Military Review

What can it be? Nuclear war scenarios

217

Can you even understand what the next war might be like? How reliably did the leaders of states and military leaders imagine what the First World War or the Second World War (WWII) would look like, and how did their predictions coincide with reality during the conduct of these wars?


In different historical periods, the emergence of new weapons caused a kind of euphoria, which led to the birth of theories about the need for a significant bias in favor of one or another type of weapon. Suffice it to recall the doctrine of General Giulio Douet, who assumed that the war could only be won aviation, and intended exclusively for bombing peaceful cities, while it was proposed to abandon front-line aviation, air defense fighters and anti-aircraft artillery in principle.

What can it be? Nuclear war scenarios

The Douai doctrine assumed that bombers were to become the main weapon, to the detriment of other types of weapons.

In the real world, it turned out that bombing alone is unlikely to break the enemy's resistance and you can "bomb" until the moment when Tanks the enemy, supported by fighters and attack aircraft, will roll onto your airfields.

Sometimes the emergence of new forecasts and doctrines is facilitated by a change in the geopolitical situation, as in the case of the United States in the 90s of the XX century, in which, after the collapse of the USSR, the prevailing opinion was that the United States no longer had major geopolitical adversaries and in the development of weapons it was necessary to focus more on conducting local conflicts - in fact, colonial wars with an obviously weaker enemy. During this period, the United States actively experimented in the field of weapons, which led to the emergence of some specific types of weapons.


Ships Littoral combat ship (LCS) - American ugly ducklings fleet

As if already at that time it was not clear that China had “sunk the pedal to the floor,” and Russia many times presented surprises to those who wished for its final collapse and degradation. However, the awareness of reality partly returned with the arrival of President D. Trump: for the first time since the Cold War, the possibility of confrontation between the great powers in the format of a “big war” returns to the US military doctrine.
So what kind of military conflicts can Russia be involved in?

Nuclear war



There are diametrically opposed opinions regarding nuclear weapons... Some believe that nuclear weapons are practically useless, since, except for Hiroshima and Nagasaki, they have not been used anywhere else, and it is necessary to maximize the development of conventional forces, leaving a limited number of nuclear charges "just in case." Others believe that in the presence of nuclear weapons, general-purpose forces are needed only for conducting counter-guerrilla actions, and in the event of a conflict with a developed power, nuclear weapons, at least tactical, should be immediately used.

Obviously, the truth lies somewhere in between. On the one hand, it is precisely nuclear weapons that prevent potential adversaries from starting a war against Russia, most likely already “yesterday”. Even now, if the Russian Federation did not have nuclear weapons, military provocations with violation of borders would be an integral part of our reality.


Nuclear arsenals of the countries of the world

As weak or corrupt as the country's leadership may be, it is unlikely that it will want to share the fate of Saddam Hussein or Muammar Gaddafi. Even the first president of Russia B.N. Yeltsin, despite all the concessions to Western countries, clearly did not want to be left without nuclear weapons, which can now be viewed as "the last argument of kings."

Realizing the importance of nuclear weapons, a potential adversary will always look for an opportunity to neutralize our nuclear potential, as with the help promising systems for delivering a sudden disarming strikeand with the help global ballistic missile defense (missile defense).

It is necessary to clearly understand that in the current historical period Russia is unable to create conventional forces capable of withstanding the combined forces of the NATO bloc in a non-nuclear conflict. That is, if the enemy successfully delivers a sudden disarming strike, the subsequent resistance of the conventional armed forces of the Russian Federation is likely to be broken.


The balance of forces between Russia and NATO

An increase in the proportion of the urban population and its dependence on communal infrastructure will allow the United States and its allies to shoot Russian cities in accordance with the aforementioned Douai doctrine. It is far from a fact that the population of the Russian Federation, and most other developed countries, will agree to endure hardships for many years in order to preserve territorial integrity, for example, to preserve the Crimea, the Kuril Islands or Kaliningrad, if such requirements are a formal reason for war.


The decommissioning of large power plants will lead to catastrophic consequences for the population and industry of any developed country.

Possible scenarios of a nuclear war


Three potentially possible scenarios for a nuclear war involving the Russian Federation can be assumed:

1. A global nuclear war, when there is a full-fledged exchange of strikes between the United States and Russia, at the same time goes to the rest of the world.

2. A limited nuclear war with the United States or another country (coalition of countries), when nuclear warheads are used, for example, only at foreign or remote military bases, against the fleet and aviation located in neutral waters (airspace). May precede scenario # 1.

3. A limited nuclear war, in which the Russian Federation delivers a sudden disarming strike against an enemy with an insignificant nuclear arsenal and threatening to use it against Russia.

In all other scenarios, the use of nuclear weapons by our country is unlikely. Even in the event of a serious conflict with a sufficiently strong country, for example, with Japan over the Kuril Islands or Turkey for whatever, we will not be the first to strike a nuclear strike, since the political consequences and subsequent economic consequences will significantly outweigh the benefits of a quick victory. Other countries did not use nuclear weapons in a similar situation, for example, Great Britain against Argentina in the Falklands conflict, although the British had a very real chance to part with "real estate" on the other side of the planet.


The war for the Falkland Islands between Argentina and Great Britain was fought only with conventional weapons. In the photo - the burning British destroyer "Sheffield"

Why is it necessary to separate these three types of nuclear conflicts? Because each of them dictates its own requirements for the nuclear arsenal. A global conflict requires a nuclear arsenal that is highly resistant to a sudden disarming enemy strike... A limited nuclear war requires tactical nuclear weapons that can be used against the fleet and aircraft, as well as delivery vehicles that can be retargeted or canceled at any time. And the task of delivering a sudden disarming strike imposes increased requirements on the accuracy and minimization of the flight time of nuclear warheads.


Multipurpose nuclear submarines (SSNS) "Virginia" can become an effective weapon for a sudden disarming strike, provided they are equipped with a hypersonic complex Common Hypersonic Glide Body (C-HGB) with nuclear equipment


In Russia, this problem can be partially solved by the modernized project 885M SSNS with the Zircon hypersonic missiles (adjusted for the shorter range of the Zircon missiles)

How can events develop?


Let's make a reservation right away that we are not considering the option of "draining" the country by the leadership, since in this case nothing makes sense at all: neither the laying of new ships, nor the purchase of tanks and aircraft, nor the development of advanced weapons. We believe that the country's leadership is adequate, capable of making tough decisions and has the political will to carry out these decisions.

Third scenario at the moment the least real, however, it cannot be abandoned. Who is eligible for potential targets? India, Pakistan, North Korea. The fact that we now have no disagreements with them does not mean that they will not arise later. Perhaps there will be someone else, in possible candidates for the possession of a nuclear arsenal Saudi Arabia, Iran, Brazil, Colombia, Taiwan, Japan, South Korea, Egypt, Sweden. Given the historical unpredictability of the development of relations between countries, when yesterday's allies become enemies, the task of suppressing the limited nuclear arsenal of a potential adversary should be taken into account when building Russian nuclear forces.

As a possible scenario: no matter how bad the United States is as a "global gendarme", they do not want to get competitors with nuclear weapons and are actively preventing this. In 1963, when only four states had nuclear arsenals, the US government predicted that 15 to 25 states would emerge with nuclear weapons over the coming decade. Should there be a crisis in the United States comparable to the collapse of the USSR, the balance of power in the world could change significantly. The EU already, while China is still unlikely to be able to control the nonproliferation of nuclear weapons in the world, Russia has its own problems, and there is no such global influence as the USSR. The emerging "power vacuum" may lead to the birth of a couple of new nuclear powers, which will increase the likelihood of Scenario # 3 being implemented.

Second script can develop as a result of a coincidence or deliberate provocation. For example, a shootout began between Russian and American military personnel in Syria - the advantage is on our side. The US military calls in aircraft to strike at our convoy, and in response we shoot down several US aircraft, including AWACS.

If the situation does not stop there, the United States is launching a massive attack on our base in Syria, possibly sinking several ships in the Mediterranean. At this stage, we will no longer have the resources to continue hostilities without the use of tactical nuclear weapons (TNW), since the United States has several orders of magnitude more foreign bases and high-precision weapons. Direct "exchange" will lead to the complete depletion of our conventional forces, which may just be the goal of the United States.

Accordingly, at first, TNW can only be used against the US Navy, for which it makes no sense to respond symmetrically (to use TNW against our ships), since their capabilities allow us to destroy our fleet without this, but they cannot ignore the fact of an attack by TNW. Consequently, they can use TNW both against Russian military bases abroad and against remote military bases located on the territory of the Russian Federation at a great distance from large cities, while striking with conventional weapons at some important objects in the depths of the territory.

After that, the Russian SNF can begin to “close” American bases around the world, regardless of whose territory they are located on (of course, unless it is a nuclear power in itself). Possibly, nuclear strikes will be carried out symmetrically on bases in the United States with a minimum population, for example, somewhere in Alaska.

Perhaps this will be the last frontier, beyond which either the parties can stop, or the nuclear war will develop into a global one according to the first scenario.

Alternative implementation of scenario No.2 is a full-scale attack by a strong nuclear power in its classic version: ground forces, navy, aviation, with the aim of appropriating part of the territory. Something similar to what happened in the last century on Damansky Island, but several orders of magnitude more intense. Our relations with the PRC can now be described as partnership relations, and with the pressure exerted by the United States on China, they will remain so in the foreseeable future. But for all this, we must take into account not political relations, but the actual military capabilities of the PRC. In the event that the United States loses its dominant position in the world, China will quickly restore full control over Taiwan, knock Japan and other countries in the region off the disputed islands, and then, most likely, will turn its attention to us.


Comparison of the military capabilities of the United States, Russia and China

There are strong doubts that such an option can be implemented by the NATO bloc. The United States is unlikely to dare to invade on the ground without a powerful ally on the European continent. At the time of WWII, it was the USSR, but now they do not have one. The "old" Europeans are unlikely to have a desire to try again all the delights of a ground invasion of Russia, while the "Young Europeans" are physically incapable of realizing this.

The first script - global nuclear war. Contrary to popular belief, it will not lead to the death of all living things. Even humanity is likely to survive, although it will be thrown back in development for several hundred years.

A global nuclear war may be launched by the United States, believing in its ability to destroy the Russian nuclear potential with a sudden disarming strike and in the ability of the global missile defense system to stop accidentally surviving warheads. Or a global nuclear war may become a continuation of a limited nuclear war according to scenario No. 2 if, after the use of TNW, the conflicting parties cannot or do not want to stop. In theory, there is the possibility of accidentally unleashing a nuclear war due to malfunctions of missile attack warning systems (EWS), hacker attacks or something like that, especially if one of the parties is in a systemic crisis with weakened state power.

In the next article, we will consider possible scenarios of conflicts using only conventional weapons, in which the Russian Federation may be involved.
Author:
Photos used:
dw.com, naval.com.br, SiviLink.ru
217 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Svarog
    Svarog 27 July 2020 18: 08 New
    13
    In theory, there is the possibility of accidentally unleashing a nuclear war due to malfunctions of missile attack warning systems (EWS), hacker attacks or something like that, especially if one of the parties is in a systemic crisis with weakened state power.

    Theoretically, in general, everything is possible .. well, in practice .. I think this will never happen .. now there are a lot of other options to destroy the state or enslave them, and more effective ... as an example, bacteriological weapons, viruses .. Here, instead of COVID, I could maybe (theoretically) a more deadly virus .. And the aggressor country would have a vaccine .. and the whole war .. While you figure out where he came from, half of the population will die out and the economy will collapse ..
    1. Mavrikiy
      Mavrikiy 27 July 2020 18: 20 New
      +4
      Quote: Svarog
      While you figure out where he came from, half of the population will die out and the economy will collapse ..
      But you manage to press the red button and .... The result is not the same for the aggressor.
      How reliably did the leaders of states and military leaders imagine what the First World War or the Second World War (WWII) would look like, and how did their predictions coincide with reality during the conduct of these wars?
      Don't you know? The aggressors did not predict everything correctly. They say that MV was not 2, but 5. And they all did not follow the script. Including Napoleonic ones, which ended in the final defeat of Napoleon. It's the opposite in chess. Whoever walks first is guaranteed to lose. request
      1. Alf
        Alf 27 July 2020 19: 59 New
        10
        Quote: Mavrikiy
        Whoever walks first is guaranteed to lose.

        "Any offensive that does not lead to peace ends in defeat." Karl von Clausewitz.
      2. major147
        major147 27 July 2020 22: 30 New
        +6
        Quote: Mavrikiy
        But you manage to press the red button and ...

    2. The leader of the Redskins
      The leader of the Redskins 27 July 2020 20: 05 New
      +9
      For me personally, the question would be more relevant:
      "And what AFTER a nuclear war ?!"
      I advise all hotheads who threaten to use a nuclear club in case of something to watch a good film "At the Last Shore" ("On the Last Shore")
      In a nutshell - in Australia, the remnants of humanity after a nuclear war are watching a radioactive cyclone inevitably approaching them. And there is no more salvation. And no one delves into who struck first. Everyone just realizes that they are the LAST people in human history ...
      1. Shopping Mall
        28 July 2020 07: 42 New
        +1
        Quote: Leader of the Redskins
        For me personally, the question would be more relevant:
        "And what AFTER a nuclear war ?!"
        I advise all hotheads who threaten to use a nuclear club in case of something to watch a good film "At the Last Shore" ("On the Last Shore")
        In a nutshell - in Australia, the remnants of humanity after a nuclear war are watching a radioactive cyclone inevitably approaching them. And there is no more salvation. And no one delves into who struck first. Everyone just realizes that they are the LAST people in human history ...


        A good movie, but very depressing. I kept waiting for how they would be saved, but no ...

        An article is planned on the topic of what may happen after a nuclear war.
        1. Octopus
          Octopus 28 July 2020 10: 30 New
          +2
          Quote: AVM
          On the topic of what might happen after a nuclear war

          ))
          You haven't considered the most likely scenarios.
          In a global war - the loss of control over the strategic nuclear forces of Russia during the collapse of the state, the emergence of councils of soldiers and sailors' deputies in units of the strategic nuclear forces. In this scenario, the partners, if they maintain their sanity, will burn without talking. The scenario is quite probable, as it was implemented, who remember, not so long ago in the same locations. Then the manageability was preserved, but in the Russian Federation the situation is much worse than in the USSR in this respect. The USSR was a federation and fell apart at the seams, the Russian Federation, despite the name, is a unitary state and will break unpredictably.

          On a local war. The main wasp nests are in the Middle East, India - Pakistan, India - China. The main threat is the departure of the United States from the status of a "policeman" in Asia, the emergence of nuclear weapons in Japan, South Korea, and, most fun, Taiwan. Let me remind you that the latter has no right to exist from the point of view of the PRC.

          All this is of little interest to Russia. And she is much interested in the appearance of nuclear weapons in Ukraine (technically, this is not difficult, but politically, after Zelensky, the pendulum may move in the other direction), and, against the background of warming friendly relations, the rest of the parties that may fall under the distribution - Poland, Germany, Finland, Kazakhstan.
          1. Pushkowed
            Pushkowed 28 July 2020 10: 58 New
            0
            You haven't considered the most likely scenarios.
            The author did not consider an even more likely scenario, which can be conventionally called "third-first", according to his own classification. For example, in the event of a structural crisis in the United States, a possible second civil war there, their disintegration into separate states or other quasi-state formations.
            What will happen to the American nuclear arsenal? What if he falls into the hands of self-styled warlords? Can nuclear weapons be used in a civil war by one or both sides? (Or will there be more than two sides?) What attitude towards Russia will be shown by those fragments of the United States, on whose territory (under control) silos, SSBNs, nuclear bombs, individual elements of an anti-missile defense system, an early warning system, and nuclear facilities were abandoned? Even if they do not show aggressive intentions, how stable will this state be?

            Such a situation may require a first strike by Russia. For the sake of world peace, no matter how cynical it may sound (well, for the sake of our own nuclear safety, of course).

            On the one hand, this will have global consequences (1st scenario). However, the withdrawal from the game of such a major player as the United States, in any case, will have global consequences. On the other hand, it will not be a powerful superpower that will have to resist, but a group of young fledgling nuclear neophytes (who are not even in an alliance with each other, but squabble among themselves). And this is the third scenario.

            A coordinated nuclear response cannot be expected from them. For the early warning system in one "republic", nuclear weapons - in another, missile defense - in the third, and the codes for activation are sold at an international auction. The chances of a successful first strike at this point are very high.

            But if you hesitate or "turn on the pacifist" - then there can be any nuclear "surprises" from such an unpredictable political "walk-field", and not only for Russia. For security reasons, this crowd will need to be disarmed. Of course, it is better to do this through diplomacy (as the United States disarmed nuclear Ukraine, Belarus and Kazakhstan after the collapse of the USSR), but if this does not work, then no one except Russia can become the savior of the world. No matter how pretentious it may sound.
            1. Octopus
              Octopus 28 July 2020 11: 13 New
              -2
              Quote: Pushkowed
              disintegration into separate states or other quasi-state formations.
              What will happen to the American nuclear arsenal? What if he falls into the hands of self-styled warlords?

              What other field commanders? The states are a federation. When the federal level is turned off, all power systems remain.
              Quote: Pushkowed
              Such a situation may require a first strike by Russia. For the sake of world peace, no matter how cynical it may sound (well, for the sake of our own nuclear safety, of course).

              Only the United States can deliver a disarming blow in the modern world. Everyone else has no such exploration capabilities anywhere near.
              Let me also remind you that a small piece of the USA, California, is more than twice the size of the Russian Federation economically. And it is, by the way, the N1 space power in the world, apart from the rest of the United States.
              Quote: Pushkowed
              But if you hesitate or "turn on the pacifist" - then there can be any nuclear "surprises" from such an unpredictable political "walk-field"

              Yes, you are absolutely right. And the first candidate for such a scenario is just Russia.
              1. DrEng527
                DrEng527 28 July 2020 16: 50 New
                -2
                Quote: Octopus
                Only the United States can deliver a disarming blow in the modern world

                watched the strike of 100 KR on the airfield in Syria - impressed you? bully
                1. Octopus
                  Octopus 28 July 2020 18: 30 New
                  0
                  Quote: DrEng527
                  watched the strike of 100 KR on the airfield in Syria -

                  No, I did not observe 100UR at the airfield.

                  I watched a strike of 50 CR on some headquarters. Which was quite convincingly dug. This is in contrast to the well-known 26-caliber strike from the Caspian on 11 targets, which no one has seen either before or after.
                  Quote: DrEng527
                  this is who the shoes kiss

                  I strongly doubt that these comrades will remain in plain sight with any serious fuss. In Seattle, their Parisian commune disappeared at the snap of their fingers as soon as City Hall stopped rocking this bloody celebration of disobedience. There is no need to confuse titushnya with Mr. Dudayev, he was completely inscribed in the vertical of power.
                  1. DrEng527
                    DrEng527 28 July 2020 23: 50 New
                    0
                    Quote: Octopus
                    Do not confuse titushka with Mr. Dudayev,

                    So are you with Square?
                    Quote: Octopus
                    which no one has seen before or after.

                    I see no point in proving, I'm not a propagandist, like some ...
              2. DrEng527
                DrEng527 28 July 2020 16: 51 New
                0
                Quote: Octopus
                What other field commanders?

                see the news this is where the shoes are kissed ... bully
                1. Cyril G ...
                  Cyril G ... 19 August 2020 13: 32 New
                  0
                  Your interlocutor is a devout believer, I would say delirious. And today I would be more worried about the American arsenal. Everything there is ready for civilian work today. It is even more convenient to disintegrate. In an adequate translation into Russian - the USA, the United States of America ...
              3. ZEMCH
                ZEMCH 6 October 2020 23: 31 New
                0
                Quote: Octopus
                Only the United States can deliver a disarming blow in the modern world. Everyone else has no such exploration capabilities anywhere near.
                Let me also remind you that a small piece of the USA, California, is more than twice the size of the Russian Federation economically. And it is, by the way, the N1 space power in the world, apart from the rest of the United States.

                And you know that the same Americans do not agree with you, in their opinion Russia and China have a level of intelligence that is not comparable to that of the United States (the United States is the loser). Access to Russia and China, today, is very limited)))
                A separate state, as the experience of the collapse of the USSR has shown, is nothing compared to a federation. Today in California, the budget is comparable to that of Russia, and tomorrow there is a drought, fires, an earthquake, and without the aid of the federal budget, there will be no more money, capital outflow and human resources.
                And goodbye to GDP and everything else, gangs, division of spheres of influence and remaining property
              4. Svidetel 45
                Svidetel 45 24 October 2020 14: 04 New
                0
                What nonsense, California is twice as big as Russia economically, was it in dollars? Firstly, the dollar in America and in Russia are two big differences, as they say in Odessa, and secondly, real production is more important than the service sector, that California produces more metal, bread, oil? Without your film industry, entertainment, pedicures, manicures and sexual services, we will somehow survive, especially after a nuclear war, but without the above, we will not. So it's just stupidity to pray for inflated dollar figures.
            2. Evgeny Goncharov (smoogg)
              Evgeny Goncharov (smoogg) 28 July 2020 12: 09 New
              +1
              Quote: Pushkowed
              The author did not consider an even more likely scenario

              Why do you think it is more likely?
              How many times have quasi-state formations existed on the territory of modern Russia over the past 300 years, and how many times on the territory of the United States?
              Don't you feel like you're worried about the wrong arsenal?
          2. DrEng527
            DrEng527 28 July 2020 16: 48 New
            -1
            Quote: Octopus
            (technically not difficult,

            Seriously? bully for a bomb made of uranium it is necessary to have enrichment, for a bomb made of plutonium - reactors and radiochemistry and metallurgy of plutonium wink
            1. Octopus
              Octopus 28 July 2020 18: 46 New
              0
              Let me remind you that the former brothers have their own missiles and operating nuclear power plants. So they understand something in these matters.
              1. DrEng527
                DrEng527 28 July 2020 23: 51 New
                -2
                Quote: Octopus
                So they understand something in these matters.

                but you are obviously a layman in this area ... I'm a pro ... wink
                1. Octopus
                  Octopus 29 July 2020 06: 15 New
                  0
                  Quote: DrEng527
                  I'm a pro

                  In the production of nuclear weapons? Oh well.
                  1. DrEng527
                    DrEng527 29 July 2020 16: 47 New
                    -2
                    Quote: Octopus
                    Oh well.

                    the answer to the point? bully
        2. Pushkowed
          Pushkowed 28 July 2020 10: 57 New
          +1
          An article is planned on the topic of what may happen after a nuclear war.

          1. Even in the process of conducting a nuclear war, you need to protect (and restore, if necessary) your nuclear industry. And also to save nuclear ammunition. It is necessary to save a sufficient part of the arsenal so that after a nuclear war it does not become an easy prey for non-nuclear (or weakly-nuclear) neighbors.

          Winning a nuclear war (for example, with a successful disarming first strike), but ending up with an empty nuclear arsenal after it (i.e. essentially disarming) is not a good idea.

          2. After a nuclear war, it is necessary to immediately devote all efforts to restoring the size of the nuclear arsenal. Perhaps even higher than the pre-war level. It should be borne in mind that regardless of the outcome of a nuclear war, the geopolitical situation in the world after it will change dramatically. New players will begin to climb with their ambitions from all cracks. The world system of checks and balances will collapse, freedom will begin, everyone will strive to grab a better place for themselves (at the expense of the former superpowers), and in this bank with spiders it will be necessary to somehow survive.

          "The monkey wins in the fight between the tiger and the lion" (c) Mao.

          Even ideas are being expressed to prevent (and nuclear) neutralize potential post-nuclear competitors, simultaneously with the main opponent in a nuclear war.

          3. And care must be taken to preserve scientific potential. Not for the sake of some lofty goals (like "the future revival of human civilization"), but stupidly so as not to roll back into the Stone Age. Even if the neighbors (who did not receive a nuclear club on their caps) fall back to the level of the Middle Ages, it is they who, in this scenario, will become hegemon. Everyone remembers what they did with those peoples who were at the primitive communal level in the Middle Ages? That's it.
      2. Narak-zempo
        Narak-zempo 28 July 2020 11: 45 New
        +2
        Quote: Leader of the Redskins
        I advise all hotheads who threaten to use a nuclear club in case of something to watch a good film "At the Last Shore" ("On the Last Shore")

        On the Last Shore is a dumb remake, Stanley Kramer's original film was called On the Shore, just like the novel by English writer Neville Shute, which it was based on.
        The film is good, only in it there is a bias towards the dramatic nature of the relationship of the main characters, but the book was written by a person with a technical education. And there it is pretty well described that the war was not just nuclear, but with the use of radiological weapons - the notorious "cobalt bombs". That is why an amount of highly active isotopes incompatible with the survival of mankind was thrown into the atmosphere. As for modern nuclear weapons, the charges are pretty "clean".
      3. The comment was deleted.
    3. antivirus
      antivirus 27 July 2020 21: 00 New
      0
      Theoretically, in general, anything is possible .. well, in practice .. I think this will never happen .. now destroy the state

      what a terrible world around us turned out to be. how can you enjoy the sun in such scenarios
    4. Vlad T
      Vlad T 27 July 2020 21: 53 New
      -3
      Wars start with the hope of winning through radically new weapons and strategies. Today is the 21st century and BIOLOGICAL will become a new weapon ... Such weapons are being developed in full swing in closed biological laboratories supported by the US Department of War. They are located outside of the United States because US law does not permit such developments. There are more than HUNDREDS of closed biological laboratories, dozens are located around the Russian Federation. It was not in vain that the workers collected biomaterial from the citizens of the Russian Federation, to create weapons for it ... It is not necessary to forget about nuclear war, but the main danger in biological warfare. COVID-19 may be a blank shot or maneuvers to develop methods of application ... Chinese scientists have come to the conclusion about the artificial origin of COVID-19 ... Why there are definitely no checks and the question of the activities of these closed biological laboratories belonging to the Pentagon is not raised, because the Ministry of War is directed on military solutions. Or the authorities of the Russian Federation have already prepared golden parachutes and will hide abroad at hour X. An example is the story when the Chernobyl nuclear power plant exploded on April 26, 1986 on Sunday night, no one knew for a few more days, everyone was preparing for the May holidays in Kiev, but the entire Jewish population of Kiev left the city on Sunday, these are thousands of citizens.
      1. Svarog
        Svarog 27 July 2020 22: 11 New
        +3
        Quote: Vlad T
        Why there are definitely no checks and the question of the activities of these closed biological laboratories belonging to the Pentagon is not raised

        It's a good question. We will hardly get a concrete answer to it, but it can be assumed ..
        We need to start with how much our state is ready to protect us in general ... let's see how the pandemic began and what the state did to protect its citizens ... But the most important thing is not even a reaction to the spread of the virus, but prevention ..
        According to many experts, the virus has already been spreading across Russia since December, or even since the end of November .. In China, the first leak occurred in October .. Then the question immediately arises, what is the military doing with us, the FSB? In fact, the specialists had to go out and take a sample, a sample, for a detailed study .. Further, they had to give an assessment of the virus to the government, which was supposed to take measures to prevent it .. Nothing happened, and everything that was subsequently done can be called profanity .. Our state and medicine are not at all ready for such a phenomenon, all they can do is distort, hide information .. Today I read that in N. Chelny the mortality rate increased by 26% in comparison with the last half of the year, but died in there are only 39 people in all Tatarstan .. This is how to understand ... I personally talked with people who had been ill .. they are diagnosed with pneumonia and that's all .. there is no covid ..
        As we can see, everything is a failure here .. then about the bases along the perimeter of our borders ..
        There is only one explanation, the fear of personal sanctions .. I can’t find another .. I can’t imagine that during the Soviet era, someone could afford to enclose our borders with bacteriological laboratories .. I think they would have been destroyed long ago .. Our dip ... property cannot be returned .. what is already there to the bases .. Cheeks only puff out in front of hurray patriots .. but in fact everything is very sad ..
        1. Vlad T
          Vlad T 28 July 2020 11: 06 New
          -3
          There is only one answer, for the self-preservation of the people and the state, it is necessary to change management, that is, under the rule of those who stayed too long. In the end, President Vladimir Putin and the government worked out positively for the first decade, then only a screen when the people and the state rolled down and hunted down, without protective guarantees in all directions ... And this is already unacceptable, but first, an urgent need to prepare a change of government from the real patriots of Russia, otherwise, by chance, some thieves will be replaced by others with all the consequences ...
          1. Tatyana
            Tatyana 28 July 2020 14: 49 New
            +2
            Quote: Vlad T
            an urgent need to prepare a replacement for the government of the real patriots of Russia, otherwise, by chance, some thieves will be replaced by others with all the consequences ...

            Interestingly, and who exactly do you propose to power, except for ABSTRACT "real patriots of Russia"?
            "True patriots of Russia" - this is your personal opinion specifically WHO, representatives of what political trends in the country? And why?
            Do they have any specific political program for the people to follow?
            Name at least one political party that could cope with such a task at least in the future!
            1. Vlad T
              Vlad T 28 July 2020 16: 34 New
              -2
              You, as unknown to the dubious agent, wish peace and good ...
        2. Per se.
          Per se. 28 July 2020 11: 06 New
          0
          Quote: Svarog
          Cheeks only puff out in front of cheers for patriots .. but in reality everything is very sad ..
          Yes, after Yeltsin, the rating of the authorities collapsed, a little more, the "dissidents" would have sent Boris Nikolayevich to hell, along with his capitalism. The West needed a new protege, and Yeltsin appointed his successor ... I must say that against the background of Yeltsin, any genius would seem, as well as the direct fulfillment of his duties, a feat in galleys. Cheek puffing began, in ostentatious butting with the masters of capitalism, into which Russia climbed.

          An article about war, but any war has reasons. World War I, the struggle for leadership in capitalism between the Anglo-Saxons and the Germans. The Anglo-Saxons won. World War II, the struggle between two world systems, young socialism and world capitalism. The Anglo-Saxons made anti-USSR out of defeated Germany, and anti-communism out of Nazism. A big fan of England, Adolf Hitler, became a henchman of the masters of capitalism, with only one goal, to destroy or critically weaken the USSR. But, the Soviet Union was destroyed by degenerate renegades who wanted to flirt with the West, gain access to its "forbidden" fruits in the USSR.

          Now the author writes about the possibility of a world war ... The aggressor needs resources, production, no one will rot this production with radioactive crap, if we are talking about the natural resources of Russia, including the territory as a whole, and fresh water. This means that a massive nuclear strike against Russia is hardly a war goal. There is no socialism independent (and thus dangerous) from the United States and England in Russia, there is no need to overthrow the capitalist government either, even if they puff out their cheeks for their jingoistic patriots, fool the people further. That is, the Russian government is also not the reason for the attack on Russia. Can our government, like Kaiser's Germany, challenge the Anglo-Saxons in a new claim to the world throne of capitalism? It is very doubtful that this power already has theirs, not in Russia, but in the West.

          So, what can cause a world war? The paradox is that the power of a superpower remained from the Soviet Union, until now this power is the only one in the world that can destroy the United States, and no one else, including China with their "national communists" and integration into world capitalism. Probably, our bad boys would have given up the country long ago, in the name of peace, democracy and humanism, but the people would not understand this, with our potential. So they inflate their cheeks, step on the gas with one foot, the other on the brake, in "butting" with the West, especially since on this attraction, both of them make a lot of money.

          Of course, no one is immune from war; for world capitalism, any war is super-profits, like epidemics or natural disasters. Doing evil, profiting from misfortune, as if the main villains of the planet, who stand above the same USA, did not play in the "gods". A new war is a war for the preservation of world capitalism. In any case, the old world will no longer exist, capitalism is doomed, and this is the main danger of a world war. The whole question is at what cost civilization will receive a new socialism, without which it will no longer survive in the future.
          1. Vlad T
            Vlad T 28 July 2020 12: 05 New
            0
            I read it with pleasure, the foundations are correctly arranged, the main question remains, but how can we be ourselves ... For to understand one thing, to act differently, but it is necessary to act, in this situation in Russia, the rest of the time is working against us ...
            1. Per se.
              Per se. 28 July 2020 12: 46 New
              -3
              Quote: Vlad T
              the rest of the time is working against us ...
              This is so, the Soviet safety margin is running out. When our Soviet arsenals are "rotten" and the "X" hour will come. An army of lawyers and economists will not replace designers and engineers, and new shopping centers are ruined research institutes and factories. Already our traders from the authorities, in addition to raw materials, are smartly selling Soviet military developments, they have time until the trough in Russia, until the technology is outdated. Then either you have to puff out your cheeks again, with "new" nuclear "jihad torpedoes" and similar "miracle weapons", or surrender to the owners. The "moment of truth" will come, most likely, the military will decide everything, executing the traitors. In any case, we do not have a happy future in capitalism picked up from the dustbin of history. Now there is something to compare with, and capitalism has shown its true wolf face, throwing off the sheep's skin of "democracy".
            2. Vlad T
              Vlad T 28 July 2020 12: 48 New
              0
              Per se. prompted to talk at your level ... Addendum: There are no actual world subjects in your layout, which looks like a theory without essential components. Today, the main creators of the world political order and influence "have a name and surname" (JV Stalin). These creators have created today's pseudo-capitalism on the replacement of money-goods - money for just beads (candy wrappers) - goods (candy wrappers are further used by the aborigines), which characterizes the distributors of private wrappers that are not guaranteed by anything, like "King Mead" - parasites of the world (financial globalists). They are now the chief conductors of the world. For this supremacy of their candy wrappers were one of the main organizers of the 2 world warriors ... Only it is not clear from what idea today. G. Kissinger, the mammoth of these financiers, put forward the destroyer D. Trump to destroy the alignment in the United States, with the same destructive echo throughout the world. Reformatting the world, changing the center of settlement of the globalists look solid .. Under all conditions, Russia remains a reserve for such movements. Therefore, the obstruction of the Russian Federation was created by the whole world, and the creation of conditions for isolation from all influences and problems. An ideal nature reserve with a comprador corrupt government. It is no secret that the financial oligarchy is national. at the heart of the Jewish nation, and in the Russian Federation, the majority of the chief officials are Jews. or with Jewish wives (and Jewish children), it is no coincidence that such long-range sights were probably erected in advance ... Of course, a version, but there are too many coincidences ...
              1. Per se.
                Per se. 28 July 2020 13: 55 New
                +1
                Quote: Vlad T
                It is no secret that the financial oligarchy is national. at the heart of the Jewish nation
                The sin of loan interest, which gave rise to such ghouls as the Rothschild clan ... Here you can philosophize for a long time, in the end, as it turns out, and Adam and Eve had to be Jews, moreover, from God. Moreover, Christ has a Jewish mother and a stepfather, if the father is "holy spirit".

                The development of civilization is proceeding according to the program, personally I do not believe in the theory about monkeys with typewriters, as well as in general in the origin of man from the evolution of the monkey. But that's my personal opinion. As for the war and the villains of the Jews (by no means all Jews are traders and villains), then, without a doubt, money, influence, gave rise to wars. Most of the super-profits and world influence were received during the First and, especially, during the Second World War.

                I would like to believe that communism is the peak of development, like that of Ivan Efremov, that it has its own great cosmic Ring of civilizations. What will happen "with the Motherland and with us", time will tell. Thank you, Vlad, for your attention.
                1. Vlad T
                  Vlad T 28 July 2020 14: 13 New
                  0
                  Do not destroy your image, or you are cunning, or go into the jungle (in the faith of pro-Orthodox and other nonsense to "save the unity of Russia"). Politics, science of specific subjects and their deeds, and you need to call them by name and by deeds ... That's right, not all Jews are bankers and politicians, but this is the most herd community in a thousand-year history ... Quote; "The development of civilization is proceeding according to the program", you are kidding, your program, these are accidents and coincidences of circumstances from the field of probability theory ... I will not give examples, they are off the charts .. And about communism, this is a dream of dreamers, as a rule, there were no practitioners among dreamers , or rather, they were, but they quickly turned off the road ... Yes, you upset me ...
                  1. Per se.
                    Per se. 28 July 2020 16: 43 New
                    +1
                    I'm sorry if I upset you. Apparently, I'll have to clarify a little, maybe there will be more certainty about whether I am cunning or go into the wild. I must say right away that faith and religion are not identical concepts for me. Religion is here, not only "opium for the people", but also the same business feeding trough for the clergy. Each new religion, the previous one, was attributed to paganism, without changing its essence, from the sacred tree and spirits to statues and icons with a single god. Each nation received a religion adapted to its culture and mentality, as the only true one, referring to heresy any competition in a monopoly on God. This is the use of faith in the interests of religious confessions and directly present authorities.

                    Now about the "program", about accidents and coincidences. I have already said (to the theory of probability) that maybe a lot of monkeys with typewriters will accidentally be able to type individual words correctly, and even whole sentences, but "War and Peace" will not be printed in this way. A computer program, like Windows, cannot be created by itself. From this, it is hard to believe that the DNA molecule turned out by itself. God or higher intelligence, aliens, whatever you want. Evolution in this should have a corrective role in terms of development and improvement. Even mutations must be initially incorporated and "allowed", the process develops automatically, but in what was originally intended and allowed.

                    In the development of civilization, everything should still be "in the program" according to which Russia did not perish in 1917 (the pro-Western Chubais and Yeltsins could have appeared earlier than 1991), becoming a superpower, the USSR, which is not a simple coincidence in history. In general, by whom and for what purpose the matter was created, from what "emptiness" the "big bang" suddenly turned out (how something could explode in the emptiness, if there is nothing), you will not say either. If I'm a fatalist or an idealist in this, I'm sorry.
      2. your1970
        your1970 7 August 2020 06: 26 New
        0
        Quote: Vlad T
        Chinese scientists have come to the conclusion about the artificial origin of COVID-19.

        Quote: Vlad T
        Or the authorities of the Russian Federation have already prepared golden parachutes and at hour X they will hide abroad

        And where will they run? If such losses in USA caused a rather weak virus - and perhaps their own ??
        Judging by the losses, the United States can go down at such a pace, they have no reduction ...
  2. Mavrikiy
    Mavrikiy 27 July 2020 18: 10 New
    -7
    What can it be? Nuclear war scenarios
    The main thing is not the scenario, but the result. And he's famous. Victory will be ours! Don't twitch.
    1. snake
      snake 27 July 2020 18: 23 New
      11
      Quote: Mavrikiy
      What can it be? Nuclear war scenarios
      The main thing is not the scenario, but the result. And he's famous. Victory will be ours! Don't twitch.

      For whom, for "you"? For Chernobyl mutants? Well, hurray patriots! Well, you bitches! They and nuclear war like water off a duck's back! God forbid you get a red button in your hands ... God forbid ...
      1. The comment was deleted.
        1. The comment was deleted.
          1. The comment was deleted.
        2. The comment was deleted.
          1. The comment was deleted.
            1. The comment was deleted.
              1. The comment was deleted.
      2. The comment was deleted.
        1. The comment was deleted.
          1. The comment was deleted.
          2. The comment was deleted.
    2. Catfish
      Catfish 27 July 2020 18: 38 New
      11
      Where does this amazing information come from? Straight balm to the soul! You probably know something that no one else knows.
      Someone, I don’t remember who, said a long time ago that "There will be no winners in a nuclear war," I believe he was right after all. request
      1. tihonmarine
        tihonmarine 27 July 2020 19: 05 New
        +6
        Quote: Sea Cat
        Someone, I don’t remember who, said a long time ago that "There will be no winners in a nuclear war," I believe he was right after all.

        I do not like that comrade, but he is right here. These are the words of N.S. Khrushchev at the time of the Cuban missile crisis.
      2. Lopatov
        Lopatov 27 July 2020 19: 16 New
        +6
        Quote: Sea Cat
        Someone, I don’t remember who, said a long time ago that "There will be no winners in a nuclear war," I believe he was right after all.

        He had something else in mind. That starting a nuclear war to win it is an extremely stupid idea. This is to the question of the concept of the first, disarming strike, which has always been extremely popular in the West.

        But the use of a retaliatory strike, and the punishment of the aggressor, whatever one may say, it is still a victory.
        1. Catfish
          Catfish 27 July 2020 19: 42 New
          +6
          But if the blow is retaliatory, then who will celebrate the victory? Will they sit out in the bunkers? It somehow doesn't inspire me.
          1. Lopatov
            Lopatov 27 July 2020 19: 55 New
            +5
            Quote: Sea Cat
            But if the blow is retaliatory, then who will celebrate the victory?

            Not all victories can be celebrated.
            1. Catfish
              Catfish 27 July 2020 20: 17 New
              +4
              It’s one thing if you fail to celebrate those who died defending their homeland with arms in hand, it’s another thing to be swatted like a fly by an old newspaper due to the fault of politicians sitting out of place .. There is a difference.
              1. Lopatov
                Lopatov 27 July 2020 20: 18 New
                +1
                Quote: Sea Cat
                It's one thing if you can't celebrate those who died in arms defending their homeland

                You can also take up arms ... But it will give nothing.
          2. Svarog
            Svarog 27 July 2020 19: 57 New
            0
            Quote: Sea Cat
            But if the blow is retaliatory, then who will celebrate the victory? Will they sit out in the bunkers? It somehow doesn't inspire me.

            So it was said .. we are in heaven, the aggressor is in hell .. well, zeroed in the bunker ..
            1. Catfish
              Catfish 27 July 2020 20: 20 New
              -2
              Bravo, Vladimir! It couldn't be better! good drinks
              1. Ka-52
                Ka-52 28 July 2020 07: 31 New
                +2
                Bravo, Vladimir! It couldn't be better!

                what are you happy about? In the event of a global impact, the bunker will not save. I think those who have bunkers most likely understand this.
                1. Catfish
                  Catfish 28 July 2020 09: 42 New
                  -1
                  And I am not happy about anything, there is no reason for this.
                2. Vol4ara
                  Vol4ara 28 July 2020 10: 40 New
                  0
                  Quote: Ka-52
                  Bravo, Vladimir! It couldn't be better!

                  what are you happy about? In the event of a global impact, the bunker will not save. I think those who have bunkers most likely understand this.

                  It will save you quite well, but whether you want to live in a new world when you get out of it is another matter.
            2. Thunderbringer
              Thunderbringer 27 July 2020 22: 00 New
              -2
              About the power do not bark what, brains do not allow?
              1. Catfish
                Catfish 28 July 2020 10: 27 New
                -1
                And just not to bark out of innate rudeness, too, something does not allow?
          3. Alexey RA
            Alexey RA 28 July 2020 10: 16 New
            +1
            Quote: Sea Cat
            But if the blow is retaliatory, then who will celebrate the victory? Will they sit out in the bunkers?

            Bggg ... immediately the second Follych came to mind. smile
            1. snake
              snake 28 July 2020 10: 25 New
              -2
              Quote: Alexey RA
              Bggg ... immediately the second Follych came to mind.

              By the way, about the romance of post-apocalypse ... Follych, Mad Max and so on are better to watch / play on TV / computer. You realize this especially clearly when a toothache hurts and you have to go to the dentist, whom you still need to find in the post-apocalypse, and from anesthesia he will, at best, be hit on the head with a truncheon ...
            2. Catfish
              Catfish 28 July 2020 10: 32 New
              0
              Exactly !!! No matter how bad everything is, but, as always, everything can be much worse. laughing laughing laughing
        2. Alf
          Alf 27 July 2020 20: 02 New
          +3
          Quote: Spade
          But the use of a retaliatory strike, and the punishment of the aggressor, whatever one may say, it is still a victory.

          Pyrrhic .. As the one-legged John said, the living will envy the dead.
          1. Lopatov
            Lopatov 27 July 2020 20: 08 New
            +3
            Quote: Alf
            Pyrrhic.

            Who cares? The main thing is that the aggressor does not celebrate the victory.
          2. Lionnvrsk
            Lionnvrsk 28 July 2020 07: 12 New
            +2
            In Stevenson's original, Silver did not say that, he said - “Those who die will be lucky” (“Them that die'll be the lucky ones”). It's just that Chukovsky used this phrase when translating, probably taking it from Karamzin.
            "If you return defeated, (...) then the living will envy the dead!" Martha the Posadnitsa (1803)
            "The living then envied the calmness of the dead." "History of the Russian State" (1816-1826) hi
            1. your1970
              your1970 7 August 2020 06: 40 New
              0
              Our phrase is MORE ...
          3. Vol4ara
            Vol4ara 28 July 2020 10: 42 New
            0
            Quote: Alf
            Quote: Spade
            But the use of a retaliatory strike, and the punishment of the aggressor, whatever one may say, it is still a victory.

            As the one-legged John said, the living will envy the dead.

            It's very easy and manageable, John was
            1. Alf
              Alf 28 July 2020 19: 17 New
              0
              Quote: Vol4ara
              It's very easy and manageable, John was

              Can you translate it into Russian?
              1. Vol4ara
                Vol4ara 28 July 2020 20: 16 New
                0
                Quote: Alf
                Quote: Vol4ara
                It's very easy and manageable, John was

                Can you translate it into Russian?

                Damned censorship. John was awful.If the living envy the dead, then this is easily corrected - go to the cliff and jump off and they will start to envy you
                1. Alf
                  Alf 29 July 2020 17: 54 New
                  0
                  Quote: Vol4ara
                  Damned censorship.

                  hi
        3. AUL
          AUL 28 July 2020 06: 19 New
          0
          Quote: Spade
          But the use of a retaliatory strike, and the punishment of the aggressor, whatever one may say, it is still a victory.

          Yes, only such a victory does not hurt much ... Living on Earth will already be sickening!
    3. Vasilenko Vladimir
      Vasilenko Vladimir 27 July 2020 22: 57 New
      +1
      Quote: Mavrikiy
      Victory will be ours! Don't twitch.

      do you represent cockroaches or scorpions on the forum?
      1. Mavrikiy
        Mavrikiy 28 July 2020 08: 51 New
        0
        Quote: Vasilenko Vladimir
        do you represent cockroaches or scorpions on the forum?

        Not stinking dogs.
  3. svp67
    svp67 27 July 2020 18: 11 New
    0
    In the real world, it turned out that bombing alone can hardly break the enemy's resistance and you can "bomb" until the moment when enemy tanks, supported by fighters and attack aircraft, roll into your airfields.
    And yet in Yugoslavia they were able to win the war with bombs ...
    1. Catfish
      Catfish 27 July 2020 18: 43 New
      +5
      Sergey, good afternoon. hi
      So I looked at the diagram at the ratio of aviation between us and the United States, and for some reason I immediately remembered the last year of the Great War, when the Allied aviation hunted for German tanks as they wanted, and they dared to march only at night, and now it makes no sense at night. So Russia's superiority in tanks somehow does not reassure. Yes, and our fleet is just tears.
      1. +5
        +5 27 July 2020 19: 16 New
        +4
        Yeah, that's only when the Germans decided to show "how we are fighting in the East" and gathered a little more than a tank fist, the Ardennes happened right away, 20 thousand prisoners and pleas to Uncle Joe to help ...
        American aviation did not want and did not know how to do anything but erase German cities ... And the Thunderbolts, begged by the Ike scandal, chased for their own pleasure single trucks ... And in the 3 months of the bombing of Yugoslavia in Kosovo, as many as 11 destroyed tanks were found , with half of the Albanians from RPGs and land mines
        1. Catfish
          Catfish 27 July 2020 19: 48 New
          +5
          ... prayers to Uncle Joe to help ...

          Reread the correspondence of the heads of state of that time, if you read it at all. There is no pleading there.
          , so the Ardennes happened at once,

          Yeah, while the weather was bad, the Germans hoped for that. And what happened then with this offensive?
          Tell the guys about the truck hunt who, besides the Pokémon, have not read anything.
          Who slapped Vitman, like many others, along with the tank and the crew?
        2. Octopus
          Octopus 28 July 2020 10: 00 New
          +2
          Quote: 5-9
          so the Ardennes happened right away

          And what about the Ardennes?
          Quote: 5-9
          20 thousand prisoners

          8 German armies, two of them tank, captured one and a half divisions? An incredible achievement.
          Quote: 5-9
          Thunderbolts, begged by Ike's scandal, chased solitary trucks for their own pleasure ...

          Thunderbolts solicited by Ike provided constant direct cover for each panzer division every day, from morning to evening. Not in the sense of German raids, there were no raids, but in the sense of reconnaissance, opening ambushes, etc. This is an incredible luxury for WWII. It's good to be rich and healthy.
          1. +5
            +5 28 July 2020 18: 14 New
            0
            Can you imagine that in the winter of 44-45 the Germans surrounded the Soviet troops and captured as much as 20 thousand?
            So I can't ...
            8 German armies .... Armies, Karl ????
            1. Octopus
              Octopus 28 July 2020 18: 40 New
              +1
              Quote: 5-9
              Army, Karl ????

              Yes. What confuses you?
              Quote: 5-9
              Can you imagine that in the winter of 44-45 the Germans surrounded the Soviet troops and captured as much as 20 thousand?

              What is there to imagine? Bautzen Cauldron, April 45.
              Quote: 5-9
              So I can't ...

              Perhaps this is due to the fact that you are not in the know. Otherwise, they would not have written that the Red Army all winter and spring of 45, from the Vistula-Oder to Prague, kicked the balda.

              Namely, this is what you wrote.
              1. +5
                +5 28 July 2020 19: 10 New
                0
                In the phrase of 8 armies, the word army confuses me ...
                How many Soviet prisoners were there in that cauldron?
                1. Octopus
                  Octopus 28 July 2020 19: 39 New
                  -2
                  Quote: 5-9
                  How many Soviet prisoners were there in that cauldron?

                  You see, in the Red Army it was not very accepted to consider losses. The Poles counted their own, but the USSR never got around.

                  On the other hand, already in May 45, the Prague operation, the losses amounted to about 50K, of which 12K was irrecoverable, when pursuing a disorganized enemy. The Americans had losses twice as high, but the enemy was organized in an exemplary manner, as far as was possible at that moment.

                  Quote: 5-9
                  In the phrase of 8 armies, the word army confuses me

                  The partners had buildings of 100K + people. The Germans were more modest in terms of staff numbers. By the way, not only Germans.
                  1. +5
                    +5 29 July 2020 10: 59 New
                    0
                    Oh, here it is .... In the Red Army (and here she is, if we are talking about 45 years old?) And moreover, if we are talking about prisoners ... it was not customary to consider losses ... Like Zhukov writes this to Headquarters, but send me another milen soldier ...
                    Those responded to him, tyk sent milen last week, what do you want?
                    So losses ...
                    Shta, all milen? So lope?
                    Yes, xs, we in the Red Army do not consider losses, but it is very necessary ...


                    Are you or, excuse me, Svidomo?
                    1. Octopus
                      Octopus 29 July 2020 12: 57 New
                      0
                      Quote: 5-9
                      In the Red Army (where is she, if we are talking about 45 years old?

                      Moreover, she is the Red Army until February 46th.
                      Quote: 5-9
                      and losses when it comes to prisoners

                      This was your speech about prisoners. I was never interested in prisoners separately. By the way, guess what country the Germans took the most prisoners from / from which country?
                      Quote: 5-9
                      Like Zhukov writes this to Headquarters, but send me another milen soldier ...

                      In 45 it didn’t work. We fought with a huge shortage.
                      Quote: 5-9
                      Shta, all milen? So lope?
                      Yes, xs, we in the Red Army do not consider losses, but it is very necessary ...


                      Are you or, excuse me, Svidomo?

                      And you, as I understand it, are Russian? Dead grandfathers who fought usually amuse the Russians.
        3. Alexey RA
          Alexey RA 28 July 2020 10: 23 New
          +1
          Quote: 5-9
          Yeah, that's only when the Germans decided to show "how we are fighting in the East" and gathered a little more than a tank fist, the Ardennes happened right away, 20 thousand prisoners and pleas to Uncle Joe to help ...

          In fact, the Germans had an epic refusal both at the operational and tactical levels. Nine days after the start of the operation, von Rundstedt, having not achieved his goals, already asked for permission to withdraw troops. And the allies were preparing to cut the German wedge, since the German staff officers left them for this a "corner post" with the name "Bastogne" (according to the operation plan, the capture of the city with its warehouses and a good position on communications was simply not envisaged).
      2. Lopatov
        Lopatov 27 July 2020 20: 10 New
        +4
        Quote: Sea Cat
        So Russia's superiority in tanks somehow does not reassure.

        It's not there, it's a fake. Most of these tanks are non-combatant, and are in line either for melting down, or for overhaul and modernization.
        1. Catfish
          Catfish 27 July 2020 20: 18 New
          -1
          Well, even more so, there are even fewer reasons for delight.
          1. Lopatov
            Lopatov 27 July 2020 20: 22 New
            +9
            What delight?
            We can only hope to inflict unacceptable damage on the enemy.
            The times "Today in Brest, tomorrow in another Brest" are a thing of the past with the collapse of the Union.

            Well, plus, because of our weakness, there is a very high probability of "nuclear escalation"
            That is, we will use TNW first, and we will only have to rely on the fact that our opponents do not have enough iron eggs to raise rates.
            1. Catfish
              Catfish 27 July 2020 20: 26 New
              +1
              [quote = ... That is, we will use TNW first. And we will have to rely only on the fact that the opponents do not have enough iron eggs to raise rates. [/ quote]
              So, wherever you throw it - there is a wedge everywhere! Well, "And where should the peasant go?" Wrap up in white and slowly crawl to the cemetery, as in an old joke about Armenian radio? laughing
              1. Lopatov
                Lopatov 27 July 2020 20: 33 New
                +6
                Quote: Sea Cat
                Wrap up in white and slowly crawl to the cemetery, like in an old joke about Armenian radio?

                Flutter. As in the parable of the frog in the jug.

                Look, Assad flutters ... And he was not executed or killed, like others whom the Americans intended to overthrow.
                1. Catfish
                  Catfish 27 July 2020 20: 53 New
                  +2
                  Flutter

                  Which, in general, is observed in full. Only today's Russia is not at all the USSR.
                  1. Lopatov
                    Lopatov 27 July 2020 21: 16 New
                    +4
                    The USSR did not "flutter", the USSR "from Brest to Brest"

                    Well, Russia is trying to live within its means.
                    1. Thunderbringer
                      Thunderbringer 27 July 2020 22: 02 New
                      -4
                      He did not flutter, he did not flutter, and then he suddenly died.
                      Here's a surprise.
            2. antivirus
              antivirus 27 July 2020 21: 12 New
              -1
              And we will have to rely only on the fact that the opponents do not have enough iron eggs to raise the rates.

              - trade in sovereignty, without changing borders (see paragraph in the updated Constitution) - at the highest level.
              Has the Swiss president come over Donbass and decided when the Swedish prime minister will arrive? and what will he offer, without insulting the honor of the vanquished?

              the gain is not in military means, but in hardballs - only if the head of Tuva goes first to the partner capitals and acts as an intermediary between the Kremlin and .... XXXX
              1. Lopatov
                Lopatov 27 July 2020 21: 17 New
                +5
                Quote: antivirus
                - trade in sovereignty, without changing borders (see paragraph in the updated Constitution) - at the highest level.
                Has the Swiss president come over Donbass and decided when the Swedish prime minister will arrive? and what will he offer, without insulting the honor of the vanquished?

                the gain is not in military means, but in hardballs - only if the head of Tuva goes first to the partner capitals and acts as an intermediary between the Kremlin and .... XXXX

                Understood nothing...
        2. Selevc
          Selevc 28 July 2020 10: 05 New
          +2
          Quote: Spade
          It's not there, it's a fake. Most of these tanks are non-combatant, and are in line either for melting down, or for overhaul and modernization.

          And the B-52 which are already 70-80 years old are combat-ready ???
          1. Octopus
            Octopus 28 July 2020 10: 38 New
            0
            Quote: Selevc
            B-52 which are combat-ready for 70-80 years

            Quite. Shown last time not so long ago, google Conoco Phillips Wagner
      3. your1970
        your1970 7 August 2020 08: 50 New
        0
        A large number of aircraft and fleet tanks in a war against Russia is not a panacea. The experience of 2 world wars and the war of 1812 - show the global nature of communication problems and the smallness of the invading armies for the occupation of Russia. Well, our territory is very large and this is our global plus in war (and minus in peaceful life).
        1. Catfish
          Catfish 7 August 2020 14: 01 New
          0
          Well, our territory is very large and this is our global plus in the war

          For the Chinese too?
          1. your1970
            your1970 7 August 2020 18: 33 New
            0
            Quote: Sea Cat
            Well, our territory is very large and this is our global plus in the war

            For the Chinese too?

            And for them too - it works at all times.

            ZY the Chinese have a different specificity - very large cities, a very tasty target for striking nuclear weapons
    2. Dzot
      Dzot 27 July 2020 18: 55 New
      -4
      Quote: svp67
      And yet in Yugoslavia they were able to win the war with bombs ...

      They did not win it, as in Iraq, Libya, Afghanistan .. And they tried to soak the DPRK in the same way
      Their time has passed !!!!
      Now you have to answer for everything .. A multipolar world is coming and the tactics of hegemony and impunity are leaving ..
      Russia has done this and is increasing its influence!
    3. Ka-52
      Ka-52 28 July 2020 07: 34 New
      +1
      And yet in Yugoslavia they were able to win the war with bombs ...

      Stupidity. They could not have won anything if EBN, at the request of the mattresses, did not persuade Milosevic to stop resisting and yield to the West. The bombing only slightly shattered the industrial potential, but the Yugoslav army was practically unharmed. Americans won politically with our help, no matter how bitter it is to realize
    4. Shopping Mall
      28 July 2020 07: 53 New
      -1
      Quote: svp67
      In the real world, it turned out that bombing alone can hardly break the enemy's resistance and you can "bomb" until the moment when enemy tanks, supported by fighters and attack aircraft, roll into your airfields.
      And yet in Yugoslavia they were able to win the war with bombs ...


      Yes, but it's like proving the advantage of boxing by releasing Tyson against a schoolboy (more precisely, Tyson and a cheerleader).

      And here it rather works:

      It is far from a fact that the population of the Russian Federation, and most other developed countries, will agree to endure hardships for many years in order to preserve territorial integrity, for example, to preserve the Crimea, the Kuril Islands or Kaliningrad, if such requirements are a formal reason for war.


      The armed forces of Yugoslavia were not defeated, just politicians, the population, no one wanted to suffer. Everyone understood that this was not genocide - yes, they would destroy the country, humiliation, but this worries only a limited part of the population.
  4. +5
    +5 27 July 2020 18: 19 New
    +8
    There is no point in discussing the MRRAU, this is the loss of tens of millions of people for each of the parties.
    But options 2 and 3 ... you know, in your pictures there are some abstract thousands of planes and tanks that put months of hard work into operation and then not everything will work out ... And the war will begin and end for a week or two, so only what is in the ranks is taken into account.
    Well, Motherland has a reason why it has 40% of the planet's enrichment capacity, which was spinning even in the 90s, and we have about 6000-8000 thousand tactical charges on Calibers, Iskander, anti-ship missiles, a bomb and shells 152, 160 and 203 mm ...
    And the partners have 400 free-falling bonbs from the United States and 40 aircraft missiles from the Franks.
    We cannot imagine a war with NATO without TNW, even after a terrible binge ... 5-20 SPECBCHs to support the actions of each brigade and the Alga, to Berlin to the Channel ... theory, to MRYAU ...
    Why does the United States need to attack us and what problems this will solve it is completely unclear ...
    1. Shiden
      Shiden 27 July 2020 22: 56 New
      -2
      Yes, YOU are Stas strategist you need to go to the General Staff, it can be seen as in that army saying "The more oaks in the army, the stronger our defense." And you know that the General Staff in the 70s and 80s conducted command and staff games in the European theater of operations, so without the use of tactical nuclear weapons, the Soviet troops would have advanced no more than 100-200 km into the depth of the enemy territory. And then NATO simply ground all the armored vehicles of the USSR from the air. And now there was a genius in the general's shoulder straps who proposed to place Elbrus in the GDR in order to pound on the ports of Europe with a vigorous loaf so that the Yankees had nowhere to unload. The result of the 80s, the entire Soviet press wrote only about the demonstrations of European workers against the placement of Pershing and Tomogavks. For 10 days, a Soviet soldier will wash boots in the English Channel, they were invented so that people would not believe in the victory of the Soviet Army, but pragmatists sat in the higher command.
  5. Mitroha
    Mitroha 27 July 2020 18: 20 New
    +7
    I would not like any of the voiced options. But you need to prepare for everyone ..
    1. tihonmarine
      tihonmarine 27 July 2020 19: 08 New
      +2
      Quote: Mitroha
      I would not like any of the voiced options.

      Whatever option is, but the whole globe will come "kardyk".
      1. Mitroha
        Mitroha 28 July 2020 06: 46 New
        +1
        "Sharu" is unlikely, but civilization, in its current state, is unambiguous.
  6. rocket757
    rocket757 27 July 2020 18: 22 New
    +6
    Well, well, writing a script of the apocalypse is not even interesting, you can just watch different "masterpieces". For example, there are many of them.
    Choose for every taste.
    1. Dzot
      Dzot 27 July 2020 20: 52 New
      +3
      Quote: rocket757
      Well, well, writing a script of the apocalypse is not even interesting, you can just watch different "masterpieces". For example, there are many of them.
      Choose for every taste.

      There are a lot of Hollywood masterpieces and most of the world live by them ..
      And there are also Russians who are not trying to live and survive according to the Hollywood scenario.

      We do not want war, but we cannot be brought to our knees either. soldier
      1. rocket757
        rocket757 27 July 2020 21: 34 New
        +5
        In our brains, such primitiveness as Hollywood usually does not linger. Although the new generation is no longer so persistent, alas.
  7. Grazdanin
    Grazdanin 27 July 2020 18: 24 New
    0
    There will be no war until the probability of mutual destruction is 100%. That is why the new American space programs are so dangerous. Orbital aircraft 10 years in space, a contract for new aircraft and an outpost has been concluded, a lunar program with a station in orbit of the Moon, reusable first stages that are cheap and quickly prepared for launch, the development of laser and other types of weapons, the creation of space forces, accusations of Russia in the militarization of space ... All this says that technically the United States is ready for SDI 2, now the justification has begun before Congress and the people of its necessity.
    And we have nothing to answer, except on Twitter.
    1. Lopatov
      Lopatov 27 July 2020 18: 36 New
      +5
      Quote: Grazdanin
      All this says that technically the USA is ready for SDI 2.

      They are not financially ready laughing
      1. Grazdanin
        Grazdanin 27 July 2020 19: 02 New
        -5
        It's okay, I'll deploy a huge screen over the territory of Russia and will broadcast the amount of their national debt on it. laughing
        1. Lopatov
          Lopatov 27 July 2020 19: 03 New
          +4
          Quote: Grazdanin
          deploy a huge screen over the territory of Russia

          And there is not enough money for that either.
  8. Mavrikiy
    Mavrikiy 27 July 2020 18: 33 New
    +1
    It is far from a fact that the population of the Russian Federation, and most other developed countries, will agree to endure hardships for many years to preserve territorial integritye.g. saving Crimea, Kuril Islands or Kaliningrad, if such requirements are a formal reason for the war.
    The author, write for yourself honestly: "I'll sell my mother for comfort" fool
    1. Shopping Mall
      28 July 2020 07: 57 New
      +1
      Quote: Mavrikiy
      It is far from a fact that the population of the Russian Federation, and most other developed countries, will agree to endure hardships for many years to preserve territorial integritye.g. saving Crimea, Kuril Islands or Kaliningrad, if such requirements are a formal reason for the war.
      The author, write for yourself honestly: "I'll sell my mother for comfort" fool


      Better think more about your mom.
  9. dauria
    dauria 27 July 2020 18: 40 New
    +4
    USA - China .... I will believe it. The dispute, the escalation of the situation to the Caribbean "corral" by the American destroyers of our diesel submarines. A torpedo hit with a vigorous loaf, which then almost happened. Then standing on the brink of full combat readiness - and frantic attempts by both sides to diplomatically stop. This is where it ends.
    And it's easier to buy and threaten ours, and to start fighting with us, the United States or China, will sharply let the competitor break out into the kingdoms. So we smile and keep neutrality. They themselves will not climb, but we have nowhere to climb.
  10. Svetlana
    Svetlana 27 July 2020 18: 45 New
    11
    Theoretically, in general, anything is possible .. but in practice .. I think this will never happen ..

    Did the boys of the early twentieth century think they would have to survive the gas attacks? Not. Didn't think.
    Did the teens of the thirties think they would have to burn in the crucible of World War II? No never.
    Did Tajiks, Armenians, Azerbaijanis, and Chechens of the eighties think that in the nineties they would kill each other (and not only)?
    .....
    In short, a war can start regardless of our opinion about it.
    1. tihonmarine
      tihonmarine 27 July 2020 19: 10 New
      +3
      Quote: Svetlana
      In short, a war can start regardless of our opinion about it.

      Yes, nobody cares about our opinion, but warmongers were, are and will be.
    2. your1970
      your1970 7 August 2020 08: 59 New
      0
      Quote: Svetlana
      Did Tajiks, Armenians, Azerbaijanis, and Chechens of the eighties think that in the nineties they would kill each other (and not only)?

      Karabakh began in the eighties, even then those killed went
  11. stalki
    stalki 27 July 2020 18: 59 New
    -2
    That is, if the enemy successfully delivers a sudden disarming strike, the subsequent resistance of the conventional armed forces of the Russian Federation is likely to be broken.
    made laugh so laugh laughing
  12. Ross xnumx
    Ross xnumx 27 July 2020 19: 00 New
    +5
    Why pour from empty to empty?
    From the military doctrine of the Russian Federation:
    "The Russian Federation reserves the right use nuclear weapons in response to use against her and (or) its allies nuclear and other weapons of mass destruction, and also in the event of aggression against the Russian Federation with the use of conventional weapons, when the very existence of the state is threatened... The decision to use nuclear weapons is made by the President of the Russian Federation. "
    Now compare all this and decide on only one thing: will the President of the Russian Federation make a decision? And those 7 warheads will be enough for everyone - it will not seem small.
    Unlike your scenarios, the NATO military represent the consequences of Russia's use of nuclear weapons.
    The only option is an attempt by the United States to try to unleash a conflict against Russia with the forces of NATO countries, while remaining on the sidelines. However, I give 100% that GB will abstain.
    TMV with the use of nuclear weapons could erupt if food and water disappear in the EU and the US. And so ... They will bark and squeal from behind the fence. yes
  13. parusnik
    parusnik 27 July 2020 19: 00 New
    +2
    We will all go to heaven ... Promised ... smile
  14. Pavel57
    Pavel57 27 July 2020 19: 31 New
    -1
    Strange warhead arithmetic. 7000 for us and the United States of what they are. China generally has suspiciously funny numbers.
  15. Boris ⁣ Shaver
    Boris ⁣ Shaver 27 July 2020 19: 38 New
    +1
    How reliably did the leaders of states and military leaders imagine what the First World War or the Second World War (WWII) would look like, and how did their predictions coincide with reality during the conduct of these wars?

    Most of the "generals" are certainly preparing for the past wars. However, there are always leading military minds who not only imagine how the wars of the future will look like, but moreover, they themselves determine their appearance with their works.
    So, for example, V.K. Triandafillov, back in the 20s, developed the foundations of the "theory of deep operation", which, in fact, quite accurately defined the shape of the future Second World War.
    And, for example, Marshal A.M. Vasilevsky in his memoirs, written in the distant 70s (or even earlier?), Unequivocally predicted the huge and versatile role of computers in the wars of the future. Less than half a century has passed since our supreme parade of the Navy suddenly shared his "revelation":
    unique advantages and an increase in the combat capabilities of the fleet will be achieved through the widespread introduction of advanced digital technologies
  16. Operator
    Operator 27 July 2020 19: 52 New
    -2
    With the naked eye, the author's fear of nuclear war is noticeable, and so much so that logic refuses him laughing

    It seems that the author from May to July of this year. He slept soundly and passed by him in June the Supreme Commander-in-Chief of the RF Armed Forces approved the Fundamentals of State Policy in the Field of Nuclear Deterrence, where the threshold conditions for the use of our nuclear weapons are indicated in black and white - at least in response to the use of conventional weapons by the enemy in the event of a threat to our national interests Worldwide.

    It’s clear that we will not carry out nuclear strikes on Syrian terrorists or Turkish troops in Libya due to the cameral nature of these conflicts, the presence of other military instruments in the Russian Federation and the ardent desire of other states (Egypt, OAU, France) and, without our participation, to hit the Turks in Libya (then why pay more?).

    It will be another matter if the United States alone or together with NATO countries, Japan and South Korea go crazy and deliver a preemptive conventional strike on Kaliningrad, Crimea, South Ossetia, the islands of the Lesser Kuril ridge, etc. Then, for a sweet soul, we will destroy not bases, but entire countries with short-range nuclear weapons - Poland, the Baltic states, Romania, Japan and South Korea. Naturally, to revive the United States and the countries of Western Europe, and at the same time restore the status quo in the world as of 1985, including the former Soviet republics and the countries of the Warsaw Pact.

    In case this example turns out to be unconvincing, we will destroy the European NATO countries with medium-range nuclear weapons, with the exception of nuclear ones France and Britain.

    The use of intercontinental nuclear weapons (ICBMs, SLBMs, KR "Burevestnik", NPA "Poseidon") in an attack directly on the territories of the United States, France and Britain is possible only in the event of an adversary's nuclear strike on our territory.

    The main thing in a nuclear conflict is to preserve a strategic reserve for the destruction of the rest of the world in order to prevent their hegemony in the post-nuclear world. The only country that has such an opportunity is Russia. In this connection, a nuclear conflict is currently unlikely, since none of the other nuclear powers wants to be handed over from our side.

    PS Local nuclear showdowns between China and India, India and Pakistan, Iran and Israel, North and South Korea should only be welcomed by us, since each of them will result in a total weakening of all parties to the conflicts.
    1. Boris ⁣ Shaver
      Boris ⁣ Shaver 27 July 2020 20: 03 New
      +6
      Quote: Operator
      PS Local nuclear showdowns between China and India, India and Pakistan, Iran and Israel, North and South Korea should only be welcomed by us

      The actual use of nuclear weapons by someone lowers the threshold of what is permitted for all members of the club. Overton windows, sort of.
      1. Operator
        Operator 27 July 2020 20: 20 New
        0
        And we have something that from this - we are the only ones in the world who can destroy all others wholesale and retail, the leadership of any country in the world begins a terrible diarrhea from the very thought of attacking us with any weapon.

        Therefore, let the rest of the nuclear countries thrash each other and automatically leave the geopolitical arena - we will definitely be in the black (see the stories of the end of the Ottoman Empire, Austro-Hungarian Empire, Third Reich, Japanese Empire, British Empire and French colonial system).
        1. Boris ⁣ Shaver
          Boris ⁣ Shaver 27 July 2020 20: 46 New
          +2
          Quote: Operator
          what does it matter to us

          Our policy in this respect is called "nuclear deterrence". If there were a "policy of nuclear destruction of bad guys" or something like that, then we could admit our joy that the views of the world community on this problem are "liberalized" after the next use of nuclear weapons by someone else. And so - we, apparently, want to see nuclear weapons as an instrument not of destruction, but of deterrence.

          Quote: Operator
          the leadership of any country in the world begins a terrible diarrhea from the mere thought of attacking us with any weapon.

          For example, the cunning Poles, if they received nuclear weapons by some miracle, could repeat their old trick - to expose Poland under attack, after which the whole government simply drove to London and from there watch their "beloved" country die.
          1. Operator
            Operator 27 July 2020 20: 49 New
            0
            We do not have a policy of containment - we have a policy of intimidation by total destruction.

            The repetition of the focus of September 1939 (the flight of the Polish leadership to London) in modern conditions will end with a reduction in the number of Poles to the number of the Polish leadership bully
            1. Boris ⁣ Shaver
              Boris ⁣ Shaver 27 July 2020 20: 51 New
              +1
              Quote: Operator
              we have no containment policy

              I didn't call her that. And not you.
              1. Operator
                Operator 27 July 2020 21: 05 New
                +2
                You're scared - that's where the real, not the politically correct, name of our policy comes from.
    2. Svarog
      Svarog 27 July 2020 20: 09 New
      +5
      Quote: Operator
      PS Local nuclear showdowns between China and India, India and Pakistan, Iran and Israel, North and South Korea should only be welcomed by us, since each of them will result in a total weakening of all parties to the conflicts.

      I see no reason to support the conflicts of the countries you have cited with the use of nuclear weapons .. firstly, this is an ecological catastrophe, secondly, these are people, wars are unleashed by politicians, and ordinary people suffer .. thirdly, we must strive not to weaken the countries, but to strengthen his .. well, fourthly .. this war will lead to strengthen a stronger country, which we are not ..
      1. Operator
        Operator 27 July 2020 20: 34 New
        -3
        How will a nuclear war, for example, between China and India, strengthen, for example, the United States? laughing

        There is no need to suffer in thoughts about "ordinary people" of other countries - they obviously do not suffer about us.

        China has no more than 300 warheads, while India has no more than 150, so the impact on the environment in the event of a full-scale exchange of strikes will be felt in our country less than in Western Europe from the explosion of the Chernobyl reactor. Radioactive fallout outside the borders of the conflict zone will mainly fall in Central Asia, Pakistan, Iran and Southeast Asia.
      2. your1970
        your1970 7 August 2020 09: 10 New
        0
        Quote: Svarog
        secondly, these are people, wars are unleashed by politicians, and ordinary people suffer

        People feel sorry for the state, no
        Quote: Svarog
        and fourthly .. this war will lead to strengthen a stronger country, which we are not

        These wars automatically and independently of us - will strengthen us in connection with the fact that they are spent from their nuclear weapons - but we do not ...
        Ecology? Well, the mountains will not let a lot of precipitation reach us. Bad - but not fatal and not critical for us
        Quote: Svarog
        thirdly, we must strive not to weaken the countries, but to strengthen our
        - any weakening of potential opponents is beneficial for us, any .....
        And yet, France in the 40s strengthened itself ... And if it had weakened Hitler a little earlier, there would be no shame ...
    3. The comment was deleted.
      1. The comment was deleted.
  17. Old26
    Old26 27 July 2020 20: 17 New
    0
    Quote: Pavel57
    Strange warhead arithmetic. 7000 for us and the United States of what they are. China generally has suspiciously funny numbers.

    For Americans, these are the following figures (for 2017)
    ICBM - 800 BB
    SLBM - 1984 BB
    Strategic aviation - 1038 BB
    Total strategic - 3822 BB

    Non-strategic charges <p>2019<p>

    Total stock ~ 4,480 units, incl. deployed ~ 1740
    Reserve (storage and spare parts) ~ 2,740
    Pending dismantling ~ 2300
    Total inventory ~ 6,780
  18. Gado
    Gado 27 July 2020 20: 20 New
    +1
    What are the "hydraulic" power plants in the diagram above?
  19. 123456789
    123456789 27 July 2020 20: 37 New
    -3
    Perhaps there will be someone else, in possible candidates for the possession of a nuclear arsenal Saudi Arabia, Iran, Brazil, Colombia, Taiwan, Japan, South Korea, Egypt, Sweden.

    Ukraine
    If you want peace, prepare for war (Si vis pacem, para bellum).
    Let them hate, if only they were afraid. "Oderint dum metuant".
    1. Boris ⁣ Shaver
      Boris ⁣ Shaver 27 July 2020 20: 53 New
      +2
      Quote: 123456789
      Ukraine

      I alone do not understand why Israel is not on the list? Practice shows that whoever has the most cockerel has the highest chances of grabbing it.
  20. Old26
    Old26 27 July 2020 20: 56 New
    +3
    Quote: Gado
    What are the "hydraulic" power plants in the diagram above?

    Hydroelectric power stations
  21. LAUGH
    LAUGH 27 July 2020 21: 04 New
    0
    Let it be just theory
  22. Eskobar
    Eskobar 27 July 2020 21: 16 New
    +1
    Let's make a reservation right away that we are not considering the option of "draining" the country by the leadership, since in this case nothing makes sense at all: neither the laying of new ships, nor the purchase of tanks and aircraft, nor the development of advanced weapons. We believe that the country's leadership is adequate,
    This is the root of all evil, no matter how much of what we have, what significance, say, shipbuilding programs have, if by agreeing with the top of Alya-Gorbachev, you can force the fleet to be put under the knife, or by signing another START treaty to cut the missiles on pins and needles. Without firing a shot.
  23. 123456789
    123456789 27 July 2020 21: 22 New
    0
    Quote: Boris ⁣ Shaver
    Quote: 123456789
    Ukraine

    I alone do not understand why is Israel not on the list? Practice shows that whoever has the most cockerel has the highest chances of grabbing it.

    The question is probably not for me, but for the author of the article.
    I am more worried about this particular monkey with a bomb - Ukraine
  24. Imperial Technocrat
    Imperial Technocrat 27 July 2020 21: 33 New
    0
    It must be clearly understood that in the current historical period Russia is unable to create conventional forces capable of withstanding the combined forces of the NATO bloc in a non-nuclear conflict

    Able, how. I mean, fight back. Yes, in an offensive war in a distant theater of operations, of course, it is not capable. But fight back - maybe
  25. Charik
    Charik 27 July 2020 21: 45 New
    0
    Why there is no Novovoronezh on the NPP map-discrimination-I will condemn
  26. Fedorovich
    Fedorovich 27 July 2020 21: 47 New
    +2
    In practice, a disarming strike will be detected at the moment the launch vehicles are launched and will lead to a retaliatory nuclear strike.
  27. Imperial Technocrat
    Imperial Technocrat 27 July 2020 21: 48 New
    0
    the United States has several orders of magnitude more foreign bases and high-precision weapons

    It is a myth. Dushenov made out on his fingers. Yes, the United States has more missiles, but not by orders of magnitude, but we have about 1500, they have 4500. And in terms of carriers, it is generally close. I understand that a chronic all-conspirator cannot understand - he was traumatized for life by the propaganda of the insignificance of Russia and the intergalactic superiority of the United States, and he will consider the United States much higher than others, even in the event of a collapse. Parallel reality
  28. tsvetkov1274
    tsvetkov1274 27 July 2020 21: 48 New
    +2
    For some reason, the author cites maps of Russian power plants, but ignores American ones, which are located mainly on two coasts and are even more vulnerable
    Strange
    1. Vol4ara
      Vol4ara 28 July 2020 10: 46 New
      0
      Quote: tsvetkov1274
      For some reason, the author cites maps of Russian power plants, but ignores American ones, which are located mainly on two coasts and are even more vulnerable
      Strange

      For a ballistic missile, it doesn't matter where they are. If there is a blow to the nuclear power plant, do not care at all
  29. G.K
    G.K 27 July 2020 21: 59 New
    +2
    I propose to strike a first blow at a potential enemy before the publication of the second part of the article
  30. mi ah
    mi ah 27 July 2020 22: 26 New
    0
    Generals are always preparing for the past wars ...
  31. Pamir
    Pamir 27 July 2020 22: 36 New
    +2
    There will be no limited nuclear war, if someone dares to do this, it will become a global nuclear war. For example, if the United States uses a tactical nuclear war against Korea, then we and China are nearby, which of us would prefer to swallow the radioactive dust of our neighbors in silence? The answer is none. A global one will begin, while there will be no rear, ICBMs, no matter which ends of countries they throw their cargo into. About tactical nuclear weapons, this is the complacency of fools. If one starts to hurl low-power tactical missiles even at our neighbors, then no one will be pharmaceutical weights to measure grams of plutonium, for warheads of equivalent power, for weighing symmetrical light slaps to the adversary. They will work with what they have, ours may be puzzled only by the question of the number of charges to begin with, but not the power of the charges.
  32. Knell wardenheart
    Knell wardenheart 27 July 2020 23: 43 New
    +3
    Nicely done article!
    With regard to nuclear war in our time, I would add a few points
    1) You should not take a partnership with China or Turkey as something unshakable. These are very relative things. China is like Japan since the beginning of BB2 - it eats a lot and needs even more. If sanctions cut off his oxygen and access to resources, he will face the same dilemma - to climb into the collective and bloc west or to get to our "pantry of the sun" - now the ambivalent attitude of the Chinese propaganda towards relations with us indirectly confirms this.
    Turkey has definitely outgrown NATO's diapers and the mess under its side is fueling its ambitious desires. Now it keeps her at a crossroads - if Erdogan is delayed or he has a worthy successor, we will see the revival of the whole gamut of ambitions, at least it will die out and smolder, but it will not go out and not turn back. Our "game" in BV irritates Turkey as the US game in Europe irritates us. And on many other issues, we obviously will not agree (in the long term).

    2) Do not underestimate the long-term growth of sentiments of historical revanchism of the peoples adjacent to us (despite the fact that our haphazard actions often condone this). Now Poland within the EU has a chance to take the place of Great Britain - or at least it is interested in increasing its weight and confirming its views in Eastern Europe. The views are the same there, for a very long time. Nothing changes under the Sun - but specifically now Poland is again close to its "Intermarium" - and the closer, the more ambitious and adventurous its actions can become.
    The more and longer we make fun of the Ukrainian Peremog, the further Ukraine will move away from us - and when the 7-8-year-old kids there are 18-20, we may well find a second Poland-Baltic with a full bouquet of revanchism.
    The same Turkey / Japan are potential interests in our territories - while all these states are held by a geopolitically uncomfortable situation, a nuclear club and volumes of not yet completely outdated Soviet equipment, on which we are still sitting (after all, everyone understands that 15k tanks are it's not "Armata" and not even "T90" ...)
    Under certain conditions Scandinavian countries, Romania and (suddenly!) Germany can join this beer lovers club. Because Kaliningrad is remembered very well there.

    3) I think there is a mathematical model that shows the approximate time frame for the "Soviet legacy" array to become unusable - the time frame by which we will have several times less ships / tanks / armored vehicles - and how much during this time we can rivet a new one instead, taking into account our economy / sanctions. Somewhere ahead on such a model, there would be a bottom - the point at which we are at the peak of the decline. If during this period funds are found (from the United States, for example) to effectively eliminate the threat of our strategic nuclear forces (or they think so) - this will be the most threatened part of our history since 1941. I will assume that the year is 2027-2030.
  33. Outsider
    Outsider 28 July 2020 00: 54 New
    0
    - After a nuclear war between Russia and the United States, China will emerge victorious - forever ...
    1. Shopping Mall
      28 July 2020 08: 21 New
      +1
      Quote: Outsider
      - After a nuclear war between Russia and the United States, China will emerge victorious - forever ...


      Nobody will leave him aside. If there is a global exchange, then China, Britain, France will get theirs. I would not be surprised that a pair of charges will go to all industrialized countries in the slightest degree, even if they do not have nuclear weapons.
      1. Vadim237
        Vadim237 28 July 2020 20: 32 New
        0
        Nobody will spend warheads on leftists
  34. ycuce234-san
    ycuce234-san 28 July 2020 02: 21 New
    +1
    Russia is full of its own problems, and it does not have such a global influence as the USSR. The emerging "power vacuum"

    The most important thing is that it is impossible to imagine, if necessary, a long, large and serious non-nuclear war of Russia against a daring "apostate" who decided to acquire his own nuclear weapons on the other side of the planet - such as the Korean, Vietnamese, Iraqi.
    Here the United States waged such wars, one could reasonably imagine the USSR for 20-30 years in a row butting with someone on African lands about this. Even China can already, albeit very limitedly, wage a short-lived struggle to stop nuclear proliferation.
    And if such a country that is guaranteed to be able to take away by non-nuclear methods temporarily does not have a chance to become a nuclear power, then everyone, using a unique historical chance, will race to make nuclear weapons, especially since technology and science did not stand still and, as a result, the situation in the world will turn over - non-nuclear countries will remain an insignificant specific minority (the Benelux countries, the most backward and poorest countries and territories and countries-exceptions, such as Iceland, Oceania, etc.)
  35. ont65
    ont65 28 July 2020 04: 11 New
    0
    The author looks for the possibility of a nuclear attack in situations where such an answer is not at all obvious. - According to the first scenario, after the strike on ships in the Mediterranean Sea, this is the only possible answer (and for what purpose?). And where is the cover in the form of submarines, aviation, space control over the situation, special forces landing operations and so on ...? Any military operation is multi-layered; the means, their volume and the order of interaction depend on the specific situation in the theater of operations. Although the atomic club seems to be the simplest and most effective means, it does not differ much from total bombing in terms of meaninglessness and is intended primarily for waging a global war.
  36. Hermit21
    Hermit21 28 July 2020 07: 37 New
    +1
    It must be clearly understood that in the current historical period Russia is unable to create conventional forces capable of withstanding the combined forces of the NATO bloc in a non-nuclear conflict


    I'm sorry, what? Only the United States has real power in NATO. Europka is a long disunited half-corpse with a constantly decreasing combat potential and a lack of desire to fight. I will remind you of the American training manual about the "hybrid war" with Russia, where it is directly stated: no direct clashes, maximum fights somewhere in the backyard. And preferably by someone else's hands
    1. Shopping Mall
      28 July 2020 08: 33 New
      0
      Quote: Hermit21
      It must be clearly understood that in the current historical period Russia is unable to create conventional forces capable of withstanding the combined forces of the NATO bloc in a non-nuclear conflict


      I'm sorry, what? Only the United States has real power in NATO. Europka is a long disunited half-corpse with a constantly decreasing combat potential and a lack of desire to fight. I will remind you of the American training manual about the "hybrid war" with Russia, where it is directly stated: no direct clashes, maximum fights somewhere in the backyard. And preferably by someone else's hands


      So yes, but under wise guidance they are still capable of something. Moreover, I deliberately divided the possibility of a NATO ground invasion, or rather the almost complete absence of such a possibility, and high-precision strikes with conventional weapons on infrastructure.
      NATO is not in a position to destroy our entire infrastructure, but there is a possibility that in the event of a sharp decrease in the quality of life, the population will not want to continue the war, and public opinion will tend to territorial concessions - small, but extremely important from the point of view of the destruction of national identity and self-awareness as great nation, i.e. the goal of the US war will be achieved.
      1. Hermit21
        Hermit21 28 July 2020 09: 28 New
        +1
        under wise guidance


        > NATO
        > wise leadership

        Well, OK.

        NATO is unable to destroy our entire infrastructure, but there is a possibility that in the event of a sharp decline in the quality of life, the population will not want to continue the war, and public opinion will tend to territorial concessions


        It's addiction and wishful thinking. They have nothing to deliver such blows with. And even the notorious "Axes" are not helpers here. I will not paint for a long time, but it is almost impossible to deliver a really powerful blow, dangerous for Russia, with them. About public opinion in general LOL. I would be more concerned with the destruction of the European infrastructure under the blows of 3M14, X-101 and what will be the public opinion of Europeans after that. And 9M723, 9M728, 9M729 suddenly can start flying further than 500 kilometers specified in the deceased INF Treaty
        1. Shopping Mall
          28 July 2020 09: 36 New
          0
          Quote: Hermit21
          NATO is unable to destroy our entire infrastructure, but there is a possibility that in the event of a sharp decline in the quality of life, the population will not want to continue the war, and public opinion will tend to territorial concessions


          It's addiction and wishful thinking. They have nothing to deliver such blows with. And even the notorious "Axes" are not helpers here. I will not paint for a long time, but it is almost impossible to deliver a really powerful blow, dangerous for Russia, with them. About public opinion in general LOL. I would be more concerned with the destruction of the European infrastructure under the blows of 3M14, X-101 and what will be the public opinion of Europeans after that. And 9M723, 9M728, 9M729 suddenly can start flying further than 500 kilometers specified in the deceased INF Treaty


          How many 3M14, X-101, 9M723, 9M728, 9M729 do we have?
          And how many Axes, JASSM and other WTOs does the USA have?
          You can also compare the number of drone UAVs.

          Europe will of course howl, but the US can initially strike with their help, and then, after Europe comes out of the conflict, with the help of only its ships and bombers. Yes, and Europe is fragmented, some will come out, some will not.

          And how much can we deliver the WTO to the shores of the United States?
          1. Hermit21
            Hermit21 28 July 2020 10: 32 New
            0
            Volley YES ~ 550-600 KR. Marine carriers - 264 PU for 3M14 (but part, of course, is occupied by other products). Iskander brigades - 304 9M723 in a salvo and at least several dozen 9M728 / 9M729. But the reserves are much larger.

            The United States has about 2-2,2 thousand deployed Axes. range - 1600 kilometers. At most, no more than a third can be concentrated on one theater of operations, which will be actively hindered by all sorts of Onyxes, Granites, Volcanoes, Turquoises, Daggers, Kh-22 / -32, 3M24, and then Pantsiri, "Torah", "Buki", "Tunguska", MiG-31, etc.
            JASSM is basically the same subsonic junk with an even shorter range. And where to launch them, if all large airborne missions within a radius of 3000 kilometers from are calibrated and scanned. In general, the RF Armed Forces have much longer "arms", more opportunities to influence the delivery vehicles and / or their locations, and more opportunities to repel a strike. I very much doubt that EuroNATO will chew at least 800-1000 KR and BR in a salvo.

            You can also compare the number of drone UAVs


            Do you need to?
            1. Evgeny Goncharov (smoogg)
              Evgeny Goncharov (smoogg) 28 July 2020 13: 27 New
              -1
              Granites? Volcanoes? X-32?)
              Zircon, something forgotten? What are you, my friend, Russophobe?
          2. Vadim237
            Vadim237 28 July 2020 20: 36 New
            0
            "And how many Axes and JASSM the USA have, these subsonic missiles can even be shot down from Zushka on the plains of Russia, these missiles do not pose any danger - the integrated air defense will see and shoot down everything.
  37. vit670
    vit670 28 July 2020 10: 15 New
    -3
    Quote: Svarog
    Quote: Vlad T
    Why there are definitely no checks and the question of the activities of these closed biological laboratories belonging to the Pentagon is not raised

    It's a good question. We will hardly get a concrete answer to it, but it can be assumed ..
    We need to start with how much our state is ready to protect us in general ... let's see how the pandemic began and what the state did to protect its citizens ... But the most important thing is not even a reaction to the spread of the virus, but prevention ..
    According to many experts, the virus has already been spreading across Russia since December, or even since the end of November .. In China, the first leak occurred in October .. Then the question immediately arises, what is the military doing with us, the FSB? In fact, the specialists had to go out and take a sample, a sample, for a detailed study .. Further, they had to give an assessment of the virus to the government, which was supposed to take measures to prevent it .. Nothing happened, and everything that was subsequently done can be called profanity .. Our state and medicine are not at all ready for such a phenomenon, all they can do is distort, hide information .. Today I read that in N. Chelny the mortality rate increased by 26% in comparison with the last half of the year, but died in there are only 39 people in all Tatarstan .. This is how to understand ... I personally talked with people who had been ill .. they are diagnosed with pneumonia and that's all .. there is no covid ..
    As we can see, everything is a failure here .. then about the bases along the perimeter of our borders ..
    There is only one explanation, the fear of personal sanctions .. I can’t find another .. I can’t imagine that during the Soviet era, someone could afford to enclose our borders with bacteriological laboratories .. I think they would have been destroyed long ago .. Our dip ... property cannot be returned .. what is already there to the bases .. Cheeks only puff out in front of hurray patriots .. but in fact everything is very sad ..

    Where did you find specialists in Russia? So the remnants from the USSR of retirement age. And in Russia the Unified State Exam has completely eliminated education. Where do specialists come from? The authorities have spread corruption and theft on a gigantic scale. Their whole purpose is to plunder and escape abroad, where families and wealth are already awaiting them! So Russia will be enslaved! Remember! The current authorities will hand over the country with giblets! Remember Gorbachev. And no nuclear weapons will help! Yes, ours and the command to give on its use are afraid of this fact. Let us remember how Putin was polling about the introduction of troops into the Donbass? I will enter, then I will not! It will take permission from the Federation Council, it will give it back! And on a global scale, and even more so! So the fate of Russia is a sad fact. The economy collapsed to zero. If we run out of oil, gas or a tap, America will redraw us and that's it, drain the water!
    1. Lionnvrsk
      Lionnvrsk 28 July 2020 11: 55 New
      0
      and that's it, drain the water

      The truncated is gone, chief !!! lol
    2. your1970
      your1970 7 August 2020 11: 02 New
      0
      Quote: vit670
      I can imagine that during the times of the USSR, someone could afford to enclose our borders with bacteriological laboratories .. I think they would have been destroyed long ago

      Uh-huh ..... USSR hit laboratories in Germany? Laboratories in China? Labs in the Middle East ???
      This is just in your dreams - the USSR is so all of itself - piu-piu and there are no enemies ...
      In reality, everything was a little more complicated.
  38. Narak-zempo
    Narak-zempo 28 July 2020 11: 26 New
    0
    It is far from a fact that the population of the Russian Federation, and most other developed countries, will agree to endure hardships for many years in order to preserve territorial integrity

    The people were spiritually crumbling ...
    1. sleeve
      sleeve 28 July 2020 14: 46 New
      0
      Yes, somehow not there. We tolerate it now. And the war has a time frame and the possibility of "active influence" on the completion of hardships. War is war. Especially with Russia.
      1. Narak-zempo
        Narak-zempo 28 July 2020 14: 53 New
        0
        Quote: sleeve
        Yes, somehow not there. We tolerate it now. And the war has a time frame and the possibility of "active influence" on the completion of hardships. War is war. Especially with Russia.

        Are you sick? Oh well. And turn off the phone, the Internet, heating in winter, electricity, gas, enter cards for food according to the blockade rate and send them to forced labor - do you agree to endure?
        1. sleeve
          sleeve 28 July 2020 19: 44 New
          0
          That's what I wrote about. War is the effort of the entire people with a specific purpose. Victory. This means all the hardships until victory. Do you doubt the patience of people? This is after the 90s then? Maybe a milder generation has grown up? No, perhaps not. The current "life start" of young people is no different from affection. Therefore, they know how to sacrifice and take care of each other. Otherwise, everything would have looked somewhat different. Signs of a healthy society are evident. So let’s close and win, perhaps. For now, anyway.
  39. bulava
    bulava 28 July 2020 13: 39 New
    0
    I suppose that in the foreseeable future we will still witness the use of nuclear weapons in the turmoil between India and Pakistan. Firstly, there are no opportunities for negotiations and compromises there, secondly - the radicalization of the Pakistani elites, and thirdly - control there is very weak, the buttons will be stupidly confused, and that's all.
  40. sleeve
    sleeve 28 July 2020 14: 44 New
    0
    Subtle topic. The author, please, be more careful with the arguments for the actions of the parties and the causality of the "unleashing" itself. In general, a timely topic. Interesting opinion. It is not bad to analyze the current nuclear doctrine of the Russian Federation based on the 3 proposed options.
  41. Old26
    Old26 28 July 2020 20: 45 New
    +3
    Yes, it’s awful.
    Quote: Pushkowed
    An article is planned on the topic of what may happen after a nuclear war.

    1. Even in the process of conducting a nuclear war, you need to protect (and restore, if necessary) your nuclear industry. And also to save nuclear ammunition. We must save a sufficient part of the arsenal so that after a nuclear war it does not become an easy prey for non-nuclear (or weakly-nuclear) neighbors.

    I wonder how you will restore her when she is the # 1 target for the enemy. Or will you start to make centrifuges out of scrap materials on your knees? To extract the same uranium, after at least 150 kilotons of charge has been thrown around the mine, how will you? And from what to restore mining and metallurgical enterprises, which are included in the nuclear cycle. From the holy spirit ??? Non-nuclear neighbors (if they are "threshold" and weak-nuclear will get their share of light and heat

    Quote: Pushkowed
    An article is planned on the topic of what may happen after a nuclear war.

    2. After a nuclear war, it is necessary to immediately devote all efforts to restoring the size of the nuclear arsenal. Perhaps even higher than the pre-war level.

    Kask, are you going to get uranium metal or plutonium, make charges out of it, restore the arsenal of delivery vehicles? In a dream? Even now, Russia can produce a limited number of strategic delivery vehicles. And you are going to start rebuilding immediately after a nuclear war. There are no human resources, no electricity, mines and production facilities have been destroyed by enemy nuclear warheads. What will you restore ???

    Quote: Pushkowed
    An article is planned on the topic of what may happen after a nuclear war.

    It should be borne in mind that regardless of the outcome of a nuclear war, the geopolitical situation in the world after it will change dramatically. New players will begin to climb with their ambitions from all cracks. The world system of checks and balances will collapse, freedom will begin, everyone will strive to grab a better place for themselves (at the expense of the former superpowers), and in this bank with spiders it will be necessary to somehow survive.

    Volnitz, if it starts, will be at the level of "Kalashnikov assault rifles" and gangs. No other players will climb into the infected territories of their neighbors, especially since most of them will be hit anyway (no matter who)

    Quote: Pushkowed
    An article is planned on the topic of what may happen after a nuclear war.

    Even ideas are being expressed to prevent (and nuclear) neutralize potential post-nuclear competitors, simultaneously with the main opponent in a nuclear war.

    Why preemptively destroy potential post-nuclear competitors? They will get it too (radioactive rains, dust will go to them). The meaning when it will be necessary to survive ourselves (both for us and post-nuclear competitors)
    1. Narak-zempo
      Narak-zempo 28 July 2020 21: 33 New
      +1
      Quote: Old26
      Why preemptively destroy potential post-nuclear competitors? They will get it too (radioactive rains, dust will go to them). The meaning when it will be necessary to survive ourselves (both for us and post-nuclear competitors)

      Generally speaking, it is necessary to start a nuclear war for the sake of the fact that there were no "post-nuclear competitors". Strictly according to Liddell Hart - the war is waged with the aim of achieving a peace that will be better than the pre-war one. And a world that is pretty much damaged by nuclear weapons can turn out to be better only if all enemies are destroyed, and no one bothers to start reconstruction.
  42. silverura
    silverura 28 July 2020 22: 41 New
    0
    Bachnim
    Che that came to mind!
  43. Tektor
    Tektor 29 July 2020 11: 01 New
    0
    The main scenario will be as follows. One of the parties achieves a decisive, total preponderance, such that modeling clashes with opponents in any scenario of the development of the conflict leads to the victory of this side with minimal costs. And in this case, the rest will have no choice but to sit down at the negotiating table and conclude an agreement on the terms of the dominant party. This scenario is possible, for example, if Russia can simultaneously "turn off" the entire satellite constellation of the adversary, and the capabilities of the missile defense systems reach a 99% probability of intercepting any targets.
  44. Old26
    Old26 29 July 2020 14: 07 New
    +2
    Quote: Tektor
    The main scenario will be as follows. One of the parties achieves a decisive, total superiority, such that modeling clashes with opponents in any scenario of the development of the conflict leads to the victory of this side with minimal costs.

    This is simply impossible. It is no longer possible to achieve parity with the Americans and a total advantage. And when he was, then the leaderships of the countries did not reach the understanding that it was necessary to negotiate
  45. betta
    betta 29 July 2020 14: 19 New
    0
    Sergei Tarmashev, series ,, Ancient ,, 1 book (rather the first half). Perfectly describes the beginning and end of a nuclear war. Emotionally strong, you understand that you would not want to experience this.
  46. Plastmaster
    Plastmaster 5 August 2020 21: 01 New
    0
    Quote: Svarog
    In theory, there is the possibility of accidentally unleashing a nuclear war due to malfunctions of missile attack warning systems (EWS), hacker attacks or something like that, especially if one of the parties is in a systemic crisis with weakened state power.

    Theoretically, in general, everything is possible .. well, in practice .. I think this will never happen .. now there are a lot of other options to destroy the state or enslave them, and more effective ... as an example, bacteriological weapons, viruses .. Here, instead of COVID, I could maybe (theoretically) a more deadly virus .. And the aggressor country would have a vaccine .. and the whole war .. While you figure out where he came from, half of the population will die out and the economy will collapse ..

    But on the other hand, the coronus also hits its own. Or then first vaccinate everyone, and then break the ampoule. And it will be noticeable.
  47. Ilya Aksyonov
    Ilya Aksyonov 25 August 2020 20: 37 New
    0
    The presence in Russia of high-tech weapons, electronic warfare and EMP systems, coupled with nuclear weapons, greatly changed the psychology, tactics and strategy of war.
    Now the war will follow this scenario - nuclear charges explode off the coast of England and the United States and the war ends - there will be no one to fight with.
    That's it!
  48. staer-62
    staer-62 29 August 2020 06: 19 New
    0
    When we were communists we were the most peaceful nation, now we are capitalists, but unfinished. The capitalist will crush for the sake of profit and will crush anyone who interferes. What we see is that global sanctions are aimed at eliminating competition and in order to crush our capitalism. What are we? Having in the arsenal the whole set of counteraction, we behave like rams which in five minutes will be killed. We sit and bleat about world peace among the wolves. If we are capitalists, any action against market competition should be regarded as a declaration of war and destroyed without pity. Nothing personal. Those who are against, those back to communism.
  49. av58
    av58 9 October 2020 22: 18 New
    0
    All this is speculation, and nothing else.