Sunset of the nuclear triad. US decapitating weapon

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 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.
Ctrl Enter

Noticed a mistake Highlight text and press. Ctrl + Enter

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

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Ross xnumx 15 January 2020 06: 10 New
    • 7
    • 8
    -1
    Sunset of the nuclear triad. US decapitating weapon

    I do not believe that the United States will take advantage of its "decapitation blow," based on the historical past and present, until they know that at least a few YAGs will fall on their territory ...
    I do not exclude the possibility that a third party can “wedge” on the anonymous rights with the anonymous rights of a third party in order to “aggravate” the position of both opponents ...
    1. Tatyana 15 January 2020 06: 35 New
      • 23
      • 6
      +17
      Quote: ROSS 42
      I do not believe that the United States will take advantage of its "decapitation blow," based on the historical past and present, until they know that at least a few YAGs will fall on their territory ...

      And I believe that the United States can take advantage of its "decapitation blow", not at all based on 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 15 January 2020 06: 45 New
        • 19
        • 10
        +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 15 January 2020 08: 58 New
          • 4
          • 5
          -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 15 January 2020 16: 42 New
          • 6
          • 0
          +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 16 January 2020 00: 05 New
          • 5
          • 0
          +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 stated 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 25 February 2020 18: 48 New
            • 0
            • 0
            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 16 January 2020 08: 08 New
          • 5
          • 5
          0
          Tatyana, can you go to cook borsch all the same?
      2. Ross xnumx 15 January 2020 06: 46 New
        • 10
        • 6
        +4
        Quote: Tatiana
        And I believe that the US can take advantage of its "decapitation blow"

        VO site allows pluralism of opinions. By the way, do not confuse with pluralism when they spit on the opponent’s opinion. Accordingly, I propose to announce the list of recklessness of "bad heads" from Washington against the 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 15 January 2020 07: 02 New
          • 13
          • 6
          +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 shy about the destruction of various countries, including Russia. From such successes with impunity, they simply "take a roof off my head"!
          1. Ross xnumx 15 January 2020 07: 07 New
            • 6
            • 7
            -1
            Quote: Tatiana
            You forgot the Anglo-Saxon carpet bombing of the cities of Germany and Japan.

            You read inattentively !!!
            Quote: ROSS 42
            Accordingly, I propose to announce the list of recklessness of "bad heads" from Washington against an adversary capable of rebuffing ...
            1. Tatyana 15 January 2020 07: 13 New
              • 11
              • 6
              +5
              Quote: ROSS 42
              You read inattentively! Quote: ROSS 42 Therefore, I propose to announce the list of recklessness of "bad heads" from Washington against the 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 15 January 2020 08: 24 New
                • 7
                • 16
                -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 16 January 2020 07: 44 New
                  • 3
                  • 1
                  +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 17 January 2020 03: 24 New
                    • 1
                    • 2
                    -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 17 January 2020 09: 48 New
                      • 1
                      • 0
                      +1
                      Remake it in the elite BOMBUSHEADS. And buyers are located. So, the "low."
            2. Nyrobsky 15 January 2020 09: 09 New
              • 6
              • 1
              +5
              Quote: ROSS 42
              Accordingly, I propose to announce the list of recklessness of "bad heads" from Washington against the enemy who is able to give a worthy rebuff

              If we consider Russia as an opponent capable of giving a worthy rebuff, then starting with the Caribbean crisis, ALL US political leadership with congressmen and senators, including a number of "bad heads" from the Pentagon, are only doing what they are doing "reckless actions", in other words, they are trying to stick sherud in a bear's den, when the bear himself does not even think of attacking anyone. The list will be very long to list all personally, so accept wholesale Democrats + Republicans.
          2. Boa kaa 16 January 2020 00: 44 New
            • 3
            • 0
            +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
            to be ashamed of the destruction of various countries, including Russia, the Americans and the collective West will not. From such successes with impunity, they simply "take a roof off my head"!

            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. About the "roof" in the head - you boldly noticed! Usually, by the “roof” was meant the head of the activist ... And then there was the “roof” in the head. However! laughing
            when the war begins, then you will recognize them by sight.
            Yes, they are afraid of fire like a contact war (face to face). They pray for a "contactless war", moreover, for drones and other robotic combat systems. They are ready to fight, but with the wrong hands ... So the blacks, mulattos fighting for US citizenship ... well, maybe we'll see. But not more.
            1. Tatyana 16 January 2020 01: 26 New
              • 3
              • 2
              +1
              Quote: BoA KAA
              2. About the "roof" in the head - you boldly noticed! Usually, by the “roof” was meant the head of the activist ... And then there was the “roof” in the head. However!

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

        2. Vladimir_2U 15 January 2020 07: 24 New
          • 1
          • 4
          -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 "pleuralism" is used. )))
        3. g1washntwn 15 January 2020 09: 17 New
          • 4
          • 1
          +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", but about the chance of a critical set of circumstances caused by a technical failure. A recent example is Iran and the Ukrainian board. The escalation initiated by the American strike on Suleymani led to a mistake in the correctness of the decision. The civilian side is shot down. The likelihood of the same scenario with nuclear weapons cannot be ruled out by any of the parties, since in relation to the INF Treaty there may not be any time to correct the situation.
          1. Boa kaa 16 January 2020 01: 13 New
            • 5
            • 0
            +5
            Quote: g1washntwn
            escalation led to an error in the correct decision.
            Two words.
            1. "Escalation" led to an increase in mental tension of the air defense system operator, and not to an error in the calculation actions. The calculation acted according to the “protocol” in such a case. I will explain my thought.
            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, and what do you want from the “fighter in the trench”? What is his fault if he carried out the “protocol” that led to the tragedy? The culprits are sitting much higher ... These are those who did not close the air by starting a database against ams ...
            This is my personal judgment as a military pro.
            1. g1washntwn 16 January 2020 07: 32 New
              • 2
              • 1
              +1
              I doubt that the air defense calculations begin to shoot at any mark in peacetime when the connection disappears. This is not an assessment of "who is to blame" in a particular situation, but an example of how an "avalanche of mistakes" begins. Replace the air defense system calculation with the RSMD operator with your own protocols ... The chance that several factors will develop simultaneously and the start button will be pressed is not at all zero. Examples when ICBMs were ready to fly out a little, but they are. In the case of INF, this avalanche will come down in seconds, and then options are possible and all of them do not greatly improve health.
              1. Boa kaa 16 January 2020 11: 49 New
                • 3
                • 0
                +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 this was NOT PEACEFUL TIME when the Iranian forces were brought to the highest degree of combat readiness. In such conditions, "it is better to overstay than not finish"! (C).
                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 16 January 2020 12: 58 New
                  • 0
                  • 0
                  0
                  I am not looking for the names of those specifically responsible for the Iranian incident. You will be very worried about "who is to blame?" when will nuclear warheads begin to fall on their heads? A specific calculation officer, AI error or inaction / inadequacy of the highest command ... or immediately all-inclusive ... 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 stopping by different missile defense, a blow will be dealt to the maximum possible damage to the enemy. The higher the speed of your car (INF, hyper, space), the less likely it is to stop errors no matter where they occurred.
                  In addition, I am even more than sure that propaganda will “reveal” the perpetrators faster than historians.
                  1. Boa kaa 16 January 2020 13: 17 New
                    • 3
                    • 1
                    +2
                    Quote: g1washntwn
                    You will be very worried about "who is to blame?" when will nuclear warheads begin to fall on their heads?
                    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 17 January 2020 09: 58 New
                      • 0
                      • 0
                      0
                      Quote: BoA 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 17 January 2020 12: 15 New
                        • 1
                        • 0
                        +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 17 January 2020 12: 49 New
                        • 0
                        • 0
                        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 a sequence of such failures, but all within the boundaries of this system. A specific case is considered in this coordinate system. We can say that the actions of calculating the air defense 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, the wrong one) was made by the calculation that launched it without having all the available information necessary for making the right and timely decision. Everything politicians found for absolution. But you can see even wider where political and technical decisions, internal and external, etc. are included in this system. In principle, take any material on business training such as “How to make decisions quickly and correctly” and apply it to this specific case and analyze it. The analytical departments are doing just that, they are not only looking for the specific cause of the system failure (the system one is not in the sense of repeating, but the system one 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, icicles falling on the head, a little wider than the thaw and pigeons. It seems to me.
            2. Alexey RA 16 January 2020 16: 46 New
              • 2
              • 0
              +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 KR URO "Vincennes", which confused the airliner with a multi-role fighter.
              1. g1washntwn 17 January 2020 10: 08 New
                • 0
                • 0
                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 in a row, from the lack of a flight ban to clicking on the start button by calculation. Actually, the investigation is ongoing, 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. VALENTIN-37 16 January 2020 12: 30 New
            • 0
            • 3
            -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 16 January 2020 16: 49 New
              • 2
              • 0
              +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 16 February 2020 21: 52 New
                • 0
                • 0
                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 16 February 2020 21: 45 New
              • 0
              • 0
              0
              That's it. Air defense is different ... laughing This I confirm - as a former sergeant, calculation commander, ACS operator class 1 (then "M" was left only to officers, ensigns and overseers. We only confirm the class) Service 77-79. ..3 Yaroslavl Air Defense Corps, 6 Red Banner Brigade ...
          3. VALENTIN-37 16 January 2020 12: 37 New
            • 0
            • 2
            -2
            The transponder was probably there, but the friend-or-foe identification system was clearly not .....
            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 17 January 2020 03: 32 New
              • 0
              • 0
              0
              The question is, what did the transponder transmit? The Iranians didn’t collect the plane ...
              1. VALENTIN-37 19 January 2020 10: 47 New
                • 0
                • 0
                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 19 January 2020 20: 55 New
                  • 0
                  • 0
                  0
                  Who produces microchips - he owns the world.
            2. Dingo 16 February 2020 22: 05 New
              • 0
              • 0
              0
              And without "recognition" was weak? request .... The operator would go on vacation ....
      3. carstorm 11 16 January 2020 03: 07 New
        • 3
        • 0
        +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 16 January 2020 13: 24 New
        • 2
        • 0
        +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 15 January 2020 07: 10 New
      • 6
      • 2
      +4
      The United States has exactly the same policy towards Russia as it has toward Japan in the 30s and 40s of the last century. With their sanctions, they simply forced Japan to start a war. Can we raise the country's interests above the interests of home-grown imperialists? I doubt it. Apparently there is some kind of hidden meaning in this eternal desire to earn "somewhere there", invest in someone else's economy and then ask the state to protect its private investments. The model of “state for sale”, like women on the road, needs “physical” protection (there was such a department in the tax police). The time of spontaneous capitalism, as well as the time of "individuals" has long passed.
    3. CTABEP 15 January 2020 10: 15 New
      • 6
      • 2
      +4
      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. The war should build a more convenient world for the winner, if we are not talking about fanatics, who, fortunately, are few in the leadership of the world powers (because there are people who regret that during the Caribbean crisis we did not "plow"). 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 17 January 2020 03: 34 New
        • 0
        • 0
        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 15 January 2020 23: 43 New
      • 7
      • 0
      +7
      Quote: Tatiana
      The United States can take advantage of its "decapitation blow", not at all based on 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 of the Trojan Horse on February 19, 2019. told the US Air Force chief 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 16 January 2020 00: 04 New
        • 2
        • 2
        0
        Quote: BoA KAA
        Quote: Tatiana
        The United States can take advantage of its "decapitation blow", not at all based on 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 of the Trojan Horse on February 19, 2019. told the US Air Force chief 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 US / Pentagon's Trojan Horse strategy for conducting military operations.
        The technologies of “color revolutions” in other countries at Washington / Pentagon have already been successfully developed, and the results of the destructive house introduced in the victim country create an excellent platform for the aggressor to deliver an unreasonable, preventive military strike against strategically defensive objects 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. VALENTIN-37 16 January 2020 12: 25 New
        • 0
        • 2
        -2
        V. Gerasimov commented on it by the NSSh.
        I would like the original source. And the NSSH have always been able to "speak" with us.
        In 1983, I almost burned out of shame.
        And the current ones are not far away. ETOGES it was necessary instead of the Ukrainian Su-25 to draw an Amersky electronic warfare aircraft Raven, which generally has no weapons.
        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 16 January 2020 13: 04 New
          • 3
          • 2
          +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
          Amersky EW "Raven" aircraft which has no weapons at all.

          When we introduced troops to Czechoslovakia in 1968, they generally landed paratroopers on an Aeroflot plane - do you not know the concept of "military trick"? Who could guarantee that this was not 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. VALENTIN-37 16 January 2020 13: 27 New
            • 1
            • 2
            -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 on the MO website they slapped a photo of the start of the Trident and signed the Bulava, is this also a trick, or dense?
            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 16 January 2020 13: 48 New
              • 1
              • 1
              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 respective chiefs knew about it - they all reported to them, without taking into account your assessment of the actions of the regiment. By the way, why did you decide that they “profiled”, taking into account the fact that the air defense systems of the country were already tracking the flight of this aircraft from the moment of crossing the state border?
              Quote: VALENTIN-37
              And when on the MO website they slapped a photo of the start of the Trident and signed the Bulava, is this also a trick, or dense?

              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? Maybe you're another "daughter of an officer"?
          2. VALENTIN-37 16 January 2020 13: 29 New
            • 1
            • 1
            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 16 January 2020 13: 50 New
              • 2
              • 1
              +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 16 February 2020 22: 16 New
              • 0
              • 0
              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 14 February 2020 10: 07 New
        • 0
        • 0
        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 15 January 2020 06: 46 New
    • 6
    • 6
    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 Pioneer RSD-10 missiles would not have flown in response ... For this, the NATO countries were warned - therefore Europe would be the first to be burned in the heat of nuclear madness. At the same time, the number of SSBNs of the USSR off the coast of the USA was also increased.
    When writing about the circular probable deviation (CVO) of the RSD-10, do not forget about the range of the missile (D max = 5500 km), it is not entirely correct to compare it with Pershing-2 (D max = 1400 - 1700 km). Moreover, nuclear warheads slightly level the parameter - the probable circular deviation. It all depends on the goals of the defeat ...
    1. thanks 15 January 2020 07: 14 New
      • 3
      • 6
      -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 16 January 2020 10: 15 New
        • 2
        • 7
        -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 "miracle weapons"? Hitler also promised the Germans "weapons of retaliation"
    2. g1washntwn 15 January 2020 09: 28 New
      • 2
      • 1
      +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 15 January 2020 14: 23 New
        • 3
        • 0
        +3
        even if for this profit you have to burn the whole of Europe with Asia,

        Profit in what?
        1. g1washntwn 15 January 2020 14: 32 New
          • 2
          • 1
          +1
          While the victim is poking around in ruins, gallop forward. This, by the way, is the official American strategy - to restrain everyone (including the "allies") and ride in front of the engine, taking apart the rails for their own prosperity. In the case of a nuclear conflict, this is the same Kennan concept, but this deterrence is called a backward strategy. For the United States, it is important that the retaliatory strike does not throw back and slow them down more than the enemy.
      2. Boa kaa 16 January 2020 01: 30 New
        • 3
        • 1
        +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 16 January 2020 10: 17 New
          • 2
          • 5
          -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 16 January 2020 12: 12 New
            • 2
            • 1
            +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 “little thing” we and am have hidden under the lid of Pandora’s box? How many "wonderful discoveries" will the 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 16 January 2020 16: 55 New
          • 1
          • 0
          +1
          Quote: BoA 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 16 January 2020 17: 11 New
            • 4
            • 0
            +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 16 January 2020 18: 49 New
              • 0
              • 0
              0
              Quote: BoA 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 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 KAA
              I am sure that the leadership of the Navy and the Sun will correct this state of affairs

              After 22160, opupey from 20380/85/86 and MRK-mania, I honestly have no such confidence. How many fleets chose the base for the new PLO aircraft? And I still don’t remember about “Grena” ... wink
              1. Boa kaa 16 January 2020 21: 48 New
                • 4
                • 0
                +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 that the Russians will continue to invest rubles in the creation of submarines. They have certain [submarines] that have extremely great potential. Severodvinsk comes to mind. This is an excellent platform that challenges a [potential enemy]. Six new class submarines "Kilo in the Eastern Mediterranean and the Black Sea with a hybrid diesel-electric propulsion system - the last word in technology, very low noise when moving on batteries, this is a big 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 Armed Forces of the Russian Federation put pressure on the number of launcher rocket launchers on ships of the fleet. And the main thing is that they work along the shore ... Well, that’s how “where do the diamonds come from in the ass!”?
                1. ccsr 17 January 2020 12: 22 New
                  • 1
                  • 1
                  0
                  Quote: BoA 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 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 17 January 2020 12: 53 New
                    • 3
                    • 0
                    +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 promise: "The RSMD on small-tonnage ships and the submarine nuclear fleet are becoming the main direction in the development of our Navy and it pleases any military professional."
                    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 / It would be possible to continue "to carry out explanatory work among you." Yes, only the student you are ungrateful and hard to learn!
                    I am taking my leave for the sim. Boa.
                    1. ccsr 17 January 2020 13: 36 New
                      • 1
                      • 1
                      0
                      Quote: BoA 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 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 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 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 "plans for the whole lot" in the USSR, and the current president will soon leave without reporting, and what we achieved according to his program by 2020, which he announced about fifteen years ago. As the saying goes, "the hopes of young men feed ..." - you hope so?
                      Quote: BoA 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 the vest very 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 Wishlist? Do not count, it may happen that the ships begin to be cut, as was already under Khrushchev in favor of the development of the Strategic Missile Forces.
                      Quote: BoA 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 KAA
                      It would be possible to continue to "conduct explanatory work among you." Yes, only the student you are ungrateful and hard 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 17 January 2020 13: 46 New
                      • 3
                      • 1
                      +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! At least some thread finished the academy? Maybe he commanded some kind of association? Or, as before - "a self-taught genius with a dimensionless EGO !?" belay
                      Aggressive you are ours! laughing
                    3. ccsr 17 January 2020 13: 59 New
                      • 1
                      • 1
                      0
                      Quote: BoA KAA
                      Maybe he commanded some kind of association?

                      I’ve been to Bolshoi Kozlovsky on business more than once, when Gorshkov still taxied there before leaving for the “Paradise group” - this is enough to understand that you’ll rub it on someone else.
                    4. Boa kaa 17 January 2020 14: 07 New
                      • 3
                      • 0
                      +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, under 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 17 January 2020 19: 01 New
                      • 2
                      • 0
                      +2
                      Quote: BoA 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 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 concerned not only the Navy - the land men also did the devil knows that, that’s how they robbed the country under the specious pretext “This is necessary to protect the Fatherland”. As a result, we lost the USSR, but not everyone wants to admit that indefatigable 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. VALENTIN-37 19 January 2020 10: 55 New
          • 0
          • 0
          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 19 January 2020 11: 59 New
            • 1
            • 0
            +1
            Quote: VALENTIN-37
            Is this a concern? Then yes.....

            Why wonder? After the admiral gave the first interview, he was very persistently recommended: America is 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, the Amy also “flew” to the Moon ... True, the lunar soil, the video cassettes mysteriously disappeared somewhere ... J. Kubrick before his death presented evidence of the lunar linden. But even this is “God's dew” for the Yankees: - They used the Pavilion, because all the filming on the Moon did not work ...- But what about the radiation? After Karman’s belt, does she completely kill all living things? - the unbelievers cried out ...- So we are exceptional !!! - the answer followed. - And where did the miracle rocket engines go? And then you have to buy them from a gas station! - the witnesses of the apocalypse did not relent ... 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. VALENTIN-37 19 January 2020 13: 02 New
              • 0
              • 0
              0
              We talked with you, though I was under a different NICK.
              And they read my story about the KVF and Pacific Fleet submarines. ("Anti-submarine warfare. 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. VALENTIN-37 19 January 2020 10: 49 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    after death
    There has never been such a thing. Neither your definition nor fact. laughing
  • sentaniel 25 February 2020 13: 39 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    In the spring of 2015, they already tried to use it.
  • shinobi 15 January 2020 06: 41 New
    • 5
    • 3
    +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 is “guard! Chef hasn’t gone!” 35 years later everything is the same. Never USA attack when there is a chance to get in the answer is on the teeth. Moreover, now this probability is 100%. There will be no winners in a nuclear war. Before the missile mines beyond the Urals and Siberia, the United States is not reached in any situation, and there are enough missiles to cause irreparable damage in excess. What has our fleet is armed only with a few people who know it for sure. The number of tactical (up to 25 kt inclusive) nuclear weapons is only approximately, the number is constantly changing due to replacing obsolete warheads with modern modular ones. It can be installed on any carrier suitable for TTX. The Yankees can bluff and puff at least until they turn blue, they’re afraid not of them, but of our “elite." Someone I would like to repress with confiscation somewhere in Magadan without the right to correspond. Together with their "golden children".
    1. Vladimir_2U 15 January 2020 07: 22 New
      • 4
      • 2
      +2
      Quote: shinobi
      That's 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 is “guard! Chef has lost!” 35 years later, the same thing.
      Interestingly, do you blame Stalin for the surprise attack of Germany in 1941?
      1. ser56 15 January 2020 13: 53 New
        • 2
        • 3
        -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 15 January 2020 13: 54 New
          • 0
          • 1
          -1
          Quote: ser56
          Wives

          price ... one copy ... repeat
        2. Vladimir_2U 15 January 2020 16: 34 New
          • 0
          • 0
          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
          That's 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 is “guard! Chef has lost!” 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 about Germany and its "prudence" and "the impossibility of a war on two fronts" for Germany and broadcast in the early 40's. 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 15 January 2020 16: 58 New
            • 2
            • 1
            +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 15 January 2020 17: 01 New
              • 0
              • 1
              -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 15 January 2020 17: 58 New
                • 1
                • 1
                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 17 January 2020 12: 49 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        Yes and no. And Koba, what’s the side here? Let’s explain the thought. Yankee is a rabble of emigrants without a single story and has not changed much over the past 300 years. I would even say it’s worse than at the time of mastering. If you discard beautiful words, then all their personal ideology boils down to the simple “My shirt is closer to my body. My hut from the edge, I don’t know anything.” The United States won’t win any of the many wars on its own. And they are immediately blown away where the dollar isn’t has power and the population is ready to tear the Yankees with their teeth. The closest example from the last Korea. Germany is a completely different conversation. It was based on mono-ethnic states with common Germanic roots having a centuries-old history of self-identity since the Roman conquest. A Roman group is shorter for which the nation and state are not empty This is precisely why the Yankees are trying to instill multiculturalism in Europe and flood immigrants of all kinds in Europe, and this was possible in the EU, thereby turning the national monolith into a motley Orphanous mass. If you do not take harsh, if not cruel measures, after 10-15 years the inside of the war will flare up there, similar to the Middle East. It’s not for nothing that the Yankees bring their obsolete weapons there, they will fight with what. It also hooks us like neighbors.
    2. Nyrobsky 15 January 2020 09: 53 New
      • 6
      • 1
      +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 is “guard! Chef hasn’t gone!” 35 years later everything is the same. Never USA attack when there is a chance to get in the answer is tough. Moreover, now this probability is 100%. There will be no winners in a nuclear war.

      The value of the article is not only that it would be “terrifying”, but also that many “believers” in friendship with the United States would cease to have the illusion that it is possible to come to an agreement 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”, but “partners”. In the coffin, I saw such partners. Thanks to the author for the article.
      1. ser56 15 January 2020 13: 55 New
        • 3
        • 1
        +2
        Quote: Nyrobsky
        otherwise we are all “partners”, but “partners”. In the coffin I saw such partners

        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 15 January 2020 14: 43 New
          • 3
          • 0
          +3
          Quote: ser56
          Quote: Nyrobsky
          otherwise we are all “partners”, but “partners”. In the coffin I saw such partners

          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 15 January 2020 15: 41 New
            • 2
            • 1
            +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 16 January 2020 02: 08 New
        • 3
        • 0
        +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 16 February 2020 22: 33 New
      • 0
      • 1
      -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 17 February 2020 07: 09 New
        • 0
        • 0
        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 15 January 2020 07: 01 New
    • 1
    • 8
    -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 these are "spy 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 on various concepts of nuclear war. One of McNamara’s initial postulates was to reduce US losses by striking at strategic means of the USSR. After calculating the possible number of missiles that both sides can launch in three to five years, American strategists have come to recognize the situation of "mutual guaranteed 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 "all-crawler"
    1. Vladimir_2U 15 January 2020 07: 20 New
      • 4
      • 3
      +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 15 January 2020 07: 35 New
    • 4
    • 2
    +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.
    It’s the same with modern Russia. Why attack her when she withdraws money for the West. The essence of Western policy towards Russia is to wait for it to eat up all Soviet reserves and finally turn from a “post-Soviet” country into a “democratic” country. Moreover, as it weakens, the degree of pressure is slowly growing and pressure objects are approaching the Russian Federation. That is, this strategy of cooking a frog over low heat, it does not at all involve any real nuclear wars. It is assumed that the Russian Federation will surrender 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 15 January 2020 08: 13 New
      • 2
      • 11
      -9
      Quote: Odyssey
      Why attack her when she herself withdraws money for the West.

      Putin is a peacemaker.

      Elegant concept.
    2. verp19 15 January 2020 13: 17 New
      • 0
      • 1
      -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 15 January 2020 09: 49 New
    • 5
    • 5
    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;
    - Poseidon type anti-aircraft weapons with a 100-MT warhead, causing guaranteed damage to the enemy, regardless of the presence of his 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 15 January 2020 13: 57 New
      • 1
      • 1
      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 15 January 2020 14: 06 New
        • 4
        • 1
        +3
        Quote: ser56
        they didn’t bother with this

        But in vain - no one has canceled a massive nuclear missile strike "at the appointed time" (in case of a threat to the existence of the Russian Federation according to the current military doctrine).
        1. ser56 15 January 2020 15: 14 New
          • 0
          • 1
          -1
          Quote: Operator
          And in vain

          I think not, somehow neither the USSR nor the Russian Federation are ready for this ...
          1. Operator 15 January 2020 15: 21 New
            • 5
            • 2
            +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 16 January 2020 02: 24 New
            • 3
            • 0
            +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 "strategic nuclear strike" ... And what is in the "red folder" for a special period - "there is a great secret!" (C).
            1. ser56 16 January 2020 13: 26 New
              • 0
              • 1
              -1
              Quote: BoA 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 16 January 2020 14: 15 New
                • 1
                • 0
                +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 ordered the troops of frontier military forces to be brought into the command and control regiment. How this order was executed by the National High School and the commanders of VO - you probably know. But the political attitude of "not succumbing to provocation" played a 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 Fuhrer (the plane specially arrived with Adik’s personal message) that Germany was not going to attack the USSR, and that the troops were concentrating to land 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 16 January 2020 15: 57 New
                  • 0
                  • 1
                  -1
                  Quote: BoA 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 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 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 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 15 January 2020 17: 07 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      I think that you are fighting for Poseidons,
      Quote: Operator
      Poseidon type anti-aircraft guns with a 100-MT warhead inflicting guaranteed damage to the enemy, regardless of the presence of 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 argument is clear to me, although with the words “decapitating / disarming strike” you got excited, how can you behead, and especially disarm, the USA with coastal explosions? But as a weapon of retaliation, yes.
      1. Operator 15 January 2020 18: 44 New
        • 3
        • 4
        -1
        You are right: it’s really impossible to disarm the United States, but to decapitate using sea-launched Zircons (a flight time of 6 minutes) and the Poseidon anti-aircraft bombardment (floating time 6 minutes from the borders of the United States Territory) without nuclear problems.
        1. Boa kaa 16 January 2020 02: 32 New
          • 2
          • 0
          +2
          Quote: Operator
          to decapitate with the help of nuclear strikes against Washington by sea-based Zircons (flight time 6 minutes) and the Poseidon NPA (swim time 6 minutes from the borders of the United States) - 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 16 January 2020 11: 11 New
            • 2
            • 3
            -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 Sorbat suborbital modification with a monoblock warhead is designed to hit targets at a maximum range of up to 20000 km. Orbital nuclear weapons are prohibited by the relevant treaty.
            1. Boa kaa 16 January 2020 11: 38 New
              • 1
              • 1
              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 16 January 2020 11: 45 New
                • 2
                • 1
                +1
                I have already noted that any ammunition placed in low Earth orbit loses according to flight time, ground and sea ammunition. For example, the flight time of an ammunition located in orbit at “D” per hour above the chosen target is at least 30 minutes, and the flight time of the Zircon starting from ICAPL off the coast of North America is 6 minutes.

                The flight time of ammunition located in orbits, passing at the hour "D" above the selected target, is 12-24 hours.
                1. The comment was deleted.
                2. Boa kaa 16 January 2020 16: 31 New
                  • 1
                  • 0
                  +1
                  Quote: Operator
                  the flight time of the ammunition located in orbit at the hour "D" passing over the chosen target is at least 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.
                  Do not believe? Then type in “the time of the orbital strike of ICBMs” in Gug - and you will find the truth. hi
                  1. Operator 16 January 2020 17: 00 New
                    • 3
                    • 3
                    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 the case is the Sorbat suborbital ICBM - an aluminum construction worked out in the USSR, rests in warmth and comfort in the mine under the protection of the head, KAZ Mozyr and S-500 (in the future), is cared for and cherished by ground personnel, in any the moment of time is ready to achieve any goal on the earth’s surface with a minute readiness for launch and 30-60 minutes of flight time, resistance to enemy countermeasures is provided by fiber-optic underground communication lines, a short active section of the rocket’s trajectory, and a stealth-coated BB made of metamaterial with negative angle of reflection of electromagnetic radiation in space, as well as controlled anti-aircraft BB maneuver on the descent in the atmosphere.

                    Quiet, smooth surface and God's grace bully
                  2. ccsr 16 January 2020 18: 20 New
                    • 1
                    • 1
                    0
                    Quote: BoA 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 16 January 2020 13: 08 New
              • 1
              • 1
              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 that you misunderstood him, because the “decapitation blow” 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 stay in the bunker for a couple of years.
  • smaug78 15 January 2020 11: 13 New
    • 3
    • 1
    +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 15 January 2020 14: 42 New
      • 3
      • 0
      +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 15 January 2020 15: 15 New
        • 5
        • 5
        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, Humpbacked once again betrayed the interests of the USSR and signed the American version of the land-based RSD agreement (together with the RMD). At the same time, US sea-based RSDs were completely removed from the treaty and subsequently increased quantitatively as the Arly Burke destroyers with universal silo launchers were put into operation.
  • Old26 15 January 2020 13: 43 New
    • 5
    • 2
    +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 the tests 21.09.1974/31.08.1976/396. In service - from 33/43/XNUMX (XNUMX missile regiment XNUMX missile division of XNUMX missile army. The commander of the regiment is Doronin A.G.).
    • "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 in response to whose deployment did it start?
    1. g1washntwn 15 January 2020 14: 47 New
      • 3
      • 1
      +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 15 January 2020 13: 46 New
    • 1
    • 1
    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 15 January 2020 14: 51 New
      • 0
      • 0
      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 15 January 2020 13: 55 New
    • 1
    • 2
    -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 15 January 2020 14: 00 New
      • 1
      • 1
      0
      Quote: ccsr
      There is one fundamental clarification that must be understood in order to correctly assess the situation.


      Called "nuclear winter." Planet Earth will become too uncomfortable for the victors to live.
      1. Operator 15 January 2020 14: 42 New
        • 5
        • 3
        +2
        “Is there life on Mars [that is, nuclear winter], is there life on Mars - this is unknown 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 15 January 2020 16: 03 New
          • 2
          • 1
          +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 15 January 2020 16: 25 New
            • 5
            • 2
            +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 don’t have to “charge” that the West will certainly start a war against Russia, it is enough for me that the West knows its consequences for itself.
            1. verp19 15 January 2020 18: 01 New
              • 2
              • 10
              -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 15 January 2020 19: 46 New
                • 9
                • 1
                +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. VALENTIN-37 16 January 2020 11: 59 New
                  • 0
                  • 1
                  -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 16 January 2020 12: 01 New
                    • 2
                    • 1
                    +1
                    In fact, the Russian Land with its capital in Novgorod, according to the Tale of Bygone Years from 862.
                    1. VALENTIN-37 16 January 2020 13: 32 New
                      • 1
                      • 0
                      +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 16 January 2020 12: 43 New
                  • 0
                  • 1
                  -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 - Baltic States, Western suburbs, Bukovina - to get "Suddenness 22.06.41/XNUMX/XNUMX."
                  Bonus - Eastern Europe - the result of 1991.

                  Pretty bonuses you have.
                  1. Operator 16 January 2020 12: 54 New
                    • 3
                    • 3
                    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.

                    "There will be a squirrel for you, there will be a whistle", - after applying the above, bully
                    1. verp19 16 January 2020 15: 04 New
                      • 1
                      • 4
                      -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 16 January 2020 15: 13 New
                        • 3
                        • 3
                        0
                        Do not worry about us - do your own.
                      2. verp19 16 January 2020 15: 30 New
                        • 1
                        • 3
                        -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.

                        Do you even realize what you said above? I haven’t noticed a drop of compassion for you either. "
                        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 16 January 2020 15: 47 New
                        • 4
                        • 1
                        +3
                        Quote: verp19
                        We worry

                        Why worry? Russia is not engaged in a "world proletarian revolution," it 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 UN 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 16 January 2020 16: 16 New
                        • 0
                        • 1
                        -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 16 January 2020 16: 18 New
                        • 2
                        • 2
                        0
                        Well then do not exact, we will fully realize the US international principles.
                      6. verp19 16 January 2020 16: 32 New
                        • 1
                        • 0
                        +1
                        Quote: Operator
                        Well then do not exact


                        Those. For you, Russia and the United States are the same?
                      7. Operator 16 January 2020 17: 05 New
                        • 3
                        • 3
                        0
                        "To live with wolves - howl like a wolf" (C)

                        My condolences.
  • Charik 15 January 2020 21: 15 New
    • 5
    • 0
    +5
    Uncle you fucked up, Europe itself every 50-100 years gathers in a heap and crawls to Russia and gets tinsel
    1. verp19 16 January 2020 12: 38 New
      • 0
      • 3
      -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:

      “The Kremlin’s manic point of view on international relations was based on a traditional and instinctive sense of insecurity for Russia. Initially, it was a sense of insecurity of agrarian peoples living in vast open territories adjacent to ferocious nomads. As contacts were made with the more economically developed West, this feeling fear increased for a more competent, more powerful, more organized community on this territory, but this insecurity inspired fears rather for the Russian rulers and not for the Russian people, because the Russian rulers realized the archaic form of their government, the weakness and artificiality of their psychological organization, the inability to make comparisons or getting into contact with the political systems of Western countries, for this reason they always feared foreign invasion, avoided direct contact between the Western world and their own, were afraid of what could happen if the Russian people learns 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 competing 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 constant co-existence with the United States is impossible, that the destruction of the internal 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 security of the Soviet government. This political force, completely subjugating the energy of one of the greatest peoples of the world 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 apparatus that has widely spread its influence to implement its policy in other countries, the apparatus is surprisingly flexible and versatile, it is controlled by people whose experience and underground work skills have no analogues in history. Finally, the reaction of this force in reality cannot be predicted. for her, a huge supply of objective facts regarding human society is not a criterion by which the worldview is constantly being checked and adjusted, but just a fair bag from which individual objects are randomly or purposefully pulled out to confirm an already predetermined worldview. Admittedly, this is an unpleasant situation. We are faced with the most difficult task of finding a way to control this force. Our diplomacy has not yet encountered problems of such complexity and, I dare to assume, is unlikely to encounter in the future. This should be the starting point of the work of our general political headquarters at the moment. This should be approached with the same thoroughness and interest as the solution of the main strategic problems during the war, and, if necessary, with the same material costs. I dare not offer ready-made answers here. But I would like to express my conviction that it is in our power to solve this problem without resorting to a general military conflict ... "
      1. Charik 16 January 2020 12: 58 New
        • 2
        • 0
        +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 16 January 2020 15: 02 New
          • 0
          • 3
          -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 Vladimir Ilyich Lenin All-Union Pioneer Organization, solemnly promise in the face of my comrades: to love my Motherland passionately. To live, study and fight, as the great Lenin bequeathed, as the Communist Party teaches. It is sacred to observe the Laws of Pioneers 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 16 January 2020 15: 21 New
          • 0
          • 2
          -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 15 January 2020 20: 54 New
    • 3
    • 1
    +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 15 January 2020 23: 43 New
      • 2
      • 0
      +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 16 January 2020 12: 41 New
        • 2
        • 1
        +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 16 January 2020 21: 28 New
          • 3
          • 1
          +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 17 January 2020 12: 07 New
            • 2
            • 0
            +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 hung everyone’s ears, because by definition there could be no "limited nuclear war" between the USA and the USSR. And all military experts understood this, but politicians would only have to grind something with their tongues.
            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 17 January 2020 14: 19 New
              • 2
              • 0
              +2
              Quote: ccsr
              And all military experts understood this, but politicians would only have to grind something with their tongues.

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

              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 17 January 2020 19: 15 New
                • 1
                • 0
                +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 here you come, all so beautiful, and declare that they "just to grind something with their tongue." This is 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 a discussion of strategists: "How will we conduct a nuclear war so that we do not 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 16 January 2020 00: 22 New
      • 3
      • 3
      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 16 January 2020 12: 51 New
        • 2
        • 0
        +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 New
    • 4
    • 4
    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 15 January 2020 17: 16 New
    • 0
    • 4
    -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 15 January 2020 18: 04 New
      • 1
      • 2
      -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 15 January 2020 18: 20 New
      • 3
      • 3
      0
      "in a real war, usual means will probably still be involved" ///
      ---
      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 16 January 2020 02: 58 New
      • 2
      • 1
      +1
      Quote: Tonya
      in a real war, conventional means will probably be involved.

      If there is a "real war", then the "usual means" will surely be a fuse for nuclear weapons. First - tactical, and then strategic ... according to the schedule of the exponent to the power of N!
      1. ccsr 16 January 2020 13: 14 New
        • 2
        • 1
        +1
        Quote: BoA 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 16 January 2020 13: 54 New
          • 2
          • 0
          +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 even allows the transfer of rkksn to "combat position" without the manipulation of the calculation (CBD missile). So it’s under water. It’s even hard to imagine what is on land ...
          Thus, surprise will be provided. The ranges and characteristics of our SBP carriers allow this ...
          And so that all “cockroaches” are not destroyed with one “slipper”, the enemy will have to disperse his forces. Concentration of forces in the direction of the main strike will no longer work (under the threat of a sneaker!). The truth is now it has become fashionable to "concentrate the OS traces of the defeat at the breakthrough site ... But who will go into this breakthrough after the YaU? Abrams and Bradley or what?
          But it is, thinking about the possible ...
          hi
          1. ccsr 16 January 2020 14: 11 New
            • 1
            • 0
            +1
            Quote: BoA 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 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 16 January 2020 14: 24 New
              • 1
              • 0
              +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 Mopasan said!
              1. ccsr 16 January 2020 18: 08 New
                • 1
                • 1
                0
                Quote: BoA 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 15 January 2020 18: 05 New
    • 0
    • 0
    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 15 January 2020 18: 45 New
    • 2
    • 1
    +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 the Tomahawks. Only about Pershing 2
    "Pershing-1A" were adopted in 1969. Completely previous Pershing-1 missiles in the FRG were replaced by 1971.
    As for the Tomahawks. then physically they could not be put on duty in Germany in 1969. The first launch as part of flight tests was 13.02.1976. Flight tests were completed on July 26.07.1982, 1982. In Europe, the tomahawks in the Griffon version were 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 16 January 2020 13: 27 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +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 15 January 2020 20: 14 New
    • 3
    • 2
    +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 15 January 2020 20: 20 New
    • 0
    • 2
    -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 15 January 2020 21: 10 New
    • 2
    • 0
    +2
    And GDP said that we have the best nuclear weapons tongue
  • Astronaut 16 January 2020 01: 26 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    and maybe less than five minutes

    and possibly less than 1 second wassat
  • Old26 16 January 2020 10: 19 New
    • 2
    • 0
    +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.
  • VALENTIN-37 16 January 2020 11: 56 New
    • 0
    • 2
    -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
    The war in the process "process" and the smart navigator
    http://samlib.ru/editors/s/semenow_aleksandr_sergeewich333/war.shtml

    [/ Center]
  • Operator 16 January 2020 13: 21 New
    • 2
    • 2
    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 complex - but, for example, the USSR, behind the Iron Curtain, decided it: according to the Ustinov’s plan (canceled by Gorbachev), “Speed” missile systems, medium-range ballistic missiles with a flat path, were to be placed on the territory of the German Democratic Republic and Czechoslovakia The flights were intended to destroy the Pershingov-2 launchers during their prelaunch preparation and launch. As "sensors", GRU reconnaissance groups of the General Staff of the USSR Armed Forces were used directly in the locations of Pershing-2.

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

    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 16 January 2020 18: 49 New
      • 1
      • 1
      0
      Quote: Operator
      were intended to destroy the Pershing-2 launchers during their prelaunch preparation and withdrawal to launch positions. As "sensors", GRU reconnaissance groups of the General Staff of the USSR Armed Forces were used 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
      “Speed” mobile missile systems were 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, reconnaissance groups of the Main Directorate of the General Staff of the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation (represented by the Petrov and Boshirovs) will make it even easier to approach the places of deployment of future US infantry reconnaissance vehicles at a distance of no more than 1 km and to fix / not to fix the neutron flux from the warheads of the missiles.

      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.
      Here is what experts wrote about NATO initiatives almost thirty years ago:
      1. Operator 16 January 2020 19: 37 New
        • 2
        • 2
        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 16 January 2020 20: 06 New
          • 2
          • 0
          +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 16 January 2020 20: 46 New
            • 2
            • 1
            +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 17 January 2020 11: 54 New
              • 1
              • 0
              +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 "(convention, convention + TNW, convention + TNW + SNF);"throw in the basket, because only SNF will be used.
  • Operator 16 January 2020 13: 25 New
    • 3
    • 3
    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 16 January 2020 20: 13 New
      • 2
      • 0
      +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 can only say that there was the chief of the General Staff, Kvashnin, who "justified" the closure of Lourdes with the fact that our orbital group allows us to abandon this base and announced this to the whole world. None of the experts expected such a fool from him - so understand what he had in his head then, and how to understand the "indescribable thoughts of the leadership" if the question of opening this base again now became.
  • Operator 16 January 2020 14: 14 New
    • 3
    • 3
    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 the deadline,
    There will be a squirrel for you, and a whistle "(C)
  • Old26 16 January 2020 15: 39 New
    • 4
    • 1
    +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 the Pioneer was to blame. And he was never the answer to Pershing 1. Pershing-1 is an operational tactical missile. According to the classification of the agreement on the INF Treaty, a shorter-range missile. And the Pioneer is a medium-range missile.
    There is such a term as planning. Redstone missiles were replaced first with Pershing-1, and then with Pershing-1A. In the same way, we replaced the R-12 and R-14, the old medium-range missiles, with the “Pioneer”. The United States didn’t have medium-range missiles in Europe at the beginning of the 80s. And we like it or not, but it’s Pershing- 2 "and" Griffon "became the American response to the deployment of" Pioneer ", and not vice versa ...
    The analogue of Pershing-1A was the Temp-S complex. And the range is about the same, and the deployment time, too.
    1. ccsr 16 January 2020 19: 00 New
      • 2
      • 1
      +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 United States, 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 attacking our territory, although it had a shorter range than our Pioneer. So if we placed the “Pioneers” in Cuba, I would still believe in your version, and so it looks far-fetched.
      Quote: Old26
      The analogue of Pershing-1A was the Temp-S complex. And the range is about the same, and the deployment time, too.

      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 16 January 2020 19: 22 New
    • 4
    • 1
    +3
    Quote: ccsr
    This is a clear distortion, because the Pioneer could not reach the United States, 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 attacking our territory, although it had a shorter range than our Pioneer. So if we placed the “Pioneers” in Cuba, I would still believe in your version, and so it looks far-fetched.

    Kamrad! I know very well that the "Pioneer" from Europe did not reach the United States. And in the 80s this weapon had its own designation - Euro-strategic. I try to say only one thing. Without all these political and ideological equivocations. The deployment of Pershing 2 and Tomahawks in Europe was
    IN RESPONSE TO THE DEPLOYMENT BY US OF "PIONEERS"

    And the deployment of Pershing 2 "and" Tomahawks " 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 Pershing 2 and Griffon in response to our Pioneers, and not vice versa. So there is no distortion. I repeat, I do not touch 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?

    Oh guys, you seem like a big brak. I’m talking about the technical side, about the technical counterpart. And the fact that Tempi-S didn’t get anywhere - I know this very well. As a result, they were even removed from the Strategic Missile Forces and transferred to the Ground Forces
  • Operator 17 January 2020 13: 15 New
    • 3
    • 3
    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 what I’m talking about when I describe the consequences of the implementation of my beloved Russophobic horror story - like, many, many American Pershing / Axes will arrive and will 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 prefer “total damage” (to NATO military installations in the event of a local conflict in Europe and the entire military and civilian infrastructure of NATO, Japan, South Korea and the Persian Gulf countries in the event of a global conflict in Europe, America and Asia).
  • Tolik_74 19 January 2020 21: 00 New
    • 0
    • 1
    -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 20 January 2020 02: 46 New
    • 0
    • 2
    -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 14 February 2020 11: 26 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +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 22 January 2020 14: 51 New
    • 0
    • 0
    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 24 January 2020 01: 56 New
    • 1
    • 2
    -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.
    Meanwhile, the story is despicable. At one time, Turkey made the right choice and did not fit into World War II 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 say tacit thanks to these guys for not putting 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 the logic. But in practice - the main dove of the world - Joseph Vissarionovich, who does not have nuclear weapons (in contrast to the bloody American imperialists) began to bullishly figuratively express himself after Turkey. It was not very aesthetically pleasing, but it also frightened the Turks, who didn’t want at all that, like in Latvia or Estonia or Poland, they would “suddenly” have a host of communists demanding change with a claim to power. As a result, Turkey pulled into NATO, as a result, the ill-fated missiles, etc., etc. were found there.

    Why am I doing all this? Moreover, all this lamp nonsense about the "Dropshots" and the imperialists who want to bury the USSR in the nuclear ashes should be thrown out of their heads. From 1945 to 1949 the USSR did not have nuclear weapons. Allies in eastern Europe (thoroughly disrupted by the war and well-knocked out dem.potential) - to put it mildly, say this to yourself for many more years. Moreover, having tasted the cast iron from the Iron Curtain - a significant proportion of the population of Hungary / Czechoslovakia / Poland / East Germany would have harnessed themselves against the "American liberators", think about pulling cocoa and cud to Moscow. Let us be realistic — we have not dragged our collective farm orders and sympathies into these countries (this, 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 20 March 2020 17: 41 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    I don’t know who ordered this article for you (or rather, "vyser" ... Guys, with your permission - I’ll insert quotes ... Tomahawk cruise missiles (CR) became the other weapons deployed by the USA in Europe. ballistic missiles, the Tomahawk missiles couldn’t boast of short flying times, their advantage was stealth launch, as a result of which they wouldn’t be detected by a missile attack warning system (SPRN), a low-altitude flight path with an envelope around the terrain, making it difficult to detect the Tomahawk missiles »Means of air defense (air defense) of the USSR, as well as a fairly high accuracy of hit, with an air defense 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 end of the quote .... Yeah, right now ... Suck the banana through your pocket - and what else to advise ... We found the "cure" for the "axes" back in 78 and confirmed in 79 ... "Dal-78" and Soyuz-79 (don’t google it - you won’t find it ... At best, you’ll go out to 79 Guards ZRD ... disbanded by General Stool ...
  • Dingo 20 March 2020 18: 09 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    I am embarrassed to ask - who-thread really sat behind the screen? One thread REALLY saw the debris falling ... Someone really "pointed" the pair into the "front hemisphere" ..... into the "back hemisphere" ... Someone really heard in the headset - how does the pilot swear? (We, the ACS operators, THIS CHANNEL was DISABLED ... correctly, probably ... And it was enough ... But in the objective control trailer they also let me see my "guidance" - and the "promise" of the "pilot" .. to go over the sound "over our "pieces of iron? ...." Sofa "this does not understand ...
  • Dingo 20 March 2020 18: 30 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    I read "smart" comments here ... Tell me honestly? Don’t be offended? (Men don’t "take offense) ... Suck a banana on your couch ... Yeah? And we really like a thread without you ... We will deal with yours, such as" partners "...
  • Dingo 20 March 2020 19: 01 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    On Soyuz-79 ... In the same place, in Sary-Shagan ... We are sitting with the guys on the "corrugation" (these are pipes from the air conditioner .. Four in the corners of the trailer from one end - the same thing - from the other end. .. Wet, dirty, sweaty ... We smoke (cigarettes "shot" at Mr. Akchurin, our com-corps, 3, Yaroslavsky (disbanded by "stool" ... By "loud" - 46th - KP .. take it for escort ...... We took it ... low-altitude .. We spent it ... we planted it ... Type- "turntable" .. We smoke further ... Silence is some ... not good ...
  • Dingo 20 March 2020 20: 58 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    So it is ... A group of foreign officers .. (hid their own somewhere) ... In the field - and without insignia ... (Mr. Dobrovolsky parrot guided the tour .. until at 46 I did not look "in the light" ... Yurka, on 5 IPs, the light was made on the screen ... And the one was pointing ... Well, that one shoved him in the chest ...- which one (mat ....) ... Then somewhere disappeared ... and he - and excursions .. I - about the parrot general from the Kremlin VO ... So, the nuance ... They came up .. I get up ... (yes FIG knows who this is ... trying to fasten and find the cap under the belt ... interfered when the headset was on my head at work ...) ... - "Yes, sit down, sergeant ... yours? .. That's right - mine ... Calculation Commander Sergeant K .... OV ... - Thank you for your service, sergeant! And you guys ... Can’t even imagine what you did ... Thank you ... I extended my hand - I shook ... what to answer, eh? "Serving the Soviet Union "? Wet, sweaty, unbuttoned to the navel ... I just threw my hand at the cap (as they taught in the Yelets training school) ... I grinned - I put my hand to my cap ... Then my commander, Mr. N. Kabirov -" Vit ka, do you even know who it was? Why, N .... Sa .... ich? Yes Koldunov! ... (Commander of the Air Defense, Air Marshal) ... So, emotions and memories ... Then, next to us (and the complex worked at that time, that really worked and the pilots in the guidance were real (Yacht -6 ... well, forgive me, brother ... I did not see you in the locals ... Yes, and this "Krm led only by extrapolation ... Sorry ..) performed his tasks" Volkhov-M6 "... Now - St. 300 ...
  • Dingo 20 March 2020 21: 33 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Who really was not sitting on the couch .. But in the cabs and trailers ... Who was holding his hand not on the joystick - but on the "joystick" ... 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 20 March 2020 22: 18 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    .... Quote- "..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 goals. Thus, there was a likelihood that the launch of the Tomahawk CR would go unnoticed. " - the end of the quote ... does the author really believe in this nonsense? Too shy to ask ... In these pictures, graphics, eh? Well, let him believe ... or just work out the loot of customers ... We wait and see ... We survive - we find out ... We survive - we draw conclusions ... And we laugh .... But the one who laughs LAST is laughing well ... NU-NU (not translatable) ...
  • Dingo 20 March 2020 22: 33 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Quote - "... 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 the withdrawal of Soviet missiles from Cuba, and the American JBFB “Jupiter” from Turkey. - the end of the quote ... But with you, tramps (let those who understand forgive me) - it’s impossible otherwise ... Well, you don’t understand normal, human words ... For now in the face you won’t get ... And Russia is to blame for this? Have you taken offense? Really? Is it grief .....
  • Dingo 20 March 2020 23: 33 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Quotation ...- "... Of organizational methods,“ buildup ”can be applied - creating a series of threatened situations that the Russian Federation can consider as preparation for an attack, but stopping them at a certain stage. The task is to make such situations familiar and raise the threshold "use of nuclear weapons. In terms of meaning, it’s like giving a false alarm at a military base every other day, and in a month no one will pay attention to it." conc quote. author - are you oligophrenic? Too shy to ask. Do you even understand what you're talking about, huh? Do you understand the Russian mentality? Not? Guys, can I explain to the "especially gifted" ...?
    There’s a car in the yard ... The signaling worked .. Disconnected - so that it wouldn’t bother the neighbors ... The Russian soul ... It worked again - turned it off - BUT .... He took an ax (hammer, bat ... whatever) - and you go out into the courtyard .... Further - as God willing ... Eh ... You don’t fuck Russian (horseradish is such a plant .. It grows in dachas and gardens .. is used as seasoning ...) you don’t know. .. They’re hurt - it’s not enough ... Well, we aren’t “tolerant” ... By the way ... About tolerance ... If someone didn’t 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 gradual inhibition of toxic substances of the body's immune system, leading to apathy and indifference. Complete tolerance is death ... Angela, a pioneer, originally from the GDR, HAS NOT BEEN CONSIDERED THIS yet? No, I’m not gloating ... I sympathize .. Although my dad also came disabled from that war ...