understood this, but for politicians if only they could grind something with their language.
            Quote: Mityai65
            Well, for example, in the case of the Baltic states, the parties to the conflict are the Baltic tigers themselves, Poland (well, without panic, they’re just torn), possibly Denmark, Great Britain, USA vs Russia

            It will be a full-scale nuclear war in which the United States will be destroyed. Do you really think that the Americans are ready to die for these European pygmies, imagining that they can indicate something to Russia? Americans will never allow this - there is such an anecdote when a bear wiped his ass with a hare, it will also be with respect to these countries, as soon as the Americans weaken and send the Europeans away because of their internal problems.
            Quote: Mityai65
            The concept of strategic nuclear weapons assumes that TMW will never begin and strategic nuclear forces will not be applied, because it is suicide.

            And how do you really control this? Or do you firmly believe in the Treaty - do not tell ...
            Quote: Mityai65
            And you immediately bomb Israel ...

            Saakashvili did not have nuclear weapons at all, but attacked Russian peacekeepers, so there is no need to predict the behavior of Iranians after they have their own nuclear weapons.
            Yes, and for five years you yourself understand, much can change - who in 2013 assumed that Ukraine would fall apart?
            1. Mityay65
              Mityay65 17 January 2020 14: 19
              +2
              Quote: ccsr
              And all military experts understood this, but politicians would only have to grind something with their tongues.

              For decades, military strategists in the General Staffs, think tanks and academies have been dealing with this issue. They conduct command post exercises and simulations of situations, develop a complex mat for this. security. That's a very difficult question. And then you come, all so beautiful, and declare that they "just grind something with your tongue." It's strange to say the least.
              What makes you think that "military specialists" share your confidence? There is no such confidence in the circles of "military specialists" in the US and Russia. This topic is at the forefront of the discussion of strategists: "How are we going to wage a nuclear war, so as not to kill ourselves?"
              Quote: ccsr
              there could be no "limited nuclear war" between the USA and the USSR, by definition.

              Only such a war could be. And maybe. I hope it is true that bypassing it, but there is little hope. Very little.
              But TMV could not and cannot be. And will not be.
              Quote: ccsr
              And how do you really control this?

              Territorial and satellite SPS and intelligence.
              Quote: ccsr
              who in 2013 assumed that Ukraine would fall apart?

              ??? Ukraine has not gone anywhere and has not collapsed.
              1. ccsr
                ccsr 17 January 2020 19: 15
                +1
                Quote: Mityai65
                For decades, military strategists at the General Staff, think tanks and academies have been dealing with this issue. They conduct command post exercises and situation modeling, develop a complex math for this. security.

                There are no slogans - for the first time the main scenarios were calculated in the sixties, and we realized that there would be an end to everything.
                Quote: Mityai65
                And then you come, all so beautiful, and declare that they "just grind something with your tongue." It's strange to say the least.

                So I took part in a large number of exercises, so I know what I'm talking about.
                Quote: Mityai65
                This topic is at the forefront of the discussion of strategists: "How are we going to wage a nuclear war, so as not to kill ourselves?"

                Nonsense - the problem is completely different, because the main thing is whether we can guaranteedly destroy the enemy if we are hit, and we can’t open his preparation in advance, i.e. we’ll sleep everything and only SPRN will work after the launch of enemy missiles. Do we have enough time in such a situation to make a decision, issue a command and strike with our duty strategic nuclear forces. They will always discuss this, because only this restrains our main adversary from attacking us.
                Quote: Mityai65
                Only such a war could be.

                Only in your virtual world, where you play "tanks".
                Quote: Mityai65
                Territorial and satellite SPS and intelligence.

                These systems do not allow to determine what charge is used in the carrier.
                Quote: Mityai65
                Ukraine has not gone anywhere and has not collapsed.

                Strange, and whose Crimea? Or Donbass has already recognized the Ukrainian government? Tell us more ...
    2. Operator
      Operator 16 January 2020 00: 22
      0
      NATO vs Russia - this refers to the most likely scenario of a nuclear war: NATO countries delivering a preventive strike with conventional weapons on the territory of the Russian Federation, delivering strikes by Russian and American nuclear weapons on the territory of European countries (with the exception of Russia, Britain and France).

      Participation / non-participation in the conflict of limitrophies such as Georgia, Ukraine, Moldova, Finland and the Scandinavian countries is not of fundamental importance.
      1. ccsr
        ccsr 16 January 2020 12: 51
        +2
        Quote: Operator
        NATO vs Russia - this refers to the most likely scenario of a nuclear war: NATO countries delivering a preventive strike with conventional weapons on the territory of the Russian Federation, delivering strikes by Russian and American nuclear weapons on the territory of European countries (with the exception of Russia, Britain and France).

        In my opinion, I have already tried to explain to you that only naive people can believe in this whim, and military professionals never count on it, believe me. Well, they have not yet come up with systems that are able to determine which charge will be used in a cruise missile body or in the INF, which means that your idea of ​​believing the wand of Western propaganda about a limited nuclear war is not reasonable.
        Quote: Operator
        Participation / non-participation in the conflict of limitrophies such as Georgia, Ukraine, Moldova, Finland and the Scandinavian countries is not of fundamental importance.

        With this I agree - they can generally not be taken into account.
  • 5-9
    5-9 15 January 2020 16: 02
    0
    Fiction. It was invented in the USA (and supported by agents of their influence in the USSR) in the 70s when they realized that they had lost the nuclear race because of their miserable gas diffusion enrichment method, which was 4-10 times less effective than Soviet centrifuges. Today, the number of nuclear barriers is much less than then.
    In general, the damaging factors of nuclear weapons are extremely exaggerated.
  • Fishery
    Fishery 15 January 2020 17: 16
    -4
    Just do not laugh and do not throw minuses) The question is, I generally have little idea of ​​the concept of nuclear war, correct me who is competent - let's say the states will strike at large centers, industrial cities closed (he lived in such cities) and the bases of the armed forces, then you need to trample on something like this all by ground forces, to search for the surviving warheads of a means of delivery, to supply the survivors, to form a new government, that is, all on foot, then NATO invades, and brings good and democracy)) there will also be few people who want to run around the radioactive. F blow to the states, all but destroys the walking distance can probably only to Alaska, and then how far away and the people think it is not enough, here it seems to me it's all a scarecrow in a real war would probably still involved conventional means.
    1. agond
      agond 15 January 2020 18: 04
      -1
      It is incomprehensible, such a large territory, and mines with missiles, soil mobile complexes, military airfields are located near cities or in places with a high population density, why would the enemy cover one and the other with one blow, is it really impossible somewhere on the islands in Kamchatka, on Novaya Zemlya, and ideally it’s better not to hide your weapons near territorial waters in the territorial waters, if the container with the missile lies on the bottom of Moscow or is buried in it. then, in principle, it is impossible to detect it from a satellite, from a UAV and from anything, and then the manufacture of a pop-up container will be several times cheaper than building a modern reinforced mine, and you can’t move the mine, and the container is easy.
    2. voyaka uh
      voyaka uh 15 January 2020 18: 20
      0
      "in a real war, the usual means will probably be used" ///
      ---
      I think so too. At first, they will threaten with nuclear weapons only if in a normal war one of the parties begins to lose. And this threat will lead to a ceasefire and negotiations.
      Example: India and Pakistan. Both countries have nuclear weapons and missiles, but they are fighting with conventional weapons.
    3. Boa kaa
      Boa kaa 16 January 2020 02: 58
      +1
      Quote: Tonya
      in a real war, conventional means will probably be involved.

      If there is a "real war", then "conventional means" will surely be a fuse for nuclear weapons. First - tactical, and then strategic ... according to the exponential schedule to the power of N!
      1. ccsr
        ccsr 16 January 2020 13: 14
        +1
        Quote: Boa constrictor KAA
        First - tactical, and then strategic ... according to the schedule of the exponent to the power of N!

        Nothing of the kind - if the war starts, then only with the use of strategic potential, and this is justified by the fact that in preparing for the use of tactical nuclear weapons it is difficult to eliminate unmasking signs, i.e. achieve surprise.
        Tactical nuclear weapons are specially kept for those countries that will have powerful conventional weapons, or will develop chemical weapons or bacteriological weapons, which in their consequences will be comparable to weapons of mass destruction. The USA and Russia simply do not have other goals for keeping such weapons.
        1. Boa kaa
          Boa kaa 16 January 2020 13: 54
          +2
          Quote: ccsr
          when preparing the use of tactical nuclear weapons, it is difficult to eliminate unmasking signs, i.e. achieve surprise.

          In general, I agree with your arguments.
          One point. The supply of SBP to carriers will of course be opened by enemy intelligence. But the moment of its application is from the realm of fantasy (unless of course the mole does not sit right at the headquarters of the front - now a strategic direction, of which 4 in total).
          The SBU system now allows even the RPKSN to be transferred to a "combat position" without manipulating the calculation (KBR missile). So it's underwater. And what on land is even difficult for me to imagine ...
          Thus, surprise will be provided. The ranges and characteristics of our SBP carriers allow this ...
          And so that one "slipper" does not destroy all the "cockroaches", the enemy will be forced to distribute his forces. The concentration of forces on the direction of the main blow will no longer work (under the threat of a vigorous sneaker!). It is true that now it has become fashionable "to concentrate the paths of the OS of the defeat in the breakthrough section ... But who will go to this breakthrough after the nuclear weapons? Abrams and Bradley or what?"
          But it is, thinking about the possible ...
          hi
          1. ccsr
            ccsr 16 January 2020 14: 11
            +1
            Quote: Boa constrictor KAA
            the enemy will be forced to disperse his forces.

            This will not give them anything radical, but only create certain difficulties for us - we will destroy their territory completely so that there is no such state as the United States, and it is unlikely that we will bother with other goals. This constant threat for them well cools the heads of their politicians, and all their military men already know this very well, so they are trying to somehow restrain their brainless politicians.
            Quote: Boa constrictor KAA
            Therefore, surprise will be provided.

            No, it won’t be if they start deploying tactical nuclear weapons systems. But the point is not even that, but that they need to provide their authorities with protection somehow, but this will require the implementation of many measures, which can also be uncovered by the intelligence for a time sufficient to take retaliatory measures.
            1. Boa kaa
              Boa kaa 16 January 2020 14: 24
              +1
              Quote: ccsr
              1. deploy tactical nuclear weapons systems ...
              2. they need to somehow provide their authorities with protection, but this will require the implementation of many measures,

              What exactly do you mean by that?
              And in general, who are we talking about? About us, Amah or Persians !?
              Tired of reasoning in vague definitions!
              Plis, "closer to the body," as Guy de Maupasant said!
              1. ccsr
                ccsr 16 January 2020 18: 08
                0
                Quote: Boa constrictor KAA
                And in general, who are we talking about? About us, Amah or Persians !?

                About our strategic adversary - USA. And all other countries with any weapons are not a threat to us, even today's China, although it is not yet known which way it will go further and what its armed forces will represent after 2050.
                So if a war arises in our country, it will be a war with the United States, and it will begin without the deployment of tactical nuclear weapons - I am 100% sure of this.
  • Tektor
    Tektor 15 January 2020 18: 05
    0
    The article is very good. The only thing that can significantly affect the final alignment is the appearance of small or subtle (ornithic) drones and the appearance of artificial intelligence.
  • Old26
    Old26 15 January 2020 18: 45
    +1
    Quote: g1washntwn
    But why are you modestly silent about Pershing-1A and the Tomahawks who were put on duty in the FRG already in 1969?

    I am modestly silent, because the comrade smaug78 Wrote:
    Quote: smaug78
    It is believed that the Pershing-2 ballistic missile was a response to the Soviet Pioneer RSD-10 missiles with a range of up to 4300-5500 km, capable of hitting targets in Europe. - a lie from a foolish propagandist

    as you can see, not a word about Pershing-1A and Tomahawks. Exclusively only about "Pershing-2"
    The Pershing-1A was put into service in 1969. Completely previous missiles "Pershing-1" in Germany were replaced by 1971.
    As for the Tomahawks. then, purely physically, they could not be put on duty in the FRG in 1969. The first launch as part of flight tests was 13.02.1976/26.07.1982/1982. Flight tests were completed on July XNUMX, XNUMX. In Europe, the Griffon version of the tomahawk was deployed in XNUMX.
    And to be honest, I understand you perfectly, sometimes it’s hard to believe that not everything was as we were told. Who was the initiator and who is the follower
    1. g1washntwn
      g1washntwn 16 January 2020 13: 27
      +1
      The pioneer was the answer to Pershing 1. So who is the initiator of the escalation?
      Look wider and do not rest against commas. In the 60s, Americans switched from Eisenhower’s concept of value to McNamara’s counterpower. This required a reduction in flight time and the deployment of missiles in Europe that meet this concept. The Americans were planning a proactive version of the modern version of BSU, and again you are to blame for the Pioneer.
  • opus
    opus 15 January 2020 20: 14
    +1
    By the way, the image of a missile under the Strategic Fires Missile program resembles the Pershing-2 ballistic missile, it may be reincarnation Pershing 3 at a new technological level?

    "Pershing 3" - so for a beast like that?
  • smaug78
    smaug78 15 January 2020 20: 20
    -2
    Quote: g1washntwn
    This is not copyright IMHO, this is a Western interpretation. Look at their explanations for exiting the INF Treaty and see exactly the same thing.

    Before you write nonsense, look at the tutorials ...
  • Charik
    Charik 15 January 2020 21: 10
    +2
    And GDP said that we have the best nuclear weapons tongue
  • Astronaut
    Astronaut 16 January 2020 01: 26
    0
    and maybe less than five minutes

    and possibly less than 1 second wassat
  • Old26
    Old26 16 January 2020 10: 19
    +2
    Quote: carstorm 11
    withdrawal from the ABM Treaty from the INF Treaty. this is an example of recklessness. in fact, from the point of view of politicians, not of the military, these are signs of preparation for war. judge for yourself - who benefits from these steps? whoever has a defensive strategy or vice versa offensive?

    Each country decides whether this treaty is beneficial or not. The withdrawal from the ABM Treaty can be understood, although from the point of view of the defense potential the Americans, in principle, lost. Exiting the INF Treaty - yes, this is an example of the recklessness of politicians. But alas, the current US president generally acts as an elephant in a china shop in foreign policy. Which is characteristic, but at the moment it is the United States that it would be beneficial to maintain the treaty until they have resolved all the problems in the nuclear weapons complex.
    And this, fortunately, is not a sign of preparation for war.
  • VALENTINE-37
    VALENTINE-37 16 January 2020 11: 56
    -2
    Nevertheless, the USA did not abandon the idea of ​​delivering a nuclear attack on Russia. ....... SIOP-92 with a nuclear weapon of 4000 targets, ....... SIOP-97 - 2500 targets, SIOP-00 - 3000 targets, of which 2000 targets on the territory of the Russian Federation. The SIOP-92 plan, which was being developed just at the time when the new Russian leadership was kissing their gums with American "friends", was especially touching.

    I wrote about this for a long time. Question? Why didn’t the similar plans of the USSR for the first blow appear in the press?
    And kissed, as there was nothing to eat. laughing
    War in the process of "Process" and a smart navigator
    http://samlib.ru/editors/s/semenow_aleksandr_sergeewich333/war.shtml

    [/ Center]
  • Operator
    Operator 16 January 2020 13: 21
    0
    Quote: ccsr
    have not yet come up with systems that are able to determine which charge will be used in the cruise missile body or in the INF

    I agree, the question is complicated - but, for example, the USSR, being behind the Iron Curtain, solved it: according to Ustinov's plan (canceled by Gorbachev), the Velocity mobile missile systems were to be deployed on the territory of the GDR and Czechoslovakia, with medium-range ballistic missiles with a flat trajectory The missions were designed to destroy Pershing-2 launchers during their prelaunch preparation and launch. Reconnaissance groups of the General Staff of the General Staff of the USSR Armed Forces were used as "sensors" directly in the locations of "Pershing-2".

    Due to the absence of an iron curtain, it will be even easier for reconnaissance groups of the Main Directorate of the General Staff of the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation (represented by the Petrovs and Boshirovs) to approach the deployment sites of future US MRBMs at a distance of no more than 1 km and fix / not fix the neutron flux from the missile warheads.

    Plus, the US BRDS flight paths directed / not directed to Moscow and the areas of deployment of the ICBMs of the Russian Federation will unambiguously indicate the presence / absence of nuclear charges on board the MRBMs - government defenses and headings of the ICBM mines are designed to withstand explosions of chemical explosive charges, so there is no point for them use against these goals.

    Except in the case of provocation, but the United States is absolutely not interested in it, because then they will be at a disadvantage - a preventive strike by Russian strategic nuclear forces will be delivered to their national territory.
    1. ccsr
      ccsr 16 January 2020 18: 49
      0
      Quote: Operator
      were intended to destroy Pershing-2 launchers during their prelaunch preparation and launch. Reconnaissance groups of the General Staff of the General Staff of the USSR Armed Forces were used as "sensors" directly in the locations of "Pershing-2".

      As for reconnaissance groups, you were misled - one brigade was equipped and five army radio intelligence regiments made it possible to control the European theater of operations in real time, and even reconnaissance squadrons of 16 VA helped them in this.
      Quote: Operator
      mobile missile systems "Speed" are deployed,

      I didn’t have such complexes in my memory, but I found the conclusion of our OTR in 1988-1989.
      Quote: Operator
      Due to the absence of an iron curtain, it will be even easier for reconnaissance groups of the Main Directorate of the General Staff of the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation (represented by the Petrovs and Boshirovs) to approach the deployment sites of future US MRBMs at a distance of no more than 1 km and fix / not fix the neutron flux from the missile warheads.

      I think you began to be brought in a lot - these are not their tasks at all, and in operational terms this is too long a process.
      Quote: Operator
      Plus, the flight paths of the US infantry ballistic missile, directed / not directed to Moscow and the areas of deployment of the ICBM of the Russian Federation, will unambiguously indicate the presence / absence of nuclear charges on board the BMD

      How is that? On the contrary, they are trying to suggest to us that it is allegedly possible to fight by non-nuclear means, so that we spend more time on making a decision. We do not have the right to buy their lies.
      This is what experts wrote about NATO's "initiatives" nearly thirty years ago:
      1. Operator
        Operator 16 January 2020 19: 37
        0
        I am guided by the repeated public statements of the US military-political leadership over the past 30 years about the intention to wage an escalation war with the Russian Federation:
        - striking with high-precision conventional weapons;
        - striking tactical nuclear weapons;
        - striking strategic nuclear weapons.
        1. ccsr
          ccsr 16 January 2020 20: 06
          +2
          Quote: Operator
          I am guided by the repeated public statements of the US military-political leadership

          So they make such statements for housewives. It’s strange that you fell for it ...
          1. Operator
            Operator 16 January 2020 20: 46
            +1
            Simple logic:
            1) the first strike for the United States, therefore, it is they who will choose the composition of weapons for it (convention, convention + TNW, convention + TNW + SNF);
            2) if in the first strike on the national territory of the Russian Federation American ballistic missiles are involved, and calculations of their flight paths indicate non-strategic targets (which do not include Moscow and strategic nuclear forces basing areas), then in response you can launch Russian ballistic missiles with nuclear warheads for all types of targets on the European theater of operations (with the exception of Britain and France);
            3) if after nuclear missiles fall into non-strategic targets of the Russian Federation nuclear explosions occur on them, then Russian strategic nuclear forces can be used in response to all types of targets on the national territory of the USA, Canada, Japan, South Korea and the Persian Gulf countries.
            1. ccsr
              ccsr 17 January 2020 11: 54
              +1
              Quote: Operator
              Simple logic:

              You can think differently logically, but the essence will always be the same - the USA will not start a strategic war against us until they are 100% sure that the retaliation strike will not be neutralized and their territory will be unacceptably damaged. That's it, point. Then you can paint anything you want, but keep in mind that such a blow should be dealt to us suddenly, and therefore they will in every possible way avoid any measures that unmask preparations for such a strike, which means all your assumptions like "(conventional, conventional + TNW, conventional + TNW + SNF);"Throw it in the trash, because only strategic nuclear forces will be used.
  • Operator
    Operator 16 January 2020 13: 25
    0
    Quote: ccsr
    you misunderstood him

    I am a former federal official, therefore I am trained to correctly understand the ineffable thoughts of the leadership laughing
    1. ccsr
      ccsr 16 January 2020 20: 13
      +2
      Quote: Operator
      I am a former federal official, therefore I am trained to correctly understand the ineffable thoughts of the leadership

      And I had to throw food for thought to them at one time. And let’s decide what they think up there, leave them to their conscience, but the fact that we haven’t been fighting for 75 years says a lot.
      Regarding the statements, I will only say that there was Chief of the General Staff Kvashnin, who "justified" the closure of Lourdes by the fact that our orbital group allows us to abandon this base and announced this to the whole world. None of the specialists expected such foolishness from him - so understand what was in his head then, and how to understand the "ineffable thoughts of the leadership" if now the question of opening this base has again become.
  • Operator
    Operator 16 January 2020 14: 14
    0
    Quote: VALENTIN-37
    I also refused to communicate with you, half a year ago

    I do not understand humor - do you have a vow for six months? laughing

    Learn the classics:
    "Okay, okay kids, just give me a time limit,
    You will have a squirrel and a whistle "(C)
  • Old26
    Old26 16 January 2020 15: 39
    +3
    Quote: g1washntwn
    The pioneer was the answer to Pershing 1. So who is the initiator of the escalation?
    Look wider and do not rest against commas. In the 60s, Americans switched from Eisenhower’s concept of value to McNamara’s counterpower. This required a reduction in flight time and the deployment of missiles in Europe that meet this concept. The Americans were planning a proactive version of the modern version of BSU, and again you are to blame for the Pioneer.

    No need to juggle. I never said that "Pioneer" was to blame. And he was never the answer to Pershing 1. The Pershing-1 is an operational tactical missile. According to the classification of the INF Treaty - a shorter-range missile. And the Pioneer is a medium-range missile.
    There is such a term as planning. The Redstone missiles were replaced first by the Pershing-1, and then by the Pershing-1A. In the same way, with the Pioneer, we replaced the R-12 and R-14, old medium-range missiles. The United States did not have medium-range missiles in Europe at the beginning of the 80s. And whether we like it or not, it was Pershing. 2 and Griffon was the American response to the Pioneer deployment, not the other way around ...
    Our analogue of Pershing-1A was the Temp-S complex. And the range is about the same, and so is the deployment time.
    1. ccsr
      ccsr 16 January 2020 19: 00
      +1
      Quote: Old26
      And whether we like it or not, it was Pershing 2 and Griffon that became the American response to the deployment of Pioneer, and not vice versa ...

      This is a clear distortion, because the "Pioneer" could not reach the US territory, and was not a strategic weapon of our armed forces in operational terms against the main enemy. But "Pershing-2" in Europe was a strategic means of attack on our territory, although it had a shorter range than our "Pioneer". So if we had placed "Pioneers" in Cuba, I would still believe in your version, and so it looks far-fetched.
      Quote: Old26
      Our analogue of Pershing-1A was the Temp-S complex. And the range is about the same, and so is the deployment time.

      In fact, this can in no way be an analogue to the REAL threat of our territory and the territory of the USA, respectively. Are you going to fight on the basis of the technical characteristics, or on the basis of real threats to our country?
  • Old26
    Old26 16 January 2020 19: 22
    +3
    Quote: ccsr
    This is a clear distortion, because the "Pioneer" could not reach the US territory, and was not a strategic weapon of our armed forces in operational terms against the main enemy. But "Pershing-2" in Europe was a strategic means of attack on our territory, although it had a shorter range than our "Pioneer". So if we had placed "Pioneers" in Cuba, I would still believe in your version, and so it looks far-fetched.

    Comrade! I know perfectly well that the "Pioneer" from Europe did not reach the United States. And in the 80s, this weapon had its own designation - European strategic. I am trying to say only one thing. Without all these political and ideological equivalents. The deployment of Pershing 2 and Tomahawk in Europe was
    IN RESPONSE TO THE DEPLOYMENT OF US "PIONEERS"

    And the deployment of Pershing-2 "and" Tomahawk " started in 7 years after we started deploying our PIONEERS. But they are trying to prove to me that it was not the Americans who began the deployment of the Pershing-2 and the Griffon in response to our Pioneers, and not vice versa. So there is no jitter. Again, I am not touching on all this political husk.

    Quote: ccsr
    In fact, this can in no way be an analogue to the REAL threat of our territory and the territory of the USA, respectively. Are you going to fight on the basis of the technical characteristics, or on the basis of real threats to our country?

    Oops, guys, you seem to be rather robust. I'm talking about the technical side, about the technical analogue. And the fact that "Tempi-S" did not reach anywhere is well known to me. As a result, they were even removed from the Strategic Missile Forces and transferred to the ground forces.
  • Operator
    Operator 17 January 2020 13: 15
    0
    Quote: ccsr
    The US will not start a war against us until they are 100% sure that the retaliation strike will not be neutralized and their territories will be unacceptably damaged.

    This is exactly what I am talking about when I describe the consequences of the implementation of my favorite Russophobic horror story - like many, many American Pershing / Axes will fly in and disarm us without any nuclear weapons laughing

    By the way, how can we specifically neutralize our nuclear retaliation strike?

    PS I do not use the term "unacceptable damage", I like "total damage" more (NATO military facilities in the event of a local conflict in Europe and the entire military and civil infrastructure of NATO, Japan, South Korea and the Gulf countries in the event of a global conflict in Europe, America and Asia).
  • Tolik_74
    Tolik_74 19 January 2020 21: 00
    -1
    You don’t need any nuclear weapons, in a year or two the yellowstone will explode, so little will not seem to the Pendots, especially to mattresses from Natasha.
  • Brigadier
    Brigadier 20 January 2020 02: 46
    -2
    Do you seriously think about retaliation from Russia for the American attack, while the Russian leadership is full of those who have children, wives, assets and other pleasures of life abroad?
    Are you sure of that?

    But in my opinion, Putin’s constant pathetic speeches that we will always respond to an attack on us are just empty boast that it makes no sense to believe.

    About the fact that while he is president, there will be no increase in the retirement age, we also heard FROM HIM ...
    And How? Did he keep his word to the people? That is the point ...

    Naivety is sometimes worse than death!
    1. oprovergatel
      oprovergatel 14 February 2020 11: 26
      +1
      But what about you, near-by something to do?

      Putin said this phrase about the retirement age in 2004! And kept his promise! Since before the end of the first two of his terms, raising the retirement age did not happen. But to see the future for 15 years ahead, provide for a new cadence for 2 terms, a sharp change in geostrategic and economic realities was then impossible from the word at all.
  • Kostadinov
    Kostadinov 22 January 2020 14: 51
    0
    Quote: CTABEP
    In the early and mid-50s, the United States had hundreds of warheads, the USSR, at best, dozens and practically without delivery vehicles — nothing would have fallen on the territory of the United States. For some reason, the war against the genocide of which the author is raving has not begun.

    1. Delivery vehicles from the USSR still hit - and the United States could get the Tu-4 and Tu-16 (without returning), then submarines with missiles appeared.
    2. In the United States, delivery vehicles against the USSR did not beat better — only very vulnerable bombers.
    Only UTB stopped the war against genocide. If the USSR was late in the development of nuclear weapons by about several years, today more than half of us could not exist.
  • Knell wardenheart
    Knell wardenheart 24 January 2020 01: 56
    -1
    I recommend the author to think about, because of some such goblin in NATO (Atlantic European according to the idea), Turkey turned out to be in due time. Thoughts on this subject may somewhat ruin your ideologically verified constructions in the spirit of the late USSR.
    And the story, meanwhile, is pretentious. At one time, Turkey made the right choice and did not get into the Second World War on the side of the OSI. And in general, these guys did not "help" the Reich much, much less than Sweden or Switzerland.
    And of course we should have said tacit thanks to these guys for not putting in their five cents to the heap, in those difficult months and days when the battle for the Caucasus was going on. Well, or at least maintain normal relations with Turkey after the war. But, this is logical. And in practice - the main dove of peace - Joseph Vissarionovich, who does not have nuclear weapons (unlike the bloody American imperialists), figuratively speaking, after the war against Turkey, began to bullshit. It was not very aesthetically pleasing, and it also noticeably frightened the Turks, who did not want at all that, as in Latvia or Estonia or in Poland, they "suddenly" had a host of Communists demanding changes with a claim to power. As a result, Turkey pulled into NATO, as a result, there were ill-fated missiles, etc., etc.

    Why am I all this? To the fact that we have to get rid of all this lamp nonsense about "Dropshots" and imperialists who want to bury the USSR in nuclear ashes. From 1945 to 1949, the USSR HAD NO nuclear weapons. Allies in Eastern Europe (thoroughly racked by the war and well-knocked out democratic potential) - have been to put it mildly for many years. Moreover, having tasted cast iron from the Iron Curtain, a significant part of the population of Hungary / Czechoslovakia / Poland / GDR would have been harnessed against the "liberators of the Americans", if they had thought of pulling with cocacola and chewing gum to Moscow. Let's be realistic - we dragged our collective farm order into these countries and this did not add to our sympathy (as well as the socialization of property).
    However, that’s all that didn’t temper our agility, as our very greyhound post-war diplomacy in Europe (and this example with Turkey), as well as increased efforts in Asia (China, Korea) show.
    All the four years that Uncle Sam was saving atomic bombs with an overwhelming advantage on the sea and in the air (and armadas of stratobommers) - we went all out of our way, trying to create these guys HEMORROA and climb into neutral with our charter, wherever possible.

    Do you think, given all this, you really wanted to destroy us? Or maybe we just showed ourselves so horseradish and dumb state that it was necessary just in case to coax us with all these plans in order to somewhat moderate this idiotic revolutionary collective farm ardor and Stalin's love for the territories of our neighbors? Think about it
  • Dingo
    Dingo 20 March 2020 17: 41
    0
    I don't know who ordered this article for you (or rather, "vyser" ... Guys, with your permission, I will insert quotes ... Other weapons deployed by the United States in Europe are the Tomahawk cruise missiles (CR). ballistic missiles, the "Tomahawk" missile system could not boast of a short flight time. Their advantage was the secrecy of the launch, as a result of which they would not be detected by the missile attack warning system (EWS), a low-altitude flight trajectory with a rounding of the terrain, making it difficult to detect the "Tomahawk" missile launcher »By means of air defense (air defense) of the USSR, as well as a fairly high hitting accuracy, with an air defense of about 80-200 meters, provided by an inertial navigation system in a complex (INS) with a TERCOM relief correction system.

    The missile’s flight range was up to 2500 kilometers, which made it possible to choose its flight route, taking into account the bypass of known air defense zones. The power of the thermonuclear warhead was 150 kilotons.



    Ground launcher Ground-Launched Cruise Missile (GLCM) and Tomahawk

    It can be assumed that in the course of a sudden decapitation strike, the first would have been a strike by the Tomahawk missile carrier from ground and submarine carriers. At that time, the USSR did not have over-the-horizon radars capable of detecting such small-sized targets. Thus, there was a possibility that the launch of the Tomahawk missile launcher would go unnoticed. - the end of the quote .... Yeah, shchaass ... Suck a banana through your pocket - what else to advise ... We found the "cure" for "axes" back in 78 and confirmed it in 79 ... "Dal-78" and "Soyuz-79" (do not "google" - you will not find it ... At best, you will go to 79 Guadea ZRB ... disbanded by "General Stouretkin" ...
  • Dingo
    Dingo 20 March 2020 18: 09
    0
    I'm embarrassed to ask - who the thread REALLY sat behind the screen? Someone REALLY saw the debris falling ... Someone really "directed" the pair into the "front hemisphere" ..... into the "rear hemisphere" ... Who really heard the thread in the headset - how the pilot swears? (we, the operators of the automated control system, THIS CHANNEL HAS BEEN DISCONNECTED ... right, probably ... And so it was enough ... But in the trailer of objective control they gave me a look at both my "guidance" - and the "promise of the pilot" .. to go supersonic over our "pieces of iron? ...." Divan "do not understand this ...
  • Dingo
    Dingo 20 March 2020 18: 30
    0
    I read "smart" comments here ... To be honest? Do not be offended? (Men do not "take offense) ... Suck a banana on your couch ... Aha? And we are like a thread without you ... Let's deal with" your ", like," partners "...
  • Dingo
    Dingo 20 March 2020 19: 01
    0
    On the Soyuz-79 ... In the same place, in Sary-Shagan ... We are sitting with the guys on the "corrugation" (these are such pipes from the air conditioner .. Four at the corners of the trailer from one end - the same thing - from the other end. .. Wet, dirty, sweaty ... We smoke (cigarettes "fired" at Mr. Akchurin, our corps, 3, Yaroslavsky (disbanded by "stool" ... On "loud" - 46th - CP .. . take on escort ...... We took ... a low-altitude ... We spent ... planted ... Like a "turntable" .. We smoke further ... Some kind of silence ... not for good ...
  • Dingo
    Dingo 20 March 2020 20: 58
    0
    So it is ... A group of foreign officers .. (their own hid somewhere) ... In the field - and without insignia ... (Mr. Dobrovolsky drove an excursion with a parrot .. until at 46 he looked "at the light" ... Yurka, on 5 IS the light was done on the screen ... And at that - guidance ... Well, he shoved him in the chest ... - what (mate ....) ... Then somewhere disappeared ... and he - and excursions .. I - about the general-parrot from the Kremlin VO ... So, a nuance ... We came up .. I get up ... (yes figs knows who he is ... trying to button up and find the cap under the belt ... interfered when the headset was on the head during work ...) ... - "Yes, sit, sergeant ... Yours? .. So exactly - mine ... The commander of the crew, Sergeant K .... OV ... - Thank you for your service, sergeant! And you guys ... I can't even imagine what you did ... Thank you ... I held out my hand - shook ... what to say, huh? "I serve the Soviet Union "? Wet, sweaty, unbuttoned to the navel ... He just threw his hand to the cap (as they taught in the Yeletsk school) ... He grinned - he put his hand to the cap ... Then my commander, Mr. Kabirov NS -" Vit do you even know who it was? Yes, where, N .... Sa .... ich? Yes Koldunov! ... (Air Defense Chief, Air Marshal) ... So, emotions and memories ... Then, next to us (and at that time a complex was working that really worked and the pilots were guided - real (Yacht-6 ... well, forgive me, brother ... I have not seen you in the local area ... Yes, and this "KRM conducted only by extrapolation ... Sorry ..)" Volkhov-M6 "performed its tasks ... Now - S- 300 ...
  • Dingo
    Dingo 20 March 2020 21: 33
    0
    Who really did not sit on the sofa .. But in the cabins and trailers ... Who did not hold his hand on the joystick, but on the "knupel" ... Who knows how the steppe smells ... Who knows what CFS is ... Who rotted in distant garrisons, under the "northern lights" ... "points"
    m-in the mouth ... Who heard at the divorce -Protect to defend the air borders of our Motherland ... Air Defense Officers ... I have the honor! (to contact you. Do not deny me this honor.). Call Sign - Salute ...
  • Dingo
    Dingo 20 March 2020 22: 18
    0
    .... Quote- ".. It can be assumed that in the course of a sudden decapitation strike, first of all, a Tomahawk missile attack would have been struck from ground and submarine carriers. At that time, the USSR did not have over-the-horizon radars capable of detecting such small-sized Thus, there was a possibility that the launch of the Tomahawk missile system would go unnoticed. " - end quote ... does the author really believe in this nonsense? I'm embarrassed to ask ... In these pictures, graphs, eh? Well, let him believe ... or just work off the customers' loot ... We will wait and see ... We will live and find out ... We will survive - we will draw conclusions ... And we will laugh ... And the one who laughs LASTLY laughs ... . OU-OU (not translatable) ...
  • Dingo
    Dingo 20 March 2020 22: 33
    0
    Quote - "... Only the tough actions of the USSR, in the form of the deployment of the R-12 and R-14 MRBMs in Cuba, as well as the threat of an imminent nuclear war, forced the United States to sit down at the negotiating table, which resulted in both the withdrawal of Soviet missiles from Cuba and and American MRBM "Jupiter" from Turkey. - the end of the quote ... And with you, vagabonds (let those who understand forgive me), there is no other way ... Well, you do not understand normal, human words ... you won't get it in the face ... And this is Russia's fault? Are you offended? Yes, really?
  • Dingo
    Dingo 20 March 2020 23: 33
    0
    Quote ...- "... From the organizational methods can be applied" swing "- the creation of a series of threatened situations that can be considered by the RF as preparation for the strike, but stopping them at a certain stage. The task is to make such situations habitual and raise the threshold The meaning of this is like giving a false alarm at a military base every other day, and after a month no one will pay attention to it. " end quote. author - are you oligophrenic? Too shy to ask. Do you at least understand what you are talking about, huh? Do you understand the Russian mentality? Not? Guys, can you explain to "especially gifted" ...?
    There is a car in the yard ... The signal went off .. Disconnected - so that the neighbors would not bother ... Russian soul ... It worked again - turned it off - BUT ... He took an ax (hammer, bat ... whatever) - and you go out into the yard .... Further - as God willing ... Eh ... You don't fucking Russians (horseradish is such a plant .. It grows in dachas and in gardens .. it is used as a seasoning ...) you don't know. .. They will cut in - it will not seem a little ... Well, we are not "tolerant" ... By the way ... About tolerance ... If someone did not know - or "forgot" .. Tolerance is a medical term, taken from transplantology and means the inability of the body to distinguish foreign organs. This state is achieved by the gradual suppression of the body's immune system by toxic substances, leading it to apathy and indifference. Complete tolerance is death ... Angela, a pioneer, originally from the GDR, YET YET NOT CONVINCED? No, I'm not gloating ... I sympathize ... although my dad came as an invalid from that war ...
  • daatop
    daatop 1 November 2020 15: 16
    0
    Alternative history of the Cuban missile crisis and the Allied Forces "Anadyr"
    https://yadi.sk/i/7QVD0N5YT_sQlQ
    Private Caribbean Front Anatoly Dmitriev, 01.11.2020/XNUMX/XNUMX
    Remember the Heroes of the Caribbean Front!