Military Review

Nuclear illusion. It will not work to "glaze" the enemy

655
Nuclear illusion. It will not work to "glaze" the enemy

Do not count nuclear weapon weak or harmless. But you shouldn't overestimate either.


In the para-patriotic environment, there is a myth (and it is carefully cultivated in the minds of people) that if something happens, we have nuclear weapons and with its help we will solve all problems. Or its alternative version: we will self-destruct, dragging our enemies with us to the next world.

Usually, such a myth is immediately "spread on the table" when it comes to the need to carefully prepare general-purpose forces for military action. A typical "hurray-patriot" with a patch in the shape of a "pink pony" with bulging eyes rushes into the attack, trying to deliver a ramming blow with the following theses: “Don't you understand that a war with ... automatically means a war with the United States ?! And it can only be nuclear. " After that, arguments like "glass" are used, etc.

In fact, this is an illusion. And, worst of all, the country's leaders, who are responsible for making important strategic decisions, believe in it. This nuclear illusion is nothing more than a wish. In fact, everything is different. And if you continue to persist and remain in the dark, the results can ultimately turn out to be truly deplorable.

It is worthwhile to figure out what can really be "glazed" with the existing nuclear arsenal. And what will an attempt to simply "bang" lead to without taking into account the consequences and planning operations at the proper level.

Just powerful bombs


Let's start this history "From the end": it is technically impossible to "glaze" anything. The photo below shows the epicenter of the explosion of the "Tsar Bomba" AN602. The most powerful explosive device in history, with the TNT equivalent, as we know today, at 58 megatons.


Photo source: Pressa.tv

As you can see, there is no glass. Of course, this is ironic. But how destructive are these superbombs really? We will use the service nukemap by Alex Wellerstein and "bomb" with this bomb, for example, San Francisco - the largest US naval base. What do we see?


The outer orange circle is the area where people received burns of varying severity. The next darker is the destruction zone, with the growth of destruction and fires closer to the center, but with a mass of survivors. But the small circles are from the edge to the center - a zone of severe destruction (dark circle), a zone of almost complete destruction (red circle), a fireball (orange) and hard radiation (green). Almost everyone inside the red circle has died or will die. Inside the small darkened one is the vast majority. Further - the options begin. Source: Alex Wellrstain's Nukemap


If you do not take into account possible radioactive fallout (they are not shown in the diagram), then it is clear that on the one hand, San Francisco has been destroyed. Most of its population (not all!) Died or became crippled. That is, the mobilization potential of this region has been greatly undermined. But, for example, the nearby San Jose was hardly damaged. In the northwestern part of the city, people received burns, in the rest - eye injuries of varying severity, mostly minor. And a little northeast, in Sacramento - there are no consequences at all... If the wind blows the precipitation towards the sea, then you won't even have to evacuate anyone from nearby cities.

But maybe you should have jumped at full capacity? Let's simulate an explosion at full power. By the way, the TNT equivalent looks like the notorious "Poseidon". In the form in which this device was advertised. 100 megatons, adjusted for the fact that the "Tsar Bomba" was real, and before Poseidon it was still cut and cut. And that our virtual explosion is air, not surface. But this is not essential in this case.


Source: Alex Wellrstain's Nukemap


So, the results are in the diagram. San Jose is now covered, Sacramento is hit by a shockwave, but weak, without collapsing buildings and extensive destruction. Basically, we are talking about broken windows. Of course, there is nothing left of San Francisco. Losses exceeded a million, most likely or so.

Let's take a look at the map of the USA with the affected area from such an explosion. Impressive.


Source: Alex Wellrstain's Nukemap


But we must understand that, firstly, this is about 1/330 of the US population, no more. Secondly, there are actually no such powerful explosive devices. Yes, and the "Poseidon" warhead capacity is actually planned to be less. And thirdly, there are actually much more important goals in the US. And in reality everything will be completely different.

Nevertheless, let us designate the first conclusion. If you do not take into account the radiation contamination of the terrain, then nuclear weapons are just very powerful bombs. "Glazing" with them will not work. There will be survivors, surviving infrastructure. Some industrial facilities will survive, even if you throw 100 megatons. Although this is where the losses will be catastrophic. But in reality, there are no 100 megatons, right? So. And about radiation a little later. In the meantime, a few numbers.

The beginning of the end and some statistics


Reality is most clearly seen in contrast to myth. The myth of hurray-patriots is this. If a war breaks out, then in response (In response to what? Hooray-patriots do not clarify this point. Is this the answer to the first shot? Or to the second? It is unclear.) We will begin to beat with nuclear missiles and that's it.

Is that all? Could it be that the exchange of missile strikes will not be the end of everything, but only one of the episodes of the ongoing massacre, which will not begin with him, and will not end with it?

In a professional environment, the question is posed differently. There are various theories as to how a full-scale conflict between Russia and the United States with some of their allies could develop. There are some theories about "nuclear de-escalation" on our part. There are plans to use nuclear weapons in various ways, including strategic nuclear weapons.

From the American position, they are opposed by two iron "ideological" principles. The first is that the Russians will not use nuclear weapons until they start losing a conventional war. And the second, that in response they need to throw their bombs so that they know how to reach out to weapons of mass destruction in the war against supercivilization.

Both in our country and in the United States, there is a set of ideas that the escalation from an ordinary limited conflict to a nuclear global one will proceed "in stages", although these stages can pass very quickly.

Let's try to synthesize the myth of jingoistic patriots with what the professionals sometimes talk about, as well as with banal common sense.

Let's say Joe Biden, who has fallen into insanity, orders the US Air Force to provide a no-fly zone over Syria. Ours do not obey, the Americans are starting to shoot us down. We answer them. They proactively direct large forces aviation into the Syrian sky and overwhelmingly arrange a massacre for us. In response, we are striking with Iskander from Khmeimim at their facilities in Syria, and with Caliber from the Black Sea and the Caspian at some of their airbases (or airbases) in the region. We are starting to prepare the Tu-95 and Tu-160 for the flight. They see this with the help of satellite reconnaissance, trying to get Engels with cruise missiles from bombers. They suffer losses, bombing Kaliningrad in revenge. Here the Poles come into play, with their guns and tanks... Ukraine begins to pull troops to Perekop, arranging joyful squeals in the press that the Muscovites are finished.

Our people understand that the moment has passed. Again, as in 1941, we were caught with our pants down, without AWACS aircraft, with a minimum stock of cruise missiles, without torpedoes in the submarine, with submarines stuck for many years under repair, without minesweepers, with a broken aircraft carrier, without the required number of aircraft refueling personnel, with a minimum of high-precision weapons for aviation, with Baltic corvettes stuck in bases and killed at the piers, without anti-submarine aircraft. In general, “if tomorrow is a war, if tomorrow is a campaign” (and if other jingoistic patriotism did not frighten anyone again), the unwillingness of the Russians to think with their heads again led to the same thing that always led to: an attempt by neighbors to break in and forcefully amputate the non-working "Nominally" Russian heads.

At this moment, our command will face two questions:

“At what point will the enemies sweep us away (if not to use nuclear weapons)? And at what stage should nuclear weapons be introduced into the war in order to ensure the maximum effect from their use? "


That is, the wishlist of hurray-patriots (ready to break anyone who doubts the need to clean guns with bricks) and reality just close up here - we do not pull out without nuclear weapons.

The beginning of nuclear planning will require a miscalculation of its steps to the apogee - before the massive use of strategic nuclear weapons against enemy territory. Not because we definitely want it. But because instead of nuclear "de-escalation", there may well be nuclear escalation. And the enemy will begin to raise the stakes with nuclear weapons. This means that we need to calculate where and when we will launch our missiles. Just to be ready for it.

Here we must make a reservation that targeting an intercontinental ballistic missile is still a process. Just like that, by pressing a dozen buttons, it is impossible to do it. For obvious reasons, the author cannot reveal this topic even in the form of a hint.

Let's just say that by some miracle, it was possible to retarget all the missiles. It was possible to deploy NSNF without losses (let's say the US Navy was also not ready for the whims of old Joe), to disperse the PGRK and strategic aviation. That is, from the point of view of a nuclear war, we have ideal conditions to start: we have the initiative, all the launch vehicles and missiles are in line and deployed, there are no losses, we choose the time of the strike.

You have to understand that even with the scenario with Joe Biden, there will be no such idyll. The question will be that at least something has time to start. But we deliberately leave this "out of brackets" in order to show the reliability of the rate on nuclear weapons.

So, how can we jump around the United States? We proceed from the position of the jingoistic patriots that in response to a non-nuclear attack, we use nuclear weapons. So, American ICBMs are in the mines. After all, it is profitable for the enemy to finish the job without nuclear weapons, he does not want a nuclear war, he wants to bend everyone and dominate over all of humanity, he does not need to rake the radioactive ruins of his cities, he has other plans.

Thus, we are faced with the need to destroy American ICBMs, otherwise they will strike our country. They, of course, will not hit alone. There are also missiles on submarines. But this is a separate issue. In any case, we will not destroy submarines at sea with our own strategic weapons, so we will omit this for now.

How many missiles do we have and how many targets does the enemy have?

Thanks to START-3, we thoroughly know the answer to these questions. For example, for 2019, the statistics looked like this.

Russia

Strategic Missile Forces:
Monoblock ICBMs - 141
ICBM with MIRV - 177
Total ICBMs - 318
Total charges - 1165
Air Force:
Bombers - Tu-95 - 55 units, Tu-160 - 13 units. The number of nuclear-armed cruise missiles is not exactly known. It can be assumed that about 800. The same number of warheads. These aircraft, most likely, cannot use bombs.
Navy:
11 RPLSN, each carries 16 SLBMs with MIRVs. The number of charges according to Western data is 720. Disclaimer - SLBMs, due to specific initial starting conditions, are distinguished by reduced accuracy compared to ICBMs and are of little use for a first strike.

In addition, traditional Russian military doctrines require the NSNF to be viewed as a means of putting pressure on the adversary in an attempt to achieve peace on acceptable terms. That is, they, roughly speaking, are needed "loaded", with missiles, including during the conflict.

Unlike the United States, Russia does not have the technical ability to recharge RPLSN launchers outside of bases, which makes it impossible to use them to deliver multiple strikes against the enemy.

Thus, we have 318 ICBMs with 1165 warheads of the fast and relatively accurate first strike weapons. To strike in the second wave - 68 bombers (a missile salvo of 486 ALCMs, provided that the Kh-55 is used on the Tu-95MS, and 102 missiles are used by all Kh-376 bombers).

The use of SLBMs is optional and must be retained as a negotiating lever. And are they accurate enough? And we will return to them later.

Now we count the goals.

The United States has 400 Minuteman ICBMs in silo launchers. The Americans keep another 50 silo launchers in combat readiness without missiles so that we do not know exactly where to aim our missiles. These mines serve as decoys.

Organizationally, the missiles are deployed in three districts, each under the control of one of the Air Force missile (air) wings - 90, 91 and 341.


American ICBM bases.


Below is the layout of the positional areas of 91 "missile wings" of three "squadrons" at Minot Air Force Base in North Dakota.


Crosses and stars - KP. In addition to them, there is also the GKP. White rectangles - checkpoints, which are on duty. Circles are communication nodes. Lines are communications.


As you can see, in addition to the mines, it is necessary to hit the command posts, which are based on 14 (main command post, 3 command post of squadrons, 10 control posts with duty shifts) and two communication centers. That is, there are about 16 more targets in addition to silos.

Without going into too much detail and assuming that everything is about the same at other bases, together with empty mines, we get that, with a plus to silos, we need to cover 48 more targets or so. Total 498.

But there are also command bunkers, such as the well-known bunker in Colorado Springs (Cheyenne Mountain). And he is not alone there. There is also the 1st Naval Communications Air Wing, which provides communications with American SSBNs. And bases with bombers, storage of tactical nuclear weapons of the Air Force and the Navy, naval bases with submarines and destroyers, each of which could theoretically strike our territory at some point.

The Americans know how to quickly withdraw their forces from under attack. Here, for example, is their training withdrawal from a missile attack by bombers and tankers. In the video, the planes are carrying real nuclear bombs. And they don't need to download any flight missions. If the situation changes during the flight to the target, radio communication is sufficient. And so that the necessary cards are on board.


Video from the US exercise "Global Shield 1983"



And this is probably the most desperate take-off that the Americans have posted on the Internet.


They must be hit with ICBMs. You can't rely on the CD from bombers. They will arrive too late.

How many missiles do we have in the first salvo? 381 pieces? And how many targets did the enemy have? You can safely plan that there are much more than 500 of them, we won't be mistaken. Moreover, some targets are such that they cannot be covered with one warhead.

We look at the Pacific "focus of evil" - the Kitsap naval base (combined by Bangor and Bremerton, Washington, Seattle).


Source: Alex Wellrstain's Nukemap


The diagram shows a very accurate blow of a warhead with an equivalent of 800 kilotons. This is a "Topolev" monoblock. It can be seen that the former Bangor with its famous triangular pier has been completely destroyed. But even the shock wave did not reach the former Bremerton (where the submarines now stand).

Taking into account the relatively low accuracy of even ICBM warheads, it is clear that 3-5 BB are needed to guarantee the destruction of all military installations, submarines and ships. And you cannot skip this stage. After all, not only are we so smart to hit rockets from the pier. And if someone from "Ohio" escapes from there without a volley, then no one will seem a little later.

That is, for many of the targets listed above, you will need several warheads.

At this stage, the hurray-patriot gets the first blow in the stomach. About "glazing". It turns out that we have enough rockets and warheads close and tight to neutralize the American potential for a retaliatory or retaliatory oncoming strike (their missiles, submarines in bases, bombers, command centers, communications centers and nuclear weapons depots).

Well, or really, to be completely honest - not enough at all. Simply because there are too many targets, and we have too few warheads. If you distribute targets so that scattered objects hit SLBMs (the same Kitsap and similar bases), then "vnatyag" can be enough for the entire American "nuclear sword".

And this is in addition to SSBNs and bombers in the air, at alternate airfields and in other places that we do not know about, which are in combat service.

But at the same time:

1. The population of the enemy almost does not suffer. His losses are great only in a few cities, such as San Francisco, Seattle, San Diego, etc. Basically, it learns about a nuclear strike on the United States from various emergency alert means, if not from News... The death toll will be several million of the approximately 330 million US population.

2. The military industry will hardly be affected. Almost all military factories and design bureaus will remain unharmed.

3. Many Air Force units will not be affected. And it is possible that by the time our bombers reach the missile launch line, the Americans will be able to regain control of part of their forces.

4. The allies of the USA, the network of their military bases around the world, and the troops on them will not go anywhere.

5. US diplomatic alliances will remain in effect.

6. Most important. We have lost our SLBMs. Now we have no trump cards. Our strategic nuclear weapons are used up. We can no longer hit the enemy. And the enemy understands this. Or you have to come to terms with the lack of force of the first strike. With the fact that we just didn't hit all the targets we needed.

This will be the case until the second wave of bombers. Further, for the United States, everything will worsen. Other targets will come under attack, not their strategic nuclear forces. The map below shows US estimates of targets for our nuclear strike against them. Naturally, this is not intelligence. But there is a lot of truth in this scheme.


Black dots - Russia hits first, inflicts incl. counterforce strike of approximately 2000 warheads, incl. on mine PU. Triangles - strike with 500 warheads, we do not touch silos, we must assume that this is a retaliatory strike by the surviving forces. Red squares are cities, stars are state capitals. It is easy to see that very little “arrives” in the US population even with 2000 BB. Source: Armen Pogharian (http://www.armenpogharian.com)


As you can see, nothing "glazed" will work. Although the military-economic potential of the United States will be weakened and greatly. But not to death.

This is the main and most difficult conclusion for any jingoistic patriot. Even the full use of Russian nuclear weapons against America will not completely destroy it. Moreover, the entire military potential of this country will not be neutralized.

At some point, it turns out that we have almost completely used up our missiles. Angered them to the point of loss of adequacy. So much blood has been shed that any truce is now ruled out. And everything will go according to the "only one will remain" scheme, with the unconditional destruction of one of the parties to the conflict as a result of the war. But at the same time, the United States will still have a military industry. There will still be population dominance. And there will be fully combat-ready armed forces, albeit with huge losses.

The war will continue.

And this is all under the ideal set of circumstances. An unrequited nuclear strike that the enemy missed. But it won't be like that?

Imperfect circumstances


For the sake of completeness, let's supplement the idyllic (yes, it was her above) picture with a few strokes from the real world. First, like ours, the enemy has intelligence, early warning systems, satellites. The enemy understands perfectly well that at a certain moment we can reach for the nuclear button. And he will do everything possible to work in this case in advance.

With the highest degree of probability, an attempt to strike as described above, and according to this scheme (strike only by strategic nuclear forces) in the real world will end with a retaliatory strike.

In addition, the enemy has the ability to strike back. Due to the fact that Russia is a continental power and the development of its fleet does not want to study. As a result, American SSBNs can operate relatively freely. And we have nothing to prevent their retaliation.

In addition, tactical aircraft have nuclear bombs, which we cannot destroy all of.

And of course, no one will ever allow us, in the course of a conflict that has already begun on the initiative of the enemy, to calmly deploy strategic nuclear forces. As mentioned above, the question will be whether we will have time to start anything at all if everything is so sudden.

High instantaneous losses can rarely demoralize someone right away. Usually they make people angry and do not suppress the will to resist, but kindle it. This is exactly what will happen on the side of the enemy.

Diplomatic alliances, purely due to inertia, cannot quickly collapse. In order for the NATO allies to go into battle, it will simply be necessary to convince their leaders over the phone that the US President is in control of the situation and the Russians will soon end.

This is then (sometime), when they have already got into the American war by the reflex they have developed during their lives, it will reach them that everything is a little wrong (if everything is much different). But it will be too late to quit. First, the US allies will go to war against us. Then they will begin to think what is there and how.

All this (we repeat) will take place in conditions when our strategic nuclear weapons are completely used up, including cruise missiles for bombers.

This is how a real attempt to "glaze" will look like. And it will have a long and bloody continuation. Perhaps for many years. And this is a big question:

"Who will fall first?"


Population blow


It makes sense to consider another option. Everything that was described above is the so-called "counterforce strike". That is, a blow to the potential for a nuclear war.

Let's imagine the opposite scenario - “counter-value”. That is, a blow to the population.

For all the cruelty of this phrase, it is the fear of large losses among the population that is the main deterrent. Any country would come to terms with the loss of several tens of thousands of soldiers for the sake of victory in a war that its people consider right and necessary. And the population is another matter. This is real value. Up to a certain limit, of course.

The threat of a counter-value strike is the basis of nuclear deterrence, and therefore peace on Earth.

Interesting, but that's how it turns out. The question, however, is what kind of population losses the enemy is ready to face. Not only morally, but also organizationally. That is, his ability to continue the war with such losses will not be lost.

In the 60s, the Americans considered the loss of several tens of millions of people in the war against the USSR acceptable. That is, it was about the fact that up to of the population is the normal price of victory.

Another thing is that it was undesirable. And that's why they never started such a war. Although they were very close to it. For example, during the Cuban missile crisis.

How much has the environment changed now? Most likely, it hasn't changed at all. Today in the United States a generation is in power, whose teenage years fell just at the time when it was undesirable to lose 30-40 million for the sake of defeating the communists, but on the whole it was acceptable.

In principle, we can assume that the loss of the entire population will be unacceptable for the US authorities. Everything else can be admitted only with a certain degree of probability. But how much can our missiles hypothetically destroy?

Let's first estimate the distribution of the population across the United States. It is uneven.



It must be understood that the column refers to the agglomeration as a whole. But within itself, the population is often dispersed. Below, for example, is shown a typical example of human settlement in Los Angeles. Because of this settlement, American cities are often simply huge, and the population density is low.


One house - one family. Basically. Source: Nate Bovee (iStock)


At the same time, it is difficult to hit him, one must literally "sow" the entire area with warheads in order to inflict more or less significant losses.

But it is dispersed at the national level as well. Let's give a concrete example.



This stockade of charts, stretching from Virginia to Massachusetts, is home to about 50 million people, if you count the population of various small towns. Moreover, in large cities, the population density is, of course, higher. In general, this zone is often one continuous agglomeration; when crossing state or municipal boundaries, building is sometimes not interrupted.

What outfit of forces is needed in order to inflict more or less tangible losses on the population of this agglomeration?

Let's first look at the impact on the northern metropolis in this system - Boston. This is also a simulation of the Topol-M warhead.


Source: Alex Wellrstain's Nukemap


How many such explosions do we need to cover the entire zone? More than fifty.


Source: Alex Wellrstain's Nukemap


This is a lot. When struck with monoblock missiles, these are two divisions of the Strategic Missile Forces. In principle, if it is possible to dissolve the warheads of missiles with MIRVed missiles in order to provide such a cover, then one can get by with a salvo of one incomplete regiment with silos. Or even one RPLSN, also with an incomplete salvo (or rather a series of launches) - the submarine can participate in the counter-value strike "without discounts."

How many people will die as a result of such a blow? Approximately 30-40 million at the time of the destruction of designated targets.

That is, we are talking about about 10% of the US population. For us, this is a significant part of our missile arsenal.

But, as can be seen from the density distribution map, there are several such zones in the United States. After we destroy them, the US population will decline by somewhere between 25-40%. The industrial potential will be greatly weakened, but it will not disappear. But it will simply not be possible to show the same results further - the population is much better dispersed. That is, we can, apparently, having used up all our missiles, kill as many more people. And this will be the limit.

At the same time, we must make allowances for the fact that we do not know exactly what the losses will be in cities with dense development. On the one hand, there are many people there and they are boring. On the other hand, high-rise buildings closely standing one behind the other, even when they collapse, extinguish the shock wave (this is pure physics). This factor is especially pronounced in the case of a ground explosion or an explosion at a low altitude.

The image shows the calculated results of detonating a 10-kiloton nuclear weapon in Times Square, Manhattan, New York. The approximate loss of such an explosion is 550 people.


1 ꟷ Flash zone, "fireball", everything burns out, everyone perishes. 2 ꟷ Zone of continuous destruction and fires. 3 ꟷ A zone of extensive destruction and fires, many survivors are already appearing here, strong radioactive contamination begins to decline. 4 ꟷ Massive, but tolerable destruction, collapse of some structures, broken glass and doors, overturned cars, many survivors. Source: New York Magazine by Gluekit (nymag.com)


Obviously, the Hiroshima at ground level New York would “take it and spit it out”. An air explosion will have a different nature of damage on the ground, and their scope will be higher, but not fatal.

And what if the Topol's 800-kiloton warhead is dropped? Then Manhattan is basically the end, and the neighborhoods on the neighboring shores will be destroyed very much too. But in general, New York at the time of the impact will not lose even half of the population. It won't even lose a third. It is estimated that no more than 4,7 million people will die in the city when one Topol-M warhead strikes Manhattan (with a population of more than 18 million people, and including illegal immigrants, more than 20 million people).



The affected areas are in the same way as in the figure above, on the same scale - the upper 10 kilotons, the lower ꟷ 800 kilotons. The difference is clearly visible. And it (as it should be) is not proportional to the difference in equivalent. Source: New York Magazine by Gluekit (nymag.com)


You can model many different ways, but the output at the end will be the same anyway.

The use of all our missiles in a counter-value (against the population) strike will neither lead to the complete death of the US population, nor to the immediate destruction of at least half of it. Even close. And in the hands of all the survivors there will be enough funds to then fight for many years. And the mobilization potential after such a strike will allow it to be done.

Radiation factor


But maybe radioactive contamination will help the jingoistic patriots turn "the whole world to dust"?
In fact, radioactive contamination will indeed significantly increase enemy losses. Moreover, what is most important, even with a counterforce strike, when the population hardly gets hit (with our number of missiles and warheads this is so), radiation will still do its dirty work.
Unreacted parts of the warhead, nuclear reaction products, isotopes, radioactive dust and soil released into the atmosphere will generally create a zone of radioactive contamination. Larger than the affected area of ​​a nuclear explosion. Moreover, wind and precipitation will carry radioactive elements to a sufficiently large distance from the explosion. But mostly in one direction.

Here is a map of radioactive "tails" according to one of the scenarios of an attack on the United States.


Legend: white zones - no radioactive contamination at all. Yellow - yes, but not dangerous, no shelter required. Green - it takes 2 to 7 days in a shelter to avoid harm to health and risk to life. Blue - dangerous zones, up to 3 weeks in the shelter. Lilac - zones of heavy pollution, being outside the shelter is dangerous for more than 3 weeks (in fact, it can be much more). Red - zones of continuous fires, clearly radioactive. Naturally, these are rough estimates. Source: Martin Vargic


As you can see, the "coverage" is great. However, the following factors must be considered.

First, such radioactive contamination is not an instant process. Some people will have time to leave. Second, emergency decontamination measures can locally reduce the effects of an explosion. Thirdly, even the defeat of people with this radiation will not lead them to instant death - some will be able to live long enough to contribute to the ongoing war in one form or another. And fourthly, as the contamination zone spreads, the radiation will weaken, the concentration of radioactive particles will fall. This will not make it safe to stay in contaminated areas, but it will definitely reduce losses.


The same explosion in Manhattan, a radioactive trail about 100 km long. The orange zone is a heavy pollution hazardous to health. Yellow - a risk to health, the likelihood of contracting cancer in the future is about 10% higher than normal. Source: New York Magazine by Gluekit (nymag.com)


Radiation will kill for a long time. Much longer than necessary for the losses from it to become large enough for the situation that the enemy will be forced to surrender in one form or another.

At the same time, these effects should not be overestimated. They may not be as scary as people think. So, at the site of the explosion of AN602, it was possible to be without risk to life just a few hours after it.

In a global sense, the devastating effect of radiation is absolutely overestimated. From the beginning of nuclear tests and until the complete prohibition of nuclear explosions in the air, water, above the ground and in space, many thousands of nuclear tests were carried out on our planet. And the harm that they caused to people turned out to be minimal, although not zero.


All nuclear explosions in history Except Israeli ones. Israel in this video, as usual, "bounced". Together with my South African friends. But we know.


A little bit of the real world


In reality, of course, there will be no “purely counter-force” strikes by all forces, including SLBMs, or purely “counter-value” strikes against the population. The war is not waged for the mass destruction of someone. It is conducted for the sake of achieving some goals: from changing the world for the better for oneself to ensuring the need to survive.

Therefore, of course, there will be strikes against nuclear weapons. As well as strikes on objects of the economy, which may allow the war to continue further. But strikes “on the population” are already pure retribution.

This already, if it happens, then only when we have completely lost. When our leadership and military command allowed the death of the population of the Russian Federation on a scale that makes the continuation of Russia's existence impossible.

And then these blows will be delivered. But - by the means remaining to this moment. And nothing more.

That is, we are, of course, in heaven. But not all of them will die. In this case.

Nothing "glazed" will work.

In addition, it should be understood that the enemy will try to predict the moment when our nuclear weapons, both tactical and strategic, will be used. He will try to destroy it preemptively, disrupt control of it and buy time for a counterforce strike.

Moreover, the opponent seems to be leaning towards the first blow. That is, to start bombing us ourselves.

In fact, the most realistic assessment of what a nuclear war is is the Soviet approach to the issue. It is simply a big and terrible war, during which nuclear weapons, including strategic ones, are used "to the entire depth of the rear."

The use of nuclear weapons, even the first successful application, does not guarantee anything. It does not even lead to the end of hostilities. It does not guarantee the enemy's exit from the war, victory, or even non-defeat. It does not ensure that the war will not continue as a war of annihilation.

It guarantees only a significant increase in enemy losses. Moreover, not fatal for him. And no more.

The most pessimistic options for the United States speak of halving its population in the event of a successful counter-value strike. And the complete failure of the US authorities in eliminating its consequences. And this process will drag on for at least a year. During which people will die no longer from nuclear weapons, but from devastation, hunger, lack of drugs and the like. "

But even in this case, there will be more of them than we ourselves are now, without any losses. And we cannot do without losses in this situation. And that's to say the least.

Our specific vulnerabilities are also worth mentioning here. Our population is crowded in cities, in areas with dense urban development. And its density (and therefore vulnerability) is often higher than that of the Americans. And in winter (plus all other factors) the survivors will also be killed by the cold. A small population in such a huge area will call into question the sufficiency of the forces required for decontamination.

In general, we ourselves are no more vulnerable to a nuclear strike than the people of the United States. This must be taken into account in any calculations.

So how should we view nuclear war?

First, one must clearly understand that it is preferable to "settle" everything without nuclear weapons than with them.

And this is already a reason for all considerations like "Why should we invest in torpedoes and missiles if we still have to use nuclear weapons?" send to landfill immediately.

Even if we really have to do so, then what to fight with? After such a bloodletting, the enemy will have to be finished off. How can we do this if we have no other tools other than bloodletting and instruments? And the opponent has something. And he has a numerical superiority.

In addition, if we plan to use strategic nuclear weapons, then we need to choose the right moment for this. For example, to give the enemy the impression that we are going to defeat him without nuclear weapons. And for this it will be necessary to inflict a series of severe defeats on it without nuclear weapons. Win the right time (for dispersing the population and mobilization reserves). And only then beat.

And this requires the same thing as for a non-nuclear war. There is simply no difference.

Nuclear weapons are just another very powerful weapon. No more. They alone will not win a serious war, like no other single type of weapon. And its presence, as well as the readiness to use it as part of an offensive operation, does not in any way negate the need to prepare for war in principle: from designing good shoes for soldiers to practicing non-nuclear strikes against enemy naval groupings, moreover, multiple ones.

Superweapons do not exist and cannot be invented.

This hackneyed truth, which some people so much do not want to understand, applies to nuclear missiles as well. We will have to fight with the maximum tension of forces without any nuclear weapons, ensure the surprise of their combat use, disperse the population and reserves in advance, mislead the enemy's intelligence in order to prevent him from seeing all this.

And then, after the use of nuclear missiles, continue to fight further, keep the blows and suffer losses. And so on until complete victory. And for this you need to have something to fight - both before the missiles, and without it.

Alas, we don't think about it. How, for example, to deliver nuclear strikes against the United States after the exhaustion of ballistic and cruise missiles? The Americans have an answer - with bombs. But our bombers cannot do that. And even having bombs won't help. And we have a lot of such punctures.

Unfortunately, due to the extremely aggressive US policy, the likelihood of a nuclear war is growing.

Moreover, a number of American military preparations indicate that they are preparing for this: to wage a nuclear war with the use of strategic weapons, and it is precisely for a surprise attack first. This is a very serious threat.

With this in mind, we need to stop perceiving nuclear weapons as a kind of fetish and a 100% guarantee of our security. This is not true. It's just a very powerful and terrible weapon and nothing more. For our main enemy, it does not even guarantee his exit from the war. In the light of the latest trends in the United States, it does not guarantee non-aggression from the American side - it no longer guarantees. And in the future, its role as a deterrent will rapidly decline. And the value as a powerful tool for solving strategic or even operational (just like that) tasks is to grow. Regardless of our view of the issue.

But apart from general-purpose forces, from non-nuclear weapons, from tactical nuclear weapons and without appropriate preparation for combat use, they will not save us. Apart from all of the above, we cannot even inflict an effective strike on the United States. Such strength that they have lost the ability to fight even if there is a desire to do it (and they will have it at any loss).

We need to prepare general-purpose forces for war as if there were no nuclear weapons. And only then it (this weapon) can really help us. And it is not useless to anger the enemy, and make the conflict insoluble even by force.

We must understand all this as quickly as possible. There is every reason to believe that a "test of strength" is not far off.
Author:
Photos used:
Wikipedia commons, Marin Vargic, Pressa.tv, Nate Hovee, Alex Wellrstain's Nukemap, New York Magazine by Gluekit (nymag.com), Armen Pogharian (http://www.armenpogharian.com)
655 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. Aerodrome
    Aerodrome 8 December 2020 04: 10
    -7
    So, how can we jump around the United States?
    hats ...! better pink. over the past 20 years, the population has decreased by 20 million, as after the Second World War. at such a rate, there will be no one to "shy away". 15 thousand will remain, for service of "ventilators" as Thatcher said. skip ahead, pink-eyed! hooray!
    1. BDRM 667
      BDRM 667 8 December 2020 04: 30
      +1
      Another damaging factor of nuclear weapons - "post-apocalyptic-psychological", associated with the reaction of Japanese society to the so-called "Hibakusha" - as the Japanese call those who survived the atomic bombings and their descendants. In recent years, about 200 thousand people have remained in the Land of the Rising Sun. The Japanese government financially supports the victims of the nuclear strike.
      But at the same time, among ordinary Japanese, hibakusha are considered outcasts.
      They are not hired, it is not customary to create families with them, considering that the consequences of radiation sickness can be inherited or even contagious.
      1. polar fox
        polar fox 8 December 2020 05: 14
        +24
        Quote: BDRM 667
        In recent years, about 200 thousand people have remained in the Land of the Rising Sun.

        we have fewer veterans left ... and 40-year-olds are dying like flies. and yes, who will be hired at 90?
        1. Mitroha
          Mitroha 8 December 2020 07: 30
          +43
          The author just zadolbal with the phrase "hurray-patriot" that there are no words left in the Russian language? Alexander, in general, it is good and even necessary to be a patriot, and you should not use this word so derogatoryly. It loses its status and concept as a person who loves and cares for their country. With the cry "Hurray" the patriots of our country went on the attack and died for it. Don't have enough vocabulary? Hats won't fit? Is the overestimation of forces digestible? So expand your vocabulary to exclude this phrase, in this context, from your good articles. Thank you
          1. Imobile
            Imobile 8 December 2020 10: 09
            -49%
            Patriotism - the last refuge of the villain Samuel Johnson
            1. The comment was deleted.
            2. Svidetel 45
              Svidetel 45 13 December 2020 21: 31
              +5
              The fact that patriotism is the last refuge of scoundrels exists only in the concept of scoundrels themselves, who are ready to sell themselves to anyone for 30 coins and lace panties.
            3. avg avg
              avg avg 14 December 2020 11: 34
              0
              If you are trying to argue, then quote in full. Do not try to be silent.
          2. timokhin-aa
            8 December 2020 10: 39
            +28
            "Hurray-patriotism" is an established phrase in the Russian language, denoting an enthusiastic-stupid person, but at the same time a patriot.
            So I myself am a patriot.

            But the charms waving the Russian flag have already become an openly malicious element at the moment.
            1. KKND
              KKND 8 December 2020 11: 37
              -10%
              Quote: timokhin-aa
              But the charms waving the Russian flag have already become an openly malicious element at the moment.

              In my opinion, you and your "Americans are on guard, but there is nothing to defend with!" well in the new time you will fit in, perhaps (I'm not Wang). The frenzy of "Russian Spring" is passing, the country is slowly becoming poorer, and talk about "we have one left" for an evil Russian is no longer "screwed".
              Then you will enter the stage. There was such a character in the 90s Karaulov. Was popular.
              And you really are not bad at military affairs.
            2. lucul
              lucul 8 December 2020 12: 10
              -16%
              "Hurray-patriotism" is an established phrase in the Russian language, denoting an enthusiastic-stupid person, but at the same time a patriot.
              So I myself am a patriot.

              Laughed like a horse))))
              The author, of course, is aware that a thermonuclear explosion can be multistage, and in this case, its power is not much limited. Technically, the explosion power of a rocket can exceed 1 Gigaton (1 Megatons) in TNT equivalent, and 000 Petaton (1 Gigatons). That is, in fact, you can arrange a second Sun on Earth.
              But the author, of course, cannot glaze America))).
              1. DrEng527
                DrEng527 8 December 2020 14: 41
                +10
                Quote: lucul
                its power is not much limited.

                not at all - by the capabilities of the carriers ... request
                1. Boa kaa
                  Boa kaa 8 December 2020 23: 59
                  +1
                  Quote: DrEng527
                  not at all - by the capabilities of the carriers ...

                  The power of such an explosion (more precisely, a nuclear device) is limited by the strength of the shell (SBP body), however.
                2. lucul
                  lucul 9 December 2020 09: 17
                  -3
                  not at all - by the capabilities of native speakers.

                  Well, here's a carrier - a super-tanker with a displacement of 500 tons comes into the port of America, and on board is a hydrogen bomb, 000 tons of dry weight. Can you imagine its power in TNT equivalent? ))))
                  1. Narak-zempo
                    Narak-zempo 10 December 2020 00: 49
                    0
                    Quote: lucul
                    not at all - by the capabilities of native speakers.

                    Well, here's a carrier - a super-tanker with a displacement of 500 tons comes into the port of America, and on board is a hydrogen bomb, 000 tons of dry weight. Can you imagine its power in TNT equivalent? ))))

                    And what?
                    The arrival of such a ship in peacetime is already, according to all laws, an act of aggression and a pretext for war. Not to mention the fact that the creation of such a charge will not remain unnoticed by the enemy's reconnaissance, and it will be tightly grazed.
                    And who will let you into the military?
                    1. lucul
                      lucul 10 December 2020 10: 41
                      -1
                      And what?
                      The arrival of such a ship in peacetime is already, according to all laws, an act of aggression and a pretext for war.

                      Who knows what's on board? ))))
                      Not to mention the fact that the creation of such a charge will not remain unnoticed by the enemy's reconnaissance, and it will be tightly grazed.

                      Come on, and about the annexation of Crimea in 2014, did the intelligence also report ahead of time? )))
              2. Narak-zempo
                Narak-zempo 10 December 2020 00: 46
                +3
                Quote: lucul
                "Hurray-patriotism" is an established phrase in the Russian language, denoting an enthusiastic-stupid person, but at the same time a patriot.
                So I myself am a patriot.

                Laughed like a horse))))
                The author, of course, is aware that a thermonuclear explosion can be multistage, and in this case, its power is not much limited. Technically, the explosion power of a rocket can exceed 1 Gigaton (1 Megatons) in TNT equivalent, and 000 Petaton (1 Gigatons). That is, in fact, you can arrange a second Sun on Earth.
                But the author, of course, cannot glaze America))).

                And what, where are such charges?
                How long will it take to develop a "product"? Producing uranium, plutonium, tritium, making a charge? Development of new media?
                "Tsar Bomba" weighed more than 26 tons. Show an ICBM with that throw weight. How much will such a rocket cost, a mine under it?
                Several super-heavy monoblock ICBMs are much easier to intercept than several dozen lighter and MIRVed ones.
                Further, it is shown that many small bangs are much more effective than a few extra-large ones. To make a large city unsuitable for life, 300 kt is enough to destroy any plant - and even less, but for each missile silo, 2-3 warheads are desirable for a guarantee.
                1. lucul
                  lucul 10 December 2020 10: 44
                  -6
                  And what, where are such charges?
                  How long will it take to develop a "product"? Producing uranium, plutonium, tritium, making a charge? Development of new media?

                  Everything is there, and in great abundance.
                  "Tsar Bomba" weighed more than 26 tons. Show an ICBM with such throw weight

                  If you don't like a supertanker, here's Poseidon off the coast of America, with a bomb, with a dry weight of 5 tons. ))))
                2. Thrombus
                  Thrombus 19 December 2020 18: 17
                  0
                  Along the caldera of the Yellowstone supervolcano, we will shuffle 5 governors with all the blocks and hello to America, a present for Biden is always ready.
            3. Volder
              Volder 8 December 2020 14: 28
              0
              Quote: timokhin-aa
              "hurray-patriotism" is an established phrase in the Russian language, denoting an enthusiastic-stupid person
              That is, admiring your country and military capabilities is bad, harmful and not smart. And the fact that the RF Armed Forces are one of the strongest in the world, and the history of Russia is heroic and rich, is not taken into account. There is no such word in Russian! I mean in the dictionary.
              So I myself am a patriot.
              More like a pseudo-patriot.
              1. Imobile
                Imobile 8 December 2020 15: 01
                -10%
                Quote: Volder
                That is, to admire your country and military capabilities is bad, harmful and not smart. And the fact that the RF Armed Forces are one of the most powerful in the world.
                not just bad - it's terrible. It is necessary to plant for this, this decomposition! The only thing you can admire with swimmee weapons and people during the war and then after the battle!
              2. Ingenegr
                Ingenegr 8 December 2020 15: 09
                +32
                A patriot is not the one who shouts "Hurray!" and "Glory!", often not even understanding why and to whom. A patriot, if he is real, must certainly have analytical and critical thinking. And be sure to look for gaps, omissions and mistakes in matters of state building. Search professionally. To do this, he must know a lot, be a competent specialist, have a broad outlook, good physical development, not have bad habits and much more.
                Critical analysis allows you to find and raise problematic and unresolved issues, and therefore, outline ways to solve them. Unrestrained puppy delight does not give such an opportunity.
                The author of the article only really looked at the issue of nuclear deterrence and warfare before and after the "doomsday" and voiced a really existing problem. In this regard, his position is quite patriotic. But to bury one's head in the sand and read mantras about "everyone is stronger, blush and whiter" is hardly patriotic.
                1. Volder
                  Volder 13 December 2020 19: 15
                  +1
                  Quote: Ingenegr
                  The author of the article only really looked at the issue of nuclear deterrence and warfare before and after the "doomsday" and voiced a really existing problem.
                  There is NO problem of nuclear deterrence in Russia. The author invents with a blue eye, he even greatly downplayed the consequences of nuclear explosions, and you agree with him without any critical thinking.
                  A patriot, if he is real, must certainly have analytical and critical thinking. And be sure to look for gaps, omissions and mistakes in matters of state building. Search professionally. To do this, he must know a lot, be a competent specialist, have a broad outlook, good physical development, not have bad habits and much more.
                  You have a completely wrong idea. Open an encyclopedia or Wikipedia and read what the words "patriot" and "patriotism" mean. Apparently, smokers and overweight people cannot be patriots, in your mind. And also those who are not a professional and competent specialist in state building cannot be patriots. Apparently, you yourself are not a patriot either.
                  A patriot is not the one who shouts "Hurray!" and "Glory!", often not even understanding why and to whom.
                  There is no need to confuse Ukrainian nationalists with Russian patriots.
                  Critical analysis allows you to find and raise problematic and unresolved issues, and therefore, outline ways to solve them.
                  Journalists do not criticize in order to "chart ways" for solving problems. It is not their responsibility and they have no authority. Journalists pursue completely different goals, in particular - to earn money, assert themselves and increase their own importance in the eyes of the public, some become foreign agents ...
              3. timokhin-aa
                8 December 2020 15: 22
                +2
                That is, to admire your country and military capabilities is bad, harmful and not smart.


                Well, what do you mean, this is quite good, useful and absolutely normal - but only with really existing possibilities, and not like you.
                1. Imobile
                  Imobile 8 December 2020 17: 11
                  -14%
                  Quote: timokhin-aa
                  Well, what do you mean, this is quite good, useful and absolutely normal - but only with really existing possibilities, and not like you.

                  I disagree. There is not a single example when urapatriotism helped, but there are a lot of reverse ones. I would shoot all the cheers of the patriots, Of course, I'm sorry for the fools, but as I remember the Russian-Japanese, the Great Patriotic War and others, so pity passes, how many people could have been saved
                  1. DrEng527
                    DrEng527 10 December 2020 11: 20
                    +6
                    Quote: Imobile
                    I would shoot all the cheers of the patriots,

                    another couch executioner ... bully
                2. DrEng527
                  DrEng527 10 December 2020 11: 19
                  0
                  Quote: timokhin-aa
                  but only with real possibilities,

                  these only under the bar ... request
                3. Volder
                  Volder 13 December 2020 19: 23
                  +1
                  Quote: timokhin-aa
                  Well, what do you mean, this is quite good, useful and absolutely normal - but only with really existing possibilities, and not like you.
                  If you do not believe in the capabilities of our nuclear missile triad, then this is your right. It is also your right not to be proud of your achievements in nuclear deterrence. But my right is to publicly declare my disagreement with you.
              4. Alexey RA
                Alexey RA 8 December 2020 16: 39
                +13
                Quote: Volder
                That is, to admire your country and military capabilities is bad, harmful and not smart. And the fact that the RF Armed Forces are one of the strongest in the world, and the history of Russia is heroic and rich, is not taken into account.

                The question is, what especially prevented our troops from adapting to the conditions of the war in Finland? It seems to me that they were particularly prevented by the previous campaign of psychology created in the troops and the command structure - we will throw our hats. The Polish campaign terribly damaged us, it spoiled us. Entire articles were written and speeches were said that our Red Army is invincible, that it has no equal, that it has everything, there are no shortages, there was and does not exist, that our army is invincible. In general, there have been no invincible armies in history. The best armies that beat here and there, they suffered defeats. We, comrades, boasted that our army was invincible, that we could throw all our hats, there were no shortages. In practice, there is no such army and never will be.
                (...)
                With this psychology, that our army is invincible, with boasting, which are terribly developed in our country - these are the most ignorant people, i.e. big bouncers - we must do it. This boasting must be done away with once and for all. We need to drum into our people the rules that there is no invincible army. It is necessary to drum into Lenin's words that defeated armies or armies that have suffered defeats fight very well afterwards. We need to drum into our people, starting with the command staff and ending with the private, that war is a game with some unknown people, that there can be defeats in a war. And therefore, one must learn not only how to attack, but also how to retreat. The most important thing to remember is the philosophy of Lenin. It has not been surpassed and it would be good for our Bolsheviks to adopt this philosophy, which fundamentally contradicts the philistine philosophy, as if our army is invincible, has everything and can win everything. This psychology - we will throw our hats - must be done away with if you want our army to become a truly modern army.

                I think all patriots know the author of these words.
                1. timokhin-aa
                  8 December 2020 21: 39
                  -7
                  It is useless, the patient is hopeless in this case.
              5. Black Colonel
                Black Colonel 8 December 2020 22: 01
                +6
                Remembering your history and admiring the feats of your ancestors is good and right, but you should not rely on - the example of recent Karabakh showed this. Therefore, as the ancients said, if you want peace, prepare for war (Si vis pacem, para bellum).
              6. Narak-zempo
                Narak-zempo 10 December 2020 01: 12
                -1
                Quote: Volder
                That is, admire your country and military capabilities

                There is no place for delight in such a case. Emotions blind you, you know, but in such a serious matter as war, it leads to death.
                Quote: Volder
                And the fact that the RF Armed Forces are one of the strongest in the world

                "Some of" - but not the most, and this still does not guarantee victory in a war with an enemy comparable in strength. "There are two wills in the field," the proverb says.
                Quote: Volder
                history of Russia - heroic and rich

                And this also does not guarantee anything, as the victory over Napoleon did not save from defeat in the Crimea.
                And if you delve into history, then heroism compensated for the scarcity of material means of warfare and / or the shoals of military planning (which were not revealed in a timely manner, partly due to the enthusiastic audience). And this resource is also not endless, especially since the entire previous history of Russia the population grew - and now it is decreasing and aging.
            4. Tank hard
              Tank hard 8 December 2020 17: 17
              0
              Quote: timokhin-aa
              "Hurray-patriotism" is an established phrase in the Russian language, denoting an enthusiastic-stupid person, but at the same time a patriot.
              So I am a patriot myself.

              To tears! lol
            5. Revolver
              Revolver 9 December 2020 07: 42
              +1
              View from America.
              Yes, of course, there are metropolitan areas, and the largest is in New York and around it, exactly where I live. The population is millions, and it works somewhere, that is, there must be industry, and at least part of it must be military. It would seem that... So it begs to run there "Poplar", but not one.
              But:
              High-rise development - Manhattan and islets in the outer districts of New York, Newark, and Jersey City. Everything else is low-rise buildings, mostly single-family houses. Most of the high-rise buildings are offices, especially in Manhattan, Newark, Jersey City. Of course, you can zhahnut during the working day, although from a military point of view it is more correct when it's morning in Russia and evening in America, the military goes to bars or women.
              Such a detail: there is practically no industry in this agglomeration. Bank offices, wholesale and retail trade, education, medicine, entertainment, and industry, let alone military, does not. It is not profitable to produce on such an expensive land, but it is profitable to distribute. Therefore, for purely economic reasons, industry was dispersed across the middle and southern states, where land is cheaper and wages are lower. And the population density too. So a blow to the population and a blow to the military-industrial complex are two completely different blows. And a blow to the places with the highest population density will not affect the military-industrial potential in any significant way, and a blow to the main industrial facilities will practically not affect the bulk of the population. And for all together, as you have shown with the numbers in hand, the warheads are stupidly not enough even in the case of ideal conditions for the first strike. But the answer is guaranteed to fly, first of all to Moscow and to my native Peter, which I will be sincerely sorry for. And there, the majority of the population lives in high-rise buildings, and there is industry, including the military.
              Do you need it? Maybe it's better not to bring this up at all?
              Something like that.
              1. sniperino
                sniperino 9 December 2020 12: 31
                +1
                Quote: Nagan
                View from America.
                How is the news discussed there
                The Republican Party in the US Congress rejects the resolution recognizing the Democrat Joe Biden as the President-elect
                Who needs to bomb you? Handle it yourself.
              2. The comment was deleted.
                1. The comment was deleted.
              3. Aag
                Aag 9 December 2020 22: 08
                +2
                "... You need it? Maybe it's better not to bring it up at all? ..."
                With this question not here .... Try to be heard on your continent.

                Advertising: Excursions around St. Petersburg, residence permit in the Russian Federation. Inexpensive (coordinates of targets, time of the most effective nuclear facility) ... drinks
            6. sniperino
              sniperino 9 December 2020 12: 42
              -6
              Quote: timokhin-aa
              But the charms waving the Russian flag have already become an openly malicious element at the moment.
              Sir, you will not believe it, but someone is waving on your avatar ...
              1. timokhin-aa
                9 December 2020 17: 41
                +2
                He does not swing, but demonstrates calmly and with dignity.
                1. Andrey Kazantsev
                  Andrey Kazantsev 9 December 2020 22: 54
                  +5
                  I disagree with the conclusions of the article. Can it be easier and cheaper to increase the nuclear potential to the required amount?
                  1. SovAr238A
                    SovAr238A 13 December 2020 10: 00
                    +2
                    Quote: Andrey Kazantsev
                    I disagree with the conclusions of the article. Can it be easier and cheaper to increase the nuclear potential to the required amount?

                    How so?
                    1. Andrey Kazantsev
                      Andrey Kazantsev 1 January 2021 22: 38
                      0
                      Maybe I'm writing a banality, but to make more nuclear charges and their carriers.
                  2. Sysanin
                    Sysanin 20 December 2020 11: 56
                    0
                    And it is already enlarged. The author forgot that Russia still has about 5000 tactical nuclear charges.
          3. Stas157
            Stas157 8 December 2020 10: 49
            +3
            Nothing "glaze "will not work.

            The article is a plus. But, constant "glazeb "- hurts the eyes. It seems that the installer of plastic windows was writing the article!

            Quote: Mitroha
            Hats won't fit?

            "Hurray-patriots" will be more accurate. Since this is a term already with a political connotation, characterizing the adherents of the current government. And therefore screaming hurray for any of her initiatives.
            1. timokhin-aa
              8 December 2020 11: 33
              -2
              I reread the hurray-patriots.
          4. Fan-fan
            Fan-fan 8 December 2020 12: 07
            +8
            You have such an opinion, mine is different. And what to call the thoughtless simpletons who do not want to learn or understand anything? Well, you can call them rabid patriots or something else, the main thing is that all patriots are divided into useful and harmful for their country. Here is the author called harmful.
          5. The comment was deleted.
          6. ccsr
            ccsr 8 December 2020 12: 57
            +31
            Quote: Mitroha
            The author just zadolbal with the phrase "hurray-patriot" that there are no words left in the Russian language?

            Moreover, the author is annoyed with his illiteracy, because he has no idea that in addition to the consequences of the nuclear strike itself, there will be a huge number of man-made disasters that will bring population losses even greater than he could imagine. Even the destruction of dams on rivers (and there are a lot of them in the USA) leads to a huge wave that can sweep away everything that lies downstream, and the Americans still cannot fully recover from the well-known disaster. The author is also unaware of the burning of materials that can last for years, such as oil wells in Kuwait, which is why you cannot believe his conclusions, you do not respect yourself. However, he himself is clearly not a patriot, although he clings to them, although the trouble is completely different - ignorant people can believe that a nuclear war is something like a computer game where you can easily simulate all sorts of stupidity. But this is already dangerous, and not only for us ...
            1. DrEng527
              DrEng527 8 December 2020 14: 43
              +12
              Quote: ccsr
              there will be a huge number of man-made disasters that will bring population losses even greater than he can imagine

              for example, everything on protected electronics, high-voltage networks and power plants from EMP will fail after the explosion of a megaton nuclear warhead ... request and all the cars .... request
            2. Ingenegr
              Ingenegr 8 December 2020 15: 18
              +25
              But the SA and the Soviet Navy were seriously preparing to fight and win a war with the use of nuclear weapons. And the USSR civil defense system was aimed at minimizing losses and damage, preserving and restoring the activities of government bodies and strategically important enterprises after an exchange of nuclear strikes.
              1. ccsr
                ccsr 8 December 2020 18: 40
                +28
                Quote: Ingenegr
                But the SA and the Soviet Navy were seriously preparing to fight and win a war with the use of nuclear weapons.

                I will tell you how it was taught in the higher educational institutions in the seventies, where each officer was obliged to pass the exam in the MPS after at least a year of training. In one lesson, we drew on maps near Kiev the contaminated zones from the use of a nuclear charge by the enemy and calculated how long it took for a column of vehicles to cross them so that hp. did not receive a lethal dose of radiation. I think that those who have served in the army for many years will immediately remember such tasks - there were many of them when different tables from reference books were used. But this is not the point, but the fact that the assistant professor, a front-line colonel, later chewed all the consequences for us, and said that the contaminated area is garbage, like the explosion itself, because if the enemy hits 400 kt along the dam of the Kiev reservoir, then a wave several meters high will wash away not only the Right Bank, but everything up to Kherson inclusive. Therefore, when choosing a position, always take into account not only the explosion itself, but also its consequences for the surrounding area, because the forest burns quickly, and it is not a fact that you will have time to escape if you find yourself in it for the purpose of disguise.
                However, as everyone knows, even in peacetime, the United States is not able to put out fires in one of the states for weeks and it is not difficult to predict what will happen when the entire territory is on fire. Therefore, all the tales that the country can quickly recover from nuclear strikes are designed for naive people - everything will be much more tragic than the author of the article believes.
                1. sniperino
                  sniperino 9 December 2020 12: 57
                  -1
                  Quote: ccsr
                  Therefore, all the tales that the country can quickly recover from nuclear strikes are designed for naive people - everything will be much more tragic than the author of the article believes.
                  Wait, they are now putting up a series of Armageddon and Armageddon Deluxe shelters for sale.
                  1. ccsr
                    ccsr 9 December 2020 13: 49
                    +4
                    Quote: sniperino
                    Wait, they are now putting up a series of Armageddon and Armageddon Deluxe shelters for sale.

                    The bulk of them will not have time to reach them. And those who have time will only prolong the agony and live as long as possible those who do not have such shelters. So it is better to save yourself on other continents - in Australia, for example.
                    1. sniperino
                      sniperino 9 December 2020 15: 54
                      0
                      Quote: ccsr
                      they will not have time to reach them
                      The main thing is to have time to pay, and no one cares where they will run. Where will the decision-making center be at this moment? This is a difficult question for me.
                    2. Aag
                      Aag 9 December 2020 23: 00
                      +1
                      "... So it's better to save yourself on other continents - in Australia for example ..."
                      Do you have a hotel business there?))
                      If according to the article, then the author in the first lines outlined the intention to debunk the belief ... of some that nuclear weapons are a panacea. And indeed, how much, how long can you "go" to the Strategic Missile Forces? Try to convince me that there is still something in the triad that significant remained. (although after the events in Taganrog, hopes also melt ((.)
                      Of course, there are complaints about the article. In particular, the author was intrigued by the problem of re-aiming ICBMs. (For stationary targets, with known coordinates, with an inertial LP, with the possibility of entering several flight targets) ...
                      You are right - you should consider not only the nuclear force itself, but also its consequences. Earlier, in my comments, I also paid attention to this. Many have little idea of ​​the consequences of disruption of energy, heat, cold supply, loss of management, logistics in industrial centers , large settlements. For reindeer herders, little has changed! Well, they will not affect the course of the war ...
                      In general, as it is alarming, the amers have more bases than we have carriers. Although I have something to worry about, three hundred meters from the command post, immediately to heaven! hi
                      1. ccsr
                        ccsr 10 December 2020 17: 30
                        +4
                        Quote: AAG
                        Many have little idea of ​​the consequences of disruption of energy, heat, cold supply, loss of management, logistics in industrial centers, large settlements.

                        I think they simply do not know what it is, and examples of major disasters, with the same Fukushima and Chernobyl, are not clear for them and they do not represent all the consequences.
                        Quote: AAG
                        Of course, there are complaints about the article. In particular, the author was intrigued by the problem of re-aiming ICBMs.

                        There will be enough time for this, and why should it be done, if the outcome is already known to the two superpowers.
                        Quote: AAG
                        Although, what do I have to worry about, three hundred meters from the checkpoint rd, straight to heaven!

                        Moreover, you should understand that any whim with the prejudice of missiles on nuclear submarines for a second strike is just nonsense - there will be no one to do it, and the nuclear submarines themselves are unlikely to survive, although they will have chances to survive.
            3. t-34marina
              t-34marina 8 December 2020 15: 19
              +2
              All hope is in Yellowstone ....)
            4. Tank hard
              Tank hard 8 December 2020 18: 32
              +7
              Quote: ccsr
              However, he himself is clearly not a patriot, although he clings to them, although the trouble is completely different - ignorant people can believe that a nuclear war is something like a computer game where you can easily simulate all sorts of stupidity. But this is already dangerous, and not only for us.

              As soon as I wrote something like that, they immediately deleted my message and put a warning for trolling. A very patriotic resource. laughing
            5. svd-xnumx
              svd-xnumx 8 December 2020 18: 46
              +13
              Moreover, the author is annoyed with his illiteracy, because he has no idea that in addition to the consequences of the nuclear strike itself, there will be a huge number of man-made disasters that will bring population losses even greater than he could imagine.
              And almost without exception, the armed population will go to kill and rob those who have resources in their hands (water, food, energy), and those who do not want to share will destroy the "rogue." the shops.
              At the expense of striking the ICBM silos, the activity is meaningless, during the flight time of our missiles they will have already left the silos. This would make sense in case of a strike from submarines deployed closer to the enemy, which is unfeasible for Russia. And the author does not consider in his scenario the outbreak of hostilities near the borders of the Russian Federation to strike tactical nuclear weapons on the enemy in Europe.
            6. timokhin-aa
              8 December 2020 21: 38
              -4
              Moreover, the author is annoyed with his illiteracy, because he has no idea that in addition to the consequences of the nuclear strike itself, there will be a huge number of man-made disasters that will bring population losses even greater than he could imagine.


              But what about these words from the article

              The most pessimistic options for the United States speak of halving its population in the event of a successful counter-value strike. And the complete failure of the US authorities in eliminating its consequences. And this process will drag on for at least a year. During which people will die no longer from nuclear weapons, but from devastation, hunger, lack of drugs and the like. "


              A warrant officer?
              1. ccsr
                ccsr 9 December 2020 12: 24
                +8
                Quote: timokhin-aa
                But what about these words from the article
                The most pessimistic options for the United States speak of halving its population in the event of a successful counter-value strike.

                This "pessimistic version" of yours is designed for the illiterate, because anyone who has come across the MOMP course knows that troop losses are calculated not momentarily, but within a few days after the use of nuclear weapons. Those who endure a nuclear strike in the field, but are exposed to radiation, will begin to die already on the second or third day, and these will be trained people with protection in the form of OZK and gas masks and with the provision of medical assistance. But the civilian population in large cities, which does not have any protection, will die in much larger numbers, as well as those that fall under radioactive fallout. Educate yourself, dreamer:
                In 1954, tests of hydrogen bombs began. One of the explosions was more powerful than in Nagasaki or Hiroshima. Millions of tons of sand, coral and plants were blown into the air. The scale was underestimated by the military, the explosion turned out to be three times more powerful than expected. Three small islands disappeared from the face of the earth, and a crater 3 km in diameter formed in the center of the atoll. Several islands 100 miles from Bikini, whose residents were not warned and evacuated, were covered with a layer of radioactive dust 2 cm thick. Unaware of the danger, the children played in the ash. By nightfall, the islanders were in a panic - the first signs of radioactive contamination began to appear: hair loss, weakness and severe vomiting. It was two days before the US government provided medical assistance to the islanders and evacuated them.

                https://zen.yandex.ru/media/kulturologia/raiskii-ostrov-posle-iadernyh-ispytanii-ssha-neobratimye-posledstviia-5d6a4f84bc251400adc31815

                Quote: timokhin-aa
                And this process will drag on for at least a year.

                What year, what are you babbling about - they still cannot eliminate the consequences of nuclear explosions at some test sites, and the contaminated territories will remain for decades. Who will rebuild the country if most of the population dies in the first few days, not years - do you even understand that?
                And the epidemics will finish off the rest of the survivors, and no one can do anything - no one argues with this, here you are clearly not Columbus to take credit for the discovery of America.
          7. pereselenec
            pereselenec 8 December 2020 16: 39
            -3
            Quote: Mitroha
            The author just zadolbal with the phrase "hurray-patriot" that there are no words left in the Russian language? Alexander, in general, it is good and even necessary to be a patriot, and you should not use this word so derogatoryly. It loses its status and concept as a person who loves and cares for their country. With the cry "Hurray" the patriots of our country went on the attack and died for it. Don't have enough vocabulary? Hats won't fit? Is the overestimation of forces digestible? So expand your vocabulary to exclude this phrase, in this context, from your good articles. Thank you


            Intellectually, the word "patriot" is incorrect, taken from the Anglo-Saxons, from whom it is borrowed from the unconventionally sexual Romans. It is necessary to write "otznolyub"!
          8. Plastmaster
            Plastmaster 8 December 2020 19: 08
            +2
            Quote: Mitroha
            The author just zadolbal with the phrase "hurray-patriot" that there are no words left in the Russian language?

            Here, right to the point. Well, in fact, if everything is not so scary, what the hell, they do not give Iran a vigorous club.
          9. Chizhov Kirill
            Chizhov Kirill 12 December 2020 15: 16
            -1
            essentially what?
        2. Simargl
          Simargl 8 December 2020 11: 21
          +4
          Quote: polar fox
          we have fewer veterans left ...
          Veterans in 1945 were at least 18, and the Hibakusha could have been born a second before the explosion.
          1. Bolt cutter
            Bolt cutter 8 December 2020 13: 33
            +4
            Designer Issei Miyake was born in Hiroshima in the 38th and survived a nuclear strike. In Japan, by the way, they openly declare that nuclear war will not become an apocalypse and they are not particularly afraid of it - we will survive, they say wassat
            1. Simargl
              Simargl 8 December 2020 14: 25
              +1
              Quote: Bolt Cutter
              In Japan, by the way, they openly declare that nuclear war will not become an apocalypse and they are not particularly afraid of it - we will survive, they say
              And you will compare the photos of the results of conventional bombing of Japanese cities, and nuclear ones. That's why they don't feel the difference.
              I cannot say, but I read somewhere that to achieve similar results, when struck in winter (snow cover), on a modern city (almost 100% concrete), power is needed three orders of magnitude (x1000) more than used in Japan.
              1. Bolt cutter
                Bolt cutter 8 December 2020 14: 31
                +6
                almost 100% concrete
                Glasses and plaster partitions will simply fly out. And concrete without a reserve of strength (because it is expensive) - buildings will be folded from the blast wave. But of course, those vremya cannot be compared with the wooden kiosks of the Japanese.
                1. Simargl
                  Simargl 8 December 2020 16: 14
                  +2
                  Quote: Bolt Cutter
                  Glasses and plaster partitions will simply fly out.
                  It's clear! But there are two effects:
                  1 - modern double-glazed windows are stronger than some houses in Japan at that time,
                  2 - drywall protects against flash better than paper.
                  + concrete, due to inertia, will take on a very large part of the energy and reduce the radius of damage, as well as increase the speed of wave decay.

                  Quote: Bolt Cutter
                  And concrete without a reserve of strength (because it is expensive) - buildings will be folded from the blast wave.
                  Panel will fold - that's understandable. A panel house is being built under my windows. How it will stand is not clear to me, because hold the walls on a little welding.
                  The frame will remain in the frame-block, but it will take out some walls.
                  Monolithic will either stand or fall entirely.
                  1. Bolt cutter
                    Bolt cutter 8 December 2020 16: 21
                    +4
                    We wouldn't even keep geese in Japanese halabudas. Monoliths are hardly being built now with a large margin of safety - they will fall apart at times due to lateral loads from an explosion not provided for by the design. From the frame-block frame, one frame will remain. But in general, yes, a nuclear explosion will not be as effective as in Japan of those years.
                    1. Simargl
                      Simargl 8 December 2020 16: 24
                      +2
                      Quote: Bolt Cutter
                      But in general, yes, a nuclear explosion will not be as effective as in Japan in those years.
                      It should be remembered that the building of the Chamber of Commerce was almost exactly under the explosion. The floors are wooden, the walls are brick. Yes, earthquake resistant, but ...
                      There is a safety margin, but as a side effect of energy conservation.
                      1. Bolt cutter
                        Bolt cutter 8 December 2020 16: 34
                        +5
                        the building of the chamber of commerce stood almost exactly under the explosion.
                        As a result, the walls worked "in compression" without transverse bending loads. Otherwise, there would be no bricks left. As in Tos- "nuclear pines" remained under the epicenter, but the branches were torn off.
                      2. Simargl
                        Simargl 8 December 2020 19: 16
                        0
                        So the dome did not completely collapse there ...
                      3. Bolt cutter
                        Bolt cutter 8 December 2020 19: 21
                        -1
                        The compression design also works.
                      4. Simargl
                        Simargl 8 December 2020 19: 26
                        -1
                      5. Bolt cutter
                        Bolt cutter 8 December 2020 19: 33
                        -1
                        And the dome is not simple, but on a metal frame. Does its structure work in tension, or what? Stone domes seem to be held together by compression by their own weight. And the iron ones will definitely withstand a blow strictly from above. It would have exploded from the side, everything would have been lying in the river. And from the building on the side (most likely reinforced concrete), one frame remained.
                      6. Simargl
                        Simargl 8 December 2020 19: 52
                        -1
                        Quote: Bolt Cutter
                        Do his designs work in tension, or what?
                        Like BE ... stone domes are built on a powerful armo-belt so that it does not creep apart. So are the arches. However, the dome is an arch of rotation.
                        The dome of the Chamber is a curved beam: bottom for tension, top for compression. resisted, because it was iron and turned edge to pressure.
                      7. Bolt cutter
                        Bolt cutter 8 December 2020 20: 00
                        -1
                        Something like that, yes. The base of the canopy also experienced a compression load from above. If it had not been for the side, nothing would have been left of it. The building was practically opposed by a force identical in the vector of gravity. And it was well built. So she survived.
                      8. Simargl
                        Simargl 8 December 2020 22: 24
                        -1
                        Quote: Bolt Cutter
                        has experienced a compression load from above.
                        Do you understand exactly the meaning of the word compression? Pressure from above it was, not compression. And that dome is an arched truss, it begins to creep to the sides from the load ...
                        Quote: Bolt Cutter
                        The building was practically opposed by a force identical in the vector of gravity.
                        And the building in the background is at an angle of almost 45 degrees and it didn't fall either.
                    2. Bolt cutter
                      Bolt cutter 8 December 2020 20: 06
                      +2
                      Speaking of frame houses, there is a meeting (the first after the explosion) of the mayor's office where the windows and partitions were blown out by the explosion, and the concrete walls and ceilings were preserved. The Japanese are wondering what to do with Hiroshima now.
                    3. Saxahorse
                      Saxahorse 8 December 2020 23: 21
                      -1
                      Recently in Beirut, two kilotons in a port warehouse gasped. Almost the center of the city. Did many skyscrapers fall? Mostly we got off with broken glass.
                    4. Bolt cutter
                      Bolt cutter 8 December 2020 23: 27
                      +2
                      two kilotons
                      It would have been at least five kt (Hiroshima 12/16) then something would surely have fallen. And there the glass and internal curtain walls were blown out. And a modern charge of 100+ kt will knock them down like dominoes.
  • Aleksandr1971
    Aleksandr1971 8 December 2020 06: 35
    +11
    This factor arises after the emergence and assessment of other factors. Therefore, "hibakusha" is not a deterrent from the West's attack on the Russian Federation.

    The very risk that the United States is losing its dominant role in the world in favor of China leads to the fact that the United States, by any military and, above all, economic methods, is trying to slow down the development of China. They are trying to finish off Russia by the same methods in order to reduce the Russian economy and thereby reduce Russia's nuclear potential.

    After reducing Russia's nuclear potential, the United States will attack Russia. A number of Russian ICBMs will break into US territory, but the damage from this will be many times less than the damage to Russia from a US attack. In this sense, the future appearance of a number of American "hibakusha" is a dismissively weak deterrent against a US attack on Russia.
    1. Sahalinets
      Sahalinets 8 December 2020 08: 23
      +34
      I read the comments and was surprised - why is everyone sure that the other side will reason and act wisely?
      Stalin already fell for it. I thought that Hitler would not dare to fight on two fronts. And that was sensible. But Adik had his own logic. Wrong, but before it became clear, he destroyed half of our country and killed tens of millions of ours.
      Someone thinks Americans are reasonable? Why would it be? Let us recall at least their invasion of Iraq in 2003. We were sure that they would establish a pro-American and, as it were, a democratic regime there. And it just happened ...
      1. Kronos
        Kronos 8 December 2020 10: 06
        0
        So they installed it after Iraq was captured.
        1. Sahalinets
          Sahalinets 8 December 2020 15: 48
          +5
          In real life, bloody chaos was first established there, then ISIS, and now the pro-Iranian regime.
      2. timokhin-aa
        8 December 2020 10: 40
        +9
        I read the comments and was surprised - why is everyone sure that the other side will reason and act wisely?
        Stalin already fell for it.


        That's it. It is much more likely that she will act unwise.
        1. Kuroneko
          Kuroneko 8 December 2020 13: 42
          +4
          Alexander, a question. The option to hit Yellowstone in order to awaken the supervolcano, I suppose you did not consider? Try it too
          And yes, in the list of possible goals, you never mentioned energy. It is much more efficient to withdraw the US energy potential with nuclear weapons. There are not too many meaningful goals. But the consequences will be catastrophic for all spheres - both military and civil.
          1. timokhin-aa
            8 December 2020 15: 24
            -4
            Yellowstone is from the realm of fantasy, as for energy, then yes, but we do not have enough means of destruction to purposefully do this.
            What is fully written in the article.
            Although it may be enough for a nuclear power plant, for a part for sure. But the systematic destruction of the remnants of their potential, which survived the first blows, is not.
            1. Kuroneko
              Kuroneko 8 December 2020 16: 11
              +5
              Quote: timokhin-aa
              as for the energy sector, yes, but we do not have enough means of destruction to do this purposefully.

              Well, another varick, as experts have been writing about for a long time - air nuclear explosions that burn out all electronics with an electromagnetic pulse (and its radius is much wider than the kinetic one from the nuclear charge itself). The states in this regard are very dependent on this and will suffer.
              In general, I am leading to the fact that you did consider even a hypothetical situation, but rather one-sidedly, not comprehensively. Like a general who is only preparing for the last war. = 3
              And I'm not talking about the satellite system. Themselves, I think, understood.
            2. Tank hard
              Tank hard 8 December 2020 17: 19
              +5
              Quote: timokhin-aa
              Yellowstone is fantastic

              And in the field of science fiction, the author is a great specialist. laughing
            3. Alexey Sommer
              Alexey Sommer 8 December 2020 18: 10
              +16
              Quote: timokhin-aa
              but we do not have enough weapons to do this purposefully.

              94 nuclear reactors in the United States. This is what we will, as you say, purposefully engage in the first place. Other large power plants can also be added here. I believe the 300 warhead outfit will put the US back in the coal and steam age. I would have returned it if they had preserved the industry, and I doubt that modern processing centers will work without electricity.
              I will not paint all the delights of this blow. I think you yourself have enough imagination.
              Second, but not twenty-second, I would strike at the infrastructure of the fuel and energy complex. Oil terminals in ports, refineries ... The entire transport system of a huge country is paralyzed. The ability to transport foodstuffs, industrial products, and fuel in the country has disappeared.
              We allocate an outfit of another 300 warheads for this.
              Countervalue blow ...
              Well, let's figure it out. Let's take it into account in the third place.
              How many warheads are needed to plunge the megalopolises of the USA into chaos and confusion? And 30 pieces in total. For there are 600 cities with a population of 000 or more in the US. We allocate 30 warheads to them.
              This third blow will give us 50 million killed and two more times the same number of wounded and homeless in the nearest agglomerations.
              Let's summarize the preliminary results:
              As a result of the above measures in the United States, the following were completely destroyed:
              1 Energy system.
              2 Fuel and energy complex
              3 Transport system
              4 All major cities and their agglomerations.
              5 50 million killed instantly.
              6 million injured
              7 million hungry
              8 Multiple gangs of niggas
              9 Collapse of the public administration system.
              10 I still have about 850 warheads in my hands.
              1. ccsr
                ccsr 8 December 2020 18: 56
                +8
                Quote: Alexey Sommer
                94 nuclear reactors in the United States. This is what we will, as you say, purposefully engage in the first place.

                Absolutely true - it is precisely against them that the strikes will be struck in the first place, and not against the empty silos of American missiles, which will already fly in our direction. And they will not forget about other chemical and energy objects, especially if they are located near the places of residence of a large number of people.
                Quote: Alexey Sommer
                Let's summarize the preliminary results:

                You figured everything correctly, although I think that the first blow will certainly be more powerful, tk. with a massive simultaneous launch, we will be able to bring down more than 300 warheads on the United States.
              2. Samir
                Samir 8 December 2020 23: 10
                +4
                It should be understood that any type of strike other than "Disarming" will lead to the fact that the Americans will mow down the entire Russian infrastructure with their warheads in the same way. But from the situation when the "half of the country is in ruins" - the United States with its truly monstrous military-industrial complex will come out much faster, while still not losing the opportunity to defend its continent.
                The exchange of blows was counted, but what next? How to finish off the enemy if he is overseas? It should be understood that in the event of an escalation, the ships will not stand in ports, even if half of all AUGs are at sea at the time of the strike at the basing sites - this will be enough to cut off any transfer of forces to the continent.
                1. Alexey Sommer
                  Alexey Sommer 9 December 2020 09: 01
                  +7
                  Quote: Samir
                  even if half of all AUGs are at sea at the time of the strike on the bases

                  It never happened that half of the AUG was at sea.
                  Never! Maximum 1/3. That's how life works.
                  1/3 at sea. 1/3 are undergoing maintenance after their return, 1/3 are preparing to go to sea.
                  To determine the number of warheads to render US aircraft carriers incapacitated, it is enough to know that:
                  In the United States, there is only one shipyard where you can build and repair aircraft carriers, they are all assigned to four ports, they all have four home ports. That is, these are 7 warheads. The remaining 3 at sea are also disabled.
                  Quote: Samir
                  USA with their truly monstrous military-industrial complex

                  The monstrous military-industrial complex cannot function, disrupted by cooperation due to the collapse of the transport system, lack of electricity, demoralized and hungry population.
                  1. Boa kaa
                    Boa kaa 9 December 2020 12: 33
                    +2
                    Quote: Alexey Sommer
                    It never happened that half of the AUG was at sea.

                    It happened that 10 aircraft carriers were under repair, maintenance and so on. But this does not mean at all that the opposite will not work out during the threatened period. It all depends on the task at hand. The main thing is the readiness of aviation and their air wings: the preparedness of the crews for combat use day and night, with a minimum of weather conditions.
                    And the second thing. The main feature is the supply of UPS to the media. As soon as it happens - pick up your ass and prepare for the worst.
                    AHA.
                  2. SovAr238A
                    SovAr238A 13 December 2020 10: 29
                    -1
                    Quote: Alexey Sommer
                    Quote: Samir
                    even if half of all AUGs are at sea at the time of the strike on the bases

                    It never happened that half of the AUG was at sea.
                    Never! Maximum 1/3. That's how life works.
                    1/3 at sea. 1/3 are undergoing maintenance after their return, 1/3 are preparing to go to sea.
                    To determine the number of warheads to render US aircraft carriers incapacitated, it is enough to know that:
                    In the United States, there is only one shipyard where you can build and repair aircraft carriers, they are all assigned to four ports, they all have four home ports. That is, these are 7 warheads. The remaining 3 at sea are also disabled.
                    Quote: Samir
                    USA with their truly monstrous military-industrial complex

                    The monstrous military-industrial complex cannot function, disrupted by cooperation due to the collapse of the transport system, lack of electricity, demoralized and hungry population.

                    If we destroy the United States according to your calculations, then our nuclear stock will only be enough for a little grinding.

                    And not a single warhead will remain for other countries.
                    Do you really think that the Avians will have nowhere to serve?
                    That there will be no large shipyards left in the world - that will not surrender to the remaining Americans themselves?
                    Just because. that they have been in the same block with them for 70 years!

                    Or Europeans, Japanese, Australians will not build many turbine generators for America to rebuild the US electrical system?

                    All countries, except Russia, will rush to help the United States with a terrible force, bringing in surplus food, fuel, etc.

                    But not to us.
                    we will be gone after the retaliatory strike.

                    And therefore, they will survive and in 20-30 years will return to that. what they had before the nuclear war.
                    Practically unchanged, except for the appearance of a couple of hundred exclusion zones of various sizes.

                    And we will not be.
                    No people. no state. no infrastructure.
                    No one will help our survivors to recover.
                  3. Alexey Sommer
                    Alexey Sommer 13 December 2020 14: 53
                    -2
                    You made me angry.
                    Quote: SovAr238A
                    then our nuclear stock will only be enough for a little grinding.

                    Have you read my comments?
                    Under 850 strategic warheads on hand, not counting tactical ones.
                    Therefore:
                    1 For Japan, 100 is enough.
                    2 for austalia and new zealand 100 each
                    another 300 to Europe.
                    Total 600
                    250 left
                    tactical shore especially for you.
                    I'll get it with calibers with appl.
                    ps Please do not write to me more from Zhmerenka.
                    enough for traitors too. hi
          2. Leontrotsky
            Leontrotsky 8 December 2020 21: 32
            0
            Why did it happen? Read the works of volcanologists - all the indicators of seismic activity in the Yoloustone area indicate that its probability of eruption is very high. Yes, and 600 years ago, it erupted the last time - the time has just come. According to the observations of local residents. animals began to leave its slopes, and this is one of the signs of an imminent eruption. In any case, we must try)) Allocate three warheads to the park area. And if this provokes its eruption, it’s worth the candle. According to scientists, the ashes will spread deep into the territory of the states within 000 km, cover the earth .. and its fertility will be restored, at least in 800-10 years. Simply put, where there used to be farm fields, there will be one ash. You look and we will save warheads at this event. For ordinary amer citizens)
            1. boriz
              boriz 9 December 2020 00: 48
              +3
              The harm of ash is not in violation of fertility. Almost all people and all animals will die. If you remember, Yellowstone was found thanks to the accumulation of characteristic remains of animals, which inside - like a plaster copy of the lungs. That is, the result is as if you are breathing dense cement dust for a long time. And the lungs are moist from the inside. Fish have about the same story. Ashes hang in the air for a long time. All equipment is out of order. All filters (including for breathing) are clogged instantly, a change does not help, the next ones are also clogged immediately. All kinds of gas turbine engines (aviation, power engineering) immediately go out of order forever.
              And what about fertility - it depends on the composition. Usually, everything grows well over the ashes. Only there will be no one to plow / sow.
              The problem for us is the same: it could be a long winter all over the planet. Amers, of course, is worse.
              You can also get into the San Andreas Fault. There will be horror in San Francisco / Los Angeles. By the way, this was a real goal in the USSR. I think they have not forgotten now.
              1. Leontrotsky
                Leontrotsky 10 December 2020 10: 45
                0
                Yes, everything grows well over the ashes, if the forest is burned out, but during a volcanic eruption, sometimes sulfur is contained in the ashes, which, well, does not increase fertility. And the layer of this ash will be significant. In any case, 10 years will pass before fertility is restored. And they still have to live.
                1. boriz
                  boriz 10 December 2020 10: 49
                  0
                  I just read about that. that it is on volcanic ash that everything grows well. But I will not argue. The trick is that
                  And they still have to live.
                  , but there will be no one to live.
            2. Evgeny Goncharov (smoogg)
              Evgeny Goncharov (smoogg) 11 December 2020 05: 03
              0
              Read the works of volcanologists


              What was the last work on volcanology that you read? How many works on the Yellowstone Caldera have you read?
              1. Leontrotsky
                Leontrotsky 13 December 2020 20: 30
                0
                I watched more BBC programs than I read about Yellowstone, but when it comes to volcanology, there are many books here. For example, Garuna Tazieva - "Meetings with the Devil" or Markhinin - "Pluto's Chain". All of them describe in detail the basics of the functioning of volcanoes of various types, analyze various options for eruptions (including supervolcanoes) and tell what the consequences of the eruptions of supervolcanoes were millions of years ago. They dwell in detail on the eruption of Santorini, its influence on the Cretan-Mycenaean civilization. In general, there is something to read. And as for, specifically, Yoloustone, then National georaphic often broadcasts on this topic, the Americans themselves, by the way. And a lot of signs, from their point of view, indicate that his eruption is just around the corner ... But whether the detonation of several warheads will help him is an open question. But who's stopping to try?)
      3. DrEng527
        DrEng527 8 December 2020 14: 44
        +2
        Quote: timokhin-aa
        oud is more likely to act unreasonably.

        so the only way to stop is animal fear of nuclear war, and you just do the opposite ... request
        1. timokhin-aa
          8 December 2020 15: 14
          0
          Yes, there is no ball of animal fear on the other side. There are fears, there is a reluctance to see this horror in real life, but there is no animal fear.
          1. DrEng527
            DrEng527 8 December 2020 15: 50
            +7
            Quote: timokhin-aa
            but there is no animal fear.

            that's in vain! this is a consequence of the purposeful work of certain forces that are trying to lower the threshold of nuclear war - both with propaganda and with ultra-small nuclear warheads ... request
            life has developed in such a way that I have been to atomic museums in Snezhinsk and Albuquerque and know a little about the danger of nuclear war not from the media ... hi
            1. timokhin-aa
              8 December 2020 21: 31
              -6
              this is a consequence of the purposeful work of certain forces that are trying to lower the threshold of nuclear war.


              So think about why. And also think about whether it is possible to continue with a stupid face on Poplar and Yarsy, or do we need to prepare for the worst?
              1. DrEng527
                DrEng527 10 December 2020 11: 17
                0
                Quote: timokhin-aa
                or should we prepare for the worst?

                you also have a bias, what will be, that cannot be avoided ... request
                Quote: timokhin-aa
                farther on to Poplar and Yarsy with a stupid face,

                in the heat of a discussion, you lose its meaning ... hi
    2. Keyser soze
      Keyser soze 8 December 2020 10: 46
      +7
      Someone thinks Americans are reasonable? Why would that be?


      They are not stupid, that's for sure. And they will never start a nuclear war with Russia. Why do they need it?

      Yes, the Americans will cherish as the apple of an eye your leaders, the country and your neo-feudal system. Reducing the richest country to an average salary of 200 euros is not a bomb.

      Why don't they infringe on your oligarchs and bigwigs, don't take their money and palaces in the West? And rightly so - it is beneficial for them. So nobody will destroy the world economy because of Russia. In the end, you yourself will slide into the Revolution and turn the country into ruins, as after 1917. The point is to bomb that?

      A much bigger threat for Shchatov is China. There is a lot of population, the potential of the economy is huge, and the Americans will solve this issue first of all.
      1. Stas157
        Stas157 8 December 2020 11: 17
        +3
        Quote: Keyser Soze
        Reduce the richest country to an average salary of 200 euros - you can't comprehend this with any bomb.

        That's for sure! Your comment is also valuable because it is an adequate assessment from the outside.

        Nevertheless, you can't prove anything to our uryakalka. There is no force to silence them. They here recently in a crowd painted that in Europe and America people live worse !! Since everything is more expensive there, and they say, after paying for housing and communal services and taxes on life, it does not remain at all for the poor Europeans.
        1. Poganini
          Poganini 8 December 2020 16: 29
          0
          Have you been to this Europe and, especially, to America? )
          1. Bolt cutter
            Bolt cutter 8 December 2020 16: 52
            +3
            Have you been to this Europe
            Was, is and will be tongue ... Stas number 157 is right. The standard of living "there", although not hundreds of times, is significantly higher.
            1. Poganini
              Poganini 8 December 2020 19: 14
              +7
              Alex, I missed this comment of yours out of inexperience. ) In the States, as I understand it, you have not been? For example, for the first time I just went out of business, how many homeless people and psychos there are on the street! Well, really - an unrealistic amount. And it's somehow dangerous there, uncomfortable. One can see, of course, traces of a former great civilization, roads for example. Only it is not visible that new ones are being built like ours. And what a moronic household habits they have! So in the States, you can see with a straight eye that they live badly. Well, or in Greece what. There are practically no cars on the track with LED running lights, some ancient lomyo drives. So there is no question of "essential" now.
              1. Bolt cutter
                Bolt cutter 8 December 2020 19: 17
                -2
                in the States, you can see directly with your eyes that they live badly.
                With a pointed or flooded eye wassat ?
                or in Greece what.
                Have you seen what the Greeks have at home? True, the toilet window is not inserted laughing - so that it was considered unfinished and taxes were not charged.
                1. Poganini
                  Poganini 8 December 2020 20: 02
                  +3
                  I was driving. )) Well, with a plan, too, by - such crap as in the states I have never seen anywhere else. To be honest, the USA is my biggest disappointment as a traveler, I just didn't expect such shit. Well, it was enraged that these downs of souls were firmly embedded in the walls. Their eternal queues also infuriated me, somehow I lost the habit of it. Fucked up the coffee, the dirt in the motels, and whatnot. But nature, of course, yes, complete flight. Pretty, as dear Lyubov Ivanovna said, pointing to her golden tooth. )
                2. SovAr238A
                  SovAr238A 13 December 2020 10: 49
                  0
                  Quote: Poganini
                  I was driving. )) Well, with a plan, too, by - such crap as in the states I have never seen anywhere else. To be honest, the USA is my biggest disappointment as a traveler, I just didn't expect such shit. Well, it was enraged that these downs of souls were firmly embedded in the walls. Their eternal queues also infuriated me, somehow I lost the habit of it. Fucked up the coffee, the dirt in the motels, and whatnot. But nature, of course, yes, complete flight. Pretty, as dear Lyubov Ivanovna said, pointing to her golden tooth. )


                  And what places have you traveled to in the USA?
                  What are freeways, highways?
                  I've talked in the United States with Slavic immigrants, transport workers, builders, electricians.
                  Live well.
                  The salary is the lower level of 6 thousand dollars.
                  Dalnoboi. who work no more than 250 days a year have an average of 10 to 20 thousand dollars in net income per month after all the lease payments. and most importantly, they practically all grow and move. Buy the second, third, fifth working machines. organize their companies, become broad-based specialists.
                  If you looked only at the downtowns of large cities with a barrage of asocial elements, this is everywhere.
                  The same Moscow attracts both the smartest and the most cunning, the most disgusting. the most frostbitten. and the most utterly sick ...


                  I have traveled across Europe 4 times by car.
                  almost 40 thousand reeled.
                  I saw a lot of dirt, I do not argue, but its percentage is much lower than you describe.
                3. Poganini
                  Poganini 13 December 2020 11: 45
                  0
                  I went from NY to Niagara Falls, and a couple of times a very extended route along the road number 1 LA-SF, but through San Diego, Vegas, the Grand Canyon and all the way to Yellowstone, and then, of course, along the ocean back through Monterey- Santa Barbara. Do not compare Europe and the United States, the states are full, well, in general, the sound that a bee makes. If you tell everything about what we encountered there, then the hair will stand on end. ) But it's a hell of a lot of writing, it's lazy. Of course, as elsewhere, there are wonderful places and good motels, but in general the country is hell and Israel.
  • Poganini
    Poganini 8 December 2020 14: 01
    +3
    Reducing the richest country to an average salary of 200 euros is not a bomb.
    Well, where do you, European rogue, get this nonsense? It's funny to hear this from people who cannot afford normal heating in winter and wash dishes in running water.
    1. Bolt cutter
      Bolt cutter 8 December 2020 14: 11
      -1
      cannot afford normal heating in winter
      And this is where it is wassat ?
      1. Poganini
        Poganini 8 December 2020 16: 04
        +6
        Alex is everywhere, everywhere. I love it when they are all so successful and joyful on the emigre forums that they pulled out of "Rashka" and suddenly someone clings to the topic of heating)). Poor fellows immediately forget how well they live, and begin to share life hacks that they do not turn on the heating, because the neighbors on the left and right are drowning. Well, I personally gave up beer in Europe after I saw in an Amsterdam pub how they rinsed mugs in a plugged sink with dirty water.
        1. Bolt cutter
          Bolt cutter 8 December 2020 16: 26
          0
          Alex is everywhere, everywhere
          Sergey, I myself have been living in Europe since the age of 18. And I have never seen this anywhere. The fact that you rinsed the mug badly is a clear violation of sanitary standards (a Tajik does not pee in barbecue because there is no sewage system laughing ) Heating I have is 25 pounds a week - the price of 2 packs of cigarettes. And this with an everyday shower tongue
          1. Poganini
            Poganini 8 December 2020 16: 39
            +2
            Alex, you're in luck. I've seen it. After that, I don't drink beer. ) About the shower, I can only remember how the poor Danish guys, with whom we lived in our youth, when we habitually turned on the tap wider, got sick. Then I visited about a dozen apartments, I did not see a bath anywhere at all. On the one hand, I have no reason to tell a person living in Britain how much he pays for heating, but somehow I still can't believe that this is a small fraction of income - well, why are they all so worried? I pay about as much as you do. True, in the cold winter months only.
            1. Bolt cutter
              Bolt cutter 8 December 2020 16: 46
              +2
              After that I don't drink beer
              Bottle must be drunk yes ... And vodka drinks ... I have seen baths in about half of the English dwellings. In Ireland, almost everywhere. Newer apartments often do not have a bathtub because they occupy a lot of expensive square meters. But for me personally, the shower is more convenient.
              why are they all so worried?
              I also haven't really heard of them, but I think that this is a banal mischief of 80lvl - one acquaintance in Latvia cheated the counters with varying success, being a fisherman captain (did not starve at least)
            2. Poganini
              Poganini 8 December 2020 16: 53
              +1
              Oh, they reminded me of a very pretty girl from Latvia, Datsu. We talked like that in the Gold Coast - she and her Australian boyfriend just pulled from London to Australia, because for 3 years they "worked only on the toilet". ) Bottled religion does not allow me ((And in general there is no tasty beer left in the world at all, you have to resolutely wave a sickle over the knee and switch to whiskey.
            3. Bolt cutter
              Bolt cutter 8 December 2020 17: 01
              +3
              that 3 years "worked only for the toilet"

              1. Worked poorly
              2. Ate / drank a lot and expensive
              3. Dace did not say anything like that.
              Let's just say that if my wife and I (working class) live for a year on her salary without frills, we will buy a new Mercedes. I repeat, we are not children of oligarchs. In Russia, a simple workaholic will not turn such a trick.
              there is no tasty beer in the world at all
              Eastern Europe saves the world - take the Polish or Lithuanian "lager" and happiness is guaranteed yes ... Craft cooks in England are also not far behind.
            4. Poganini
              Poganini 8 December 2020 17: 16
              -4
              No, we did not get to such details, and we are still talking about London, judging by how many Arab women packed there are running around - a very expensive city. ) This is how much you have Mercedes-Pruli coming !? ))) (Pruli - that's how they call right-hand drive Japanese in Siberia). Something you amused me. We have a working class for a year now, with difficulty, for a Toyota Camry or Mazda 6, and the Russian Federation is still not a poor country, not Greece tea. )
            5. Bolt cutter
              Bolt cutter 8 December 2020 17: 52
              0
              very expensive city.
              Not very much like Moscow. A new Mers for 30 thousand is already quite possible to buy (not S-klasse, but still.)
            6. Poganini
              Poganini 8 December 2020 18: 20
              0
              Well, Moscow is not cheap either. ) I don’t know, I haven’t asked the price for geldings for a long time, but yeshka is hardly that much, probably more expensive. I always remember with warmth my first "bespectacled man" - I started howling like an electric train when you press on the gas. )
            7. Krasnodar
              Krasnodar 8 December 2020 18: 59
              0
              Quote: Bolt Cutter
              very expensive city.
              Not very much like Moscow. A new Mers for 30 thousand is already quite possible to buy (not S-klasse, but still.)

              This is for 30 thousand of what? Pounds? Well, you can have a fancy S-shku or naked Yeshka, and that's not a fact
            8. Bolt cutter
              Bolt cutter 8 December 2020 19: 03
              +2
              Well, yes, her very. So, in the range of 30-32k, a little is available in the Mercedes row, but you can buy a new one.
        2. Krasnodar
          Krasnodar 8 December 2020 18: 57
          +5
          Quote: Poganini
          No, we did not get to such details, and we are still talking about London, judging by how many Arab women packed there are running around - a very expensive city. ) This is how much you have Mercedes-Pruli coming !? ))) (Pruli - that's how they call right-hand drive Japanese in Siberia). Something you amused me. We have a working class for a year now, with difficulty, for a Toyota Camry or Mazda 6, and the Russian Federation is still not a poor country, not Greece tea. )

          Which Toyota Camry? laughing from one and a half million rubles the price, how can a Russian worker collect more than 100 thousand rubles a month ?? What are you writing? repeat
        3. Poganini
          Poganini 8 December 2020 19: 31
          -9
          This is what I am writing - a hundred or more. ) None of those that worked for me (even the slopes on the windows, even the installation of the basement or air conditioners, even the laying of the fence - no one got less. The loader earned 14 tyr per day, the kamazist who transported the land took 4 tyras for the car, managed make 6 walks per day, etc. and so on.
        4. Krasnodar
          Krasnodar 8 December 2020 20: 37
          +5
          Does the loader work every month for 25 days for 14 sput? Does the driver of KamAZ have a daily average annual load? The average Russian hard worker, even a very skilled one, earns up to 60 -70 sput monthly in a good case))
        5. Poganini
          Poganini 9 December 2020 13: 05
          -6
          No, of course, here you are absolutely right. ) But I, of course, understand that too. ) And it turns out like this parsley: 60-70 sput he earns on his main job + these are the kalyms and it turns out exactly what I wrote about.
        6. Krasnodar
          Krasnodar 9 December 2020 14: 09
          +1
          No, well, if he manages to do two jobs without interrupting the main ... although this does not often happen and there are not many such people .., then yes, in two or three years, theoretically, Toyota Camry can take
        7. Poganini
          Poganini 9 December 2020 14: 15
          0
          Well, Alex wrote that if you can only live on a woman's salary, then you can buy a gelding with it for a year. Well, I sadly wrote that we have - only for kamryukha. ) True, he tactfully did not ask why he would not do that. It is clear that we all love the network a little with .... exaggerate in general. )
        8. Krasnodar
          Krasnodar 9 December 2020 14: 36
          0
          How do you know what he drives? ))
          In the States, by the way, this is also an option, but they prefer a house in a good area with a normal school for children, save them for college, etc. Therefore, they buy mainly functional family cars, more dough for housing is thumped
          And S-shka - in my opinion, for an average businesswoman a wheelbarrow, moreover single or childless
        9. Poganini
          Poganini 9 December 2020 14: 41
          -3
          Yes, well, I have traveled half the world, and I can perfectly imagine that no one from ordinary workers ever drives new geldings. Unless I have doubts about Liechtenstein. But there, it seems that there are no workers either. )
        10. Krasnodar
          Krasnodar 9 December 2020 15: 49
          +1
          Why not? laughing In Germany, I saw a Russian-speaking crane operator on the new Yeshka. That the Russian-speaking, that the Germans, twisted at the temple)).
          Moreover, he lived with his mother at 30 +
        11. Poganini
          Poganini 9 December 2020 17: 28
          -3
          It happens. ) Yours, yesterday it was good how they fought with the Abramovich, it's a pity, they didn't endure it all the same. Well, nothing, a draw in London is also not bad.
        12. Krasnodar
          Krasnodar 9 December 2020 17: 51
          -1
          I'm not a fan, the only thing I love is the basketball club Lokomotiv Krasnodar 4 years ago they broke Barcelona, ​​but in the last half there was only one white man on the court. From Krasnodar. But - with the NBA, American laughing
          The game is more dynamic, the audience is more intelligent, etc.
        13. Poganini
          Poganini 9 December 2020 17: 57
          0
          And I'm in real life - more volleyball. Moreover, we have Loko - the champion! The fans are decent there too. But I love football on TV. And, at the World Cup I really liked it live, I watched in Rostov and Volgograd, it was cool. )
        14. Krasnodar
          Krasnodar 9 December 2020 18: 16
          0
          I love boxing on TV, derivatives from it and the UFC))
  • Bolt cutter
    Bolt cutter 9 December 2020 17: 22
    0
    tactfully did not ask why he would not do that.
    Explain to me that it is necessary for me, and I will tongue
  • Poganini
    Poganini 9 December 2020 17: 25
    -1
    Come on, Alex, I'm just playing the fool. ) All people are different, everyone chooses how to go crazy. )
  • Bolt cutter
    Bolt cutter 9 December 2020 17: 26
    0
    I, in general, too.
  • Krasnodar
    Krasnodar 9 December 2020 18: 18
    0
    Quote: Bolt Cutter
    tactfully did not ask why he would not do that.
    Explain to me that it is necessary for me, and I will tongue

    The E-scale is very comfortable. Both the driver and the passenger. Maybe I'm judging by the Vanguard configuration, but the machine is super)).
  • Bolt cutter
    Bolt cutter 9 December 2020 18: 26
    0
    Her comfort in London is offset by tight traffic jams and a lack of parking. And also the inability to enter the bar after work (or before work drinks )
  • SovAr238A
    SovAr238A 13 December 2020 10: 53
    0
    Quote: Poganini
    No, we did not get to such details, and we are still talking about London, judging by how many Arab women packed there are running around - a very expensive city. ) This is how much you have Mercedes-Pruli coming !? ))) (Pruli - that's how they call right-hand drive Japanese in Siberia). Something you amused me. We have a working class for a year now, with difficulty, for a Toyota Camry or Mazda 6, and the Russian Federation is still not a poor country, not Greece tea. )


    What kind of factory in Russia does the working class earn 150 thousand rubles at?

    Well, really you write some kind of nonsense in all your posts ...
  • Boa kaa
    Boa kaa 9 December 2020 12: 59
    0
    Quote: Poganini
    And in general, there is no tasty beer left in the world at all, you need to resolutely wave a sickle over the knee and even switch to whiskey.

    Colleague! You amaze me with your gastronomic and drinking nihilism! Go to Prague, go to the beer restaurant on Charles Square (I don't think I remember exactly) on the second floor. Order X-33 and .... YOU WILL BE HAPPINESS !!!
    I haven't tasted anything tastier from beer yet.
    About viskarya. He's different too. Balvenie is normal. I got off the White Horse for a long time, switched to KONINA, more horse meat is much more useful in terms of microelements and vasodilation: what no help to the heart. I advise you will not regret it for sure.
    AHA
  • Poganini
    Poganini 9 December 2020 13: 11
    -1
    Good advice now to go to the Czech Republic, relevant. (But in all conscience, this is my last hope! I haven't been to the Czech Republic for a long time, I don't remember much of the beer there, but maybe there really is a chance? I'm already going to the second round with whiskey, so I know what's going on there.) PS Can you tell me, do newbies have some kind of quota for pros and cons? They don't give me a minus! And plus, too.
  • Boa kaa
    Boa kaa 9 December 2020 13: 23
    0
    Quote: Poganini
    Can you tell me, do newbies have some kind of quota for pros and cons? They don’t give me an even minus! And plus, too.

    Sergei, I started when the minuses poured out like a horn of plenty. I even reached the major in turtles. yes
    The main thing in my opinion is not this, but honestly write, express your position, no matter what. And then there will be happiness! Well, at least a sense of personal satisfaction. And about +/-, you need to ask the admins a question, at worst - read the site rules.
    GOOD LUCK! drinks
  • Poganini
    Poganini 9 December 2020 13: 26
    +1
    Thank you, Alexander! )
  • ccsr
    ccsr 8 December 2020 19: 02
    +2
    Quote: Poganini
    Well, I personally gave up beer in Europe after I saw in an Amsterdam pub how they rinsed mugs in a plugged sink with dirty water.

    I saw this for the first time in Germany in the eighties, and to be honest, I was amazed, because even the saleswoman of keg kvass rinsed the mugs with running water, and did not splash them in the sink with detergent. I agree with your assessment of the émigré tales - they love to light up, and when you know their real life, you look at everything differently.
    1. Poganini
      Poganini 8 December 2020 19: 34
      0
      I, frankly, am not so much interested in the life of the aborigines, more in every beauty. But no, no, and you get to talk where, and the understanding took shape that the life of an ordinary person is not easy everywhere. Not that difficult, but not easy.
  • napalm
    napalm 9 December 2020 20: 42
    0
    And do they take turns bathing in one bathtub to save water? Or is it a fake? And in the same England they sleep in clothes in winter, too, isn't it?
    1. Bolt cutter
      Bolt cutter 10 December 2020 00: 06
      -2
      And they bathe in one bath, in turn, to save water.
      In Dickens's time, yes, it was. Now, at least the information is incorrect.
      sleeping in clothes in winter is also not true
      More likely an exaggeration lol (everyone has individual heating) Although there are all kinds of lovers of all kinds of clothes wassat .
  • Vasily Zagorulko
    Vasily Zagorulko 8 December 2020 14: 10
    +1
    You don't have the letter "e" on your keyboard?
    1. Keyser soze
      Keyser soze 8 December 2020 14: 51
      +8
      You don't have the letter "e" on your keyboard?


      You guessed it Vasily, unfortunately I don't have this letter. And I don't want an additional font because of one letter. Otherwise, I am relatively literate in my native language and I can even write in Bulgarian, which was in the Kingdom, before the communist reform. I studied the old rules of grammar out of interest. As one of our sings said, the old grammar showed the difference between a literate and a very educated person. But in our times, young people cannot write in such simple Bulgarian and Russian, which has become according to the old rules. So I understand your annoyance at the misspelled letter, but what can you do ... laughing drinks
  • The Siberian barber
    The Siberian barber 8 December 2020 14: 53
    +2
    Quote: Keyser Soze
    Someone thinks Americans are reasonable? Why would that be?


    They are not stupid, that's for sure. And they will never start a nuclear war with Russia. Why do they need it?

    Yes, the Americans will cherish as the apple of an eye your leaders, the country and your neo-feudal system. Reducing the richest country to an average salary of 200 euros is not a bomb.

    Why don't they infringe on your oligarchs and bigwigs, don't take their money and palaces in the West? And rightly so - it is beneficial for them. So nobody will destroy the world economy because of Russia. In the end, you yourself will slide into the Revolution and turn the country into ruins, as after 1917. The point is to bomb that?

    A much bigger threat for Shchatov is China. There is a lot of population, the potential of the economy is huge, and the Americans will solve this issue first of all.

    Absolutely agree!!! good
  • Akuzenka
    Akuzenka 8 December 2020 13: 44
    +3
    But Adik had his own logic. Wrong, but before it became clear, he destroyed half of the country and killed tens of millions of ours.
    The British promised him that if he attacked the USSR, there would be no second front. And he, like an Anglophile, believed. And there were grounds. Until 1944, the intensity of the war between England and Germany was so scanty that it is embarrassing to refer to it as a war. Compared to what was happening with us.
    And now the beginning of the war is linked, only, with the solution of their problems at the expense of the rest of the world. And with the SGA, economic measures, every year, it turns out worse and worse. So the war is getting closer and closer. There will be no right and wrong. Everyone will be to blame. And "our" capitalists too, if only by the fact that they destroyed the USSR, which was restraining this whole orgy of violence around the world, by the mere fact of the existence of an ideology different from the animal-consumer one.
  • Plastmaster
    Plastmaster 8 December 2020 19: 12
    +1
    Quote: Sahalinets
    Someone thinks Americans are reasonable?

    Yes, even after watching feature films, shot by them, about their own leaders. One thing is clear that their task is to sit still and be re-elected for 2 terms. Although they have nothing personally for themselves, according to them. Nooo, there is no hope for their head and chicken demacratic brain. From them the first that something will come.
  • sniperino
    sniperino 9 December 2020 16: 16
    +1
    Quote: Sahalinets
    why is everyone sure that the other side will reason and act wisely?
    Maybe because the calculations for the dementia of the enemy are rarely justified and are expensive.
  • Watch
    Watch 14 December 2020 18: 03
    0
    Correct observation, the political elite of the United States seems to be not in itself, they do not feel the coast. They have a feeling that the war is to move the units of the troops on the maps of other continents. So they can, before attempting to attack us, and swim, in reality. We will certainly win, but historically at the cost of huge losses. It is better to prepare in advance as much as possible. The author of the article did not calculate many points not in our favor in the event of a force scenario. These are the US allies with nuclear potential, the population and industrial potential of these countries, China, which is currently a dark horse, is not an ally to anyone. Weapons in space are not taken into account. Rather, in this scenario, for us to increase the charge power of warheads of ICBMs and their number, especially those flying in a circular orbit unpredictable. Then there will be no need to think about what will or will not remain from the US naval base, one missile, one city, one base. Poseidon, if it exists and can really be something, is needed in large quantities. Another scenario that is fantastic for us is: a new miracle weapon, a breakthrough in technology, a factor hidden for the time being. Well, the war is all complete shit and you have to live happily and preferably richly in your country until all this begins. There is no doubt that it will begin. The spiral of history, however .......
  • Boa kaa
    Boa kaa 9 December 2020 00: 48
    +4
    Quote: Aleksandr1971
    After reducing Russia's nuclear potential, the United States will attack Russia.
    Maybe you are right. But even sooner they will attack if the Yankees get an absolute weapon, or if they achieve an acceptable percentage of interception of our weapons - carriers of the SBP.
    Hence the task:
    1. to prevent the advantage of the States in the arms race, so that they alone have super-weapons;
    2. You need to have a non-intercepted Yankee weapon of retaliation, such as GZO or NLA with 2 Mt SBP, as an option.
    Quote: Aleksandr1971
    A number of Russian ICBMs will break through into US territory, but the damage from this will be many times less than the damage to Russia from a US attack.
    and who counted it? Under what scenario does TMV start? Why only ICBMs? And what about the CRBD? what about an ABO with an SBP? And what about seismic weapons and the Yellowstone supervolcano? etc.
    Therefore, it is not a fact that the Russian Federation does not have the opportunity to forever bury striped ears with their ambitions for world domination.
    But there is another puppeteer country - B / Britain ... and an alternate airfield for the entire backstage - Switzerland. My deep conviction: - In the big BADA-BOOM, we must not leave them alive, for there lies the "root of evil".
    1. sniperino
      sniperino 10 December 2020 11: 31
      0
      Quote: Boa constrictor KAA
      backstage alternate airfield - Switzerland
      There may be more alternate airfields. If we clearly track the geolocation of this very backstage, then there are no problems here. But for them it is a matter of survival, and they are not mentally retarded.
  • 3danimal
    3danimal 13 December 2020 00: 40
    -1
    After reducing Russia's nuclear potential, the United States will attack Russia.

    You need VERY good reasons to attack. Let me say that the US leadership is somewhat more worried about the preservation of its citizens (and certainly no less) than the Russian one.
    Dissatisfaction @ the Russian character and other nonsense broadcast by REN-TV are not such reasons.
    But Peskov again let slip about doing to restore the borders of the Republic of Ingushetia at the beginning of the XNUMXth century. But for this it is necessary to capture a number of Eastern European states, including NATO members ...
    1. Aleksandr1971
      Aleksandr1971 13 December 2020 09: 48
      -1
      The US has long had a VERY reason to attack Russia. This is not dissatisfaction with the Russian character and other nonsense, but the fact that Russia has a significant nuclear potential not under US control. As well as not controlled by the policy of Russia, which reduces the ability of the US elite to enrich themselves at the expense of the rest of the world.

      As for the US concern for the lives of its citizens, the US has already proved that it can easily sacrifice several tens of millions of its citizens for the sake of defeating the USSR. This is proven by the US plans to attack the USSR developed in the 1950s and 1960s. Read about it well. Declassified official data. And for the sake of money and world domination, the American elite will drag its people into a nuclear war, provided that it predicts that despite the loss of several million Americans, this elite will be able to win an unconditional victory.

      But our nuclear potential so far (probably not for long) does not guarantee America such a victory. Therefore, the US is trying to change the balance of power - 1) to weaken Russia economically so that Russia cannot maintain its nuclear potential; 2) create new revolutionary means of attack and defense; 3) to carry out sabotage against Russia of a political and technical nature; 4) achieve a reduction in nuclear potentials while increasing conventional forces and bringing the military infrastructure closer to Russia's borders.

      If the US plans for Russia come true, then VERY reasons for attacking Russia will be set in motion. There will be a nuclear war in which Russia will be defeated. Well, our job is to work out our situation so that the American modeling of a nuclear war would show them that they will never achieve an unconditional victory. For this it is necessary: ​​1) to develop the economy based on those countries that do not plan to participate in the attack on Russia; 2) it is necessary to increase the quantitative and qualitative nuclear potential in order to destroy not only the military and industrial infrastructure of the United States, but above all all US cities with a population of 20 thousand or more. For such a task, 1550 warheads are not enough. It must be borne in mind that not all of them will rise into the sky. But the previous 50 warheads are too many and expensive. Russia also needs to create nuclear weapons based on cobalt-60 in order to permanently undermine the ability of the United States to conduct agriculture in the event of war. The elite hiding in underground bunkers will sooner or later die out without food. Understanding that in the event of an attack on Russia, the Americans as a nation will also disappear, is a guarantee that the United States will not attack Russia.
      1. 3danimal
        3danimal 13 December 2020 23: 31
        -1
        As for the US concern for the lives of its citizens, the US has already proved that it can easily sacrifice several tens of millions of its citizens for the sake of defeating the USSR.

        Examples from history, where tens of millions of US citizens actually donated (and did not count on paper) - to the studio wink
        The US has long had a VERY reason to attack Russia. This is not dissatisfaction with the Russian character and other nonsense, but the fact that Russia has a significant nuclear potential not under US control.

        What about China or India, Pakistan, North Korea? At least, at first, you should expect the latter to be defeated, this is much safer
        The Russian Federation had the same potential in the early 90s, didn't it?
        But the boats were at the berth, the earth complexes were at the bases. Planes flew extremely rarely. No salary was paid and there was no fuel.
        And having the ephemeral goals you mentioned, aggressive fanatics (which should be the US leadership for your installations) should have immediately inflicted at least a disarming blow. And he would be quite successful, coupled with a complete lack of outside help.
        But what happened in reality? Credits were given (despite the fact that at the end of the 80s they were already credited and few people wanted to borrow more) and humanitarian aid was brought.
        In Europe, the number of American troops has been reduced by 10 times, the US military budget and the army / navy have been reduced (primarily due to the withdrawal of obsolete but combat-ready equipment).
        Ideas crash against reality request
        But the previous 50 thousand warheads are too many and expensive

        There are examples in the world when citizens / subjects easily live from hand to mouth for the sake of having an arsenal, shouldn't we get used to it? (You don't have to ask)
        Russia also needs to create nuclear weapons based on cobalt-60

        Yes you are a maniac negative
        destroy not only the US military and industrial infrastructure, but above all all US cities

        And what will happen to our completely overpopulated cities? (Look at the population density map of the Russian Federation) I don't hear anything about the measures to protect Russian citizens. Or "millions of deaths are statistics"?
        IMHO, the US will not be the first to start a nuclear war for no reason. Likewise, there are no grounds for an attack on the territory of the Russian Federation (unless we unilaterally include Poland and / or the Baltic states in it, by annexing them, then attempts to liberate it can be called an encroachment).
        Therefore, the United States is trying to change the balance of power - 1) weaken Russia economically

        Over the past 20 years, Russia has done everything to maximally depend on the sale of hydrocarbons and the purchase of equipment / technologies abroad. (Although the presidents in the 00s are to blame, the current one has nothing to do with smile )
        so that Russia cannot maintain its nuclear potential

        North Korea is not particularly affected by the poverty of its residents.
        2) create new revolutionary means of attack and defense

        Science and technology are developing, as is the arms market (or did you think that you could “freeze” it at the level of, say, 2005?).
        If the US plans for Russia come true, then VERY reasons for attacking Russia will be set in motion. There will be a nuclear war

        I repeat: where are the guarantees that there will be no significant casualties among US citizens? You have not given any convincing goals for such a war.
        1) develop the economy relying on those countries that do not plan to participate in the attack on Russia

        I propose an adjustment: based on the countries that have recognized Crimea. Isn't this a criterion for the truth of an ally?
        1. The comment was deleted.
        2. Aleksandr1971
          Aleksandr1971 14 December 2020 17: 19
          +1
          1. In practice, the United States certainly did not lose millions of fellow citizens because the United States has always attacked only a weaker adversary. But the Dropshot plan and later plans for an attack on Russia assumed tens of millions of their own victims as permissible - just to finish off the USSR.

          2. Russia has a nuclear potential many times greater than that of China, India and other countries combined. So your example fails. But the main thing with Russia's nuclear potential is that this potential is aimed at the United States.
          The fact that the United States has significantly reduced its military presence in Europe is an indicator that the United States is now planning to reduce Russia to the level of Upper Volta by non-military means. If this goal of the United States tends to be realized, then we need to be the first to start a war. If this is not done, then it will turn out that Russia will disintegrate, and the United States will remain alive. It is not right.

          3. As for cobalt-60, I mentioned it in connection with the fact that it is theoretically a fairly inexpensive and effective way to equalize the military potential of poor Russia and the rich United States. It is not at all necessary to hit the United States with cobalt-60 based nuclear weapons in reality. The mere possession of such a weapon will make it clear to the Americans that it is better against Russia: a) not to attack; b) do not try to bring Russia to death by non-military means.

          4. What will happen to our overcrowded cities, you ask? I answer - in the event of a nuclear war, our cities will perish along with the population. So that this death is not in vain, it is necessary to make sure that the cities of the United States will also perish if a nuclear war occurs. And for this it is necessary to have more nuclear potential than now (1550 warheads on strategic delivery vehicles).

          5. You note that Russia is driving itself to economic backwardness. You are pretty much right. And this must be corrected. But the improvement of the situation in the economy should not be accompanied by military weakening.
          By the way, economic backwardness is not always a factor leading to defeat in a war. Thus, the prevailing economic, demographic, technological and organizational potential of Napoleonic France (and add the whole of Europe, except England) was insufficient to defeat backward Russia. It's the same with Hitler's Germany. Mongolia of Genghis Khan with a population of 200 thousand people. destroyed up to 20 million Chinese and defeated dozens of states, among which up to 100 million people lived in the Song Empire alone.

          6. A guarantee of the absence of major casualties in the United States in an attack on Russia will be the reduction of Russia's nuclear potential through treaties on the reduction of nuclear weapons or through Russia's inability to economically sustain its nuclear potential. Or a breakthrough in the creation of missile defense systems will become such a guarantee for the United States.

          So so far, the United States does not have such guarantees. And thank God. And let them no longer possess.

          7. As for the goals of the war - the United States has one goal - domination and the ability to enrich itself with the help of this domination at the expense of others. But there can be many reasons. The United States has invaded other states 130 times in 120 years. That is, approximately every year. But only we are still a tough nut to crack for them. And so it will continue.

          8. As for the list of countries that are not planning an attack on Russia under the auspices of the United States, this list is much wider than the list of countries that supported the annexation of Crimea. In theory, this Crimean list should also include Israel, which has appropriated the Golan Heights and the western bank of the Jordan; Morocco with Western Sahara; The People's Republic of China, which appropriated eastern Ladakh; France, which appropriated Mayotte in the referendum.

          NATO countries, as well as Japan, Sweden, South Korea (by providing their territory and military infrastructure for the needs of an attack on Russia) are planning to take part in the attack on Russia.

          There are many more countries that do not plan to participate in the aggression against Russia. We must strengthen economic cooperation with them. And economic relations with NATO countries should also be maintained because it: 1) gives Russia income; 2) reduces the aggressive intentions of NATO countries. Or maybe in the long run it will lead to abandonment of plans to attack Russia. I would like to believe it. Although I can't believe it.

          8. But I have an assumption (maybe wrong) that you, contradicting me, are actually a supporter of the United States in their intrigues against Russia. And you present the fake according to Peskov's statement as proof of the aggressive nature of Russia. Probably such a bad Russia, in your opinion, should be punished? Are you not an enemy of Russia?
          1. 3danimal
            3danimal 16 December 2020 02: 25
            -1
            But the Dropshot plan and later plans for an attack on Russia assumed tens of millions of their own victims as permissible - just to finish off the USSR.

            A vivid example of the presentation of information to the media from a strictly defined side. This plan is akin to that ordered by Churchill ("The Unthinkable"), who feared the capture of the European countries of the USSR, IMHO.
            As an argument, one can recall the number of nuclear weapons by the time the Union tested its device in 1949 (about 200 pieces). Here it is, the ideal moment: de facto, the “worst enemy” does not yet have a ready-made bomb and only have to start producing them, the “imperialists” must urgently use their arsenal! But in history we saw something completely different ..
            Let's not forget that there was a Union behind the country: a group of extremists, using military force and propaganda, captured it, establishing a dictatorship. And she used it for her own purposes.
            The fact that the United States has significantly reduced its military presence in Europe is an indicator that the United States is now planning to reduce Russia to the level of Upper Volta by non-military means.

            It's funny, a completely peaceful gesture can be reduced to a kind of humiliation: "they don't even keep the troops nearby in large numbers, they just hold for weaklings" smile
            Try to go beyond the concept of "enemies around".
            Can't you see that this is a development of Soviet dogma about the terrible imperialists who wish evil to the "young state of workers and peasants"? The power branch of the Union that just came to power (after the dissolution of the CPSU, which controlled it), took the old guidelines and adjusted them to a nationalist bias, removing all references to imperialist capitalists (do not scold yourself smile ).
            Just possession of such a weapon will make it clear to the Americans

            Possession ten missiles with nuclear warheads guarantees North Korea and the Kim dynasty immunity. Unless they decide to "reunite" with the southerners by force.
            What will happen to our overcrowded cities, you ask? My answer is that in the event of a nuclear war, our cities will perish along with the population. So that this death is not in vain, it is necessary to make sure that the cities of the United States also die

            You see, escalation is a dangerous thing. Vengeance will not help me or you in any way, it is more important not to escalate the situation.
            It's the same with Hitler's Germany. Mongolia of Genghis Khan with a population of 200 thousand people. destroyed up to 20 million Chinese and defeated dozens of states, among which up to 100 million people lived in the Song Empire alone.

            Hitler significantly increased the economy, capturing a significant part of Europe, playing on the unwillingness to fight again in England and France (the United States in general in those years was more interested in itself).
            Mongolia is not a suitable example these days.
            A guarantee of the absence of major casualties in the United States in an attack on Russia will be the reduction of Russia's nuclear potential through treaties on the reduction of nuclear weapons or through Russia's inability to economically sustain its nuclear potential. Or a breakthrough in the creation of missile defense systems will become such a guarantee for the United States.

            I have already mentioned C Korea. How many orders of magnitude should your arsenal be reduced by 1,2?
            Economically, the USSR / RF poured in at the beginning of the 90s, (this is when the arrogant USA dared to give us loans and send food and humanitarian aid smile ), almost no one from the population supported the disgusted CPSU. And no attack followed.
            The guarantee of intercepting even several hundred ICBMs is very doubtful to justify an aggressive war against a large state with a sufficiently strong army (next to which the dwarfs of Libya or Iraq are not even close)
            As for the goals of the war, the United States has one goal - domination and the ability to enrich itself with the help of this domination at the expense of others. But there can be many reasons. The United States has invaded other states 130 times in 120 years. That is, approximately every year. But only we are still a tough nut to crack for them. And so it will continue.

            It begins, the United States is rich, because everyone is robbed .. And Japan (3rd world economy), and Germany (4th)?
            Ask about the structure of US exports and their volume. Capitalization of companies registered there, budgets of large cities and states. Who is Apple robbing? Coca Cola? Tesla? Intel? I have noticed many times that in cell phone and grocery stores there are no US Army / ILC soldiers who threaten to buy products from their companies smile
            But these are colossal funds. Just ask about the volumes.
            As for the list of countries that are not planning an attack on Russia under the auspices of the United States, this list is much broader than the list of countries that supported the annexation of Crimea.

            The list (very modest) is mentioned to the fact that how else to check an ally and like-minded person?
            And NATO countries, as well as Japan, Sweden, South Korea are planning to take part in the attack on Russia

            Interesting: what are the goals pursued by Belgium, Portugal, Norway, France, England? Are they so unhappy with our "braces" that they are happy to burn tens of thousands of their inhabitants (even in a conventional war)?
            And most importantly: where are the dictatorial regimes (in the spirit of Nazi Germany) ready to easily throw their fellow citizens into the heat? Pulling by the ears ..
            In theory, this Crimean list should also include Israel, which appropriated the Golan Heights and the western bank of the Jordan; Morocco with Western Sahara

            Forgot about Turkey and North Cyprus.
            Israel has every right to keep the Golan: an open war was started against it, in which it won, and the peace treaty has not yet been signed.
            There are many more countries that do not plan to participate in the aggression against Russia.

            I would say - the absolute majority.
            And economic relations with NATO countries must also be maintained because it: 1) gives Russia income; 2) reduces the aggressive intentions of NATO countries

            It also gives Russia technology, promotes scientific and cultural development (it is useful to cooperate with developed countries)

            8. But I have an assumption (maybe wrong) that you, contradicting me, are actually a supporter of the United States in their intrigues against Russia.

            No, only the working people smile
            What a strange desire to write a person who has a different point of view (and who makes arguments, which is important) into a certain "camp", enemies, in this case?

            Probably such a bad Russia, in your opinion, should be punished?

            Now we attribute words and desires to me negative
            I do not want for myself and my loved ones a deterioration in the standard of living or death due to the dangerous and ill-considered actions of individuals entrenched in power.
            Hard to understand? A number of actions inevitably entail "punishment", paying me and you, the authors of the actions simply increase their maintenance costs ..
            Are you not an enemy of Russia?

            Only workers and peasants, internationally laughing
          2. 3danimal
            3danimal 16 December 2020 02: 59
            0
            In practice, of course, the United States did not lose millions of fellow citizens because

            In practice, there was a desire to save as much as possible its citizens, soldiers, preferring to spend more wasteful ammunition and equipment.
            always attacked only a weaker opponent

            With what worthy adversary did the USSR and the Russian Federation fight in the 20th century? The same as the United States: Nazi Germany, Japan.
  • Finches
    Finches 8 December 2020 06: 34
    +7
    The author is undoubtedly great! I did a great job and wrote an interesting article, but for some reason it collapsed to 5 damaging factors of a nuclear explosion, which I remember from school: a shock wave, light radiation, penetrating radiation, radioactive contamination, and an electromagnetic pulse. The energy of a nuclear explosion is distributed approximately as follows: 50% is spent on a shock wave, 35% on light radiation, 10% on radioactive contamination, 4% on penetrating radiation, and 1% on an electromagnetic pulse.
    1. NDR-791
      NDR-791 8 December 2020 07: 04
      +7
      ...but for me it, for some reason, collapsed to 5 damaging factors of a nuclear explosion ...
      This is because the article contains a lot of all sorts of pictures, but one (maybe the most important) is missing, this one:

      Against the background of the terrible 2000BZ, 400Mt looks somewhat pale, but according to "their" estimates, this is quite enough.
      1. KKND
        KKND 8 December 2020 09: 19
        +6
        The picture is not about anything at all, where did you dig it from? Estimates may vary, and not everyone should be blindly believed. You can find out the specific method for calculating this "score" in the picture. Whom am I asking though? 99% normal stuffing.
        1. NDR-791
          NDR-791 8 December 2020 11: 59
          +4
          Quote: KKND
          You can find out the specific method for calculating this "score" in the picture.


          changes in the concept of unacceptable damage are set out in the book “Russia and the dilemmas of nuclear disarmament” edited by Alexei Arbatov, Vladimir Dvorkin, Sergei Oznobishchev, published in 2012 by IMEMO RAN.
          And the table, yes, from the times of McNamara, is represented by them. But this is just an example, because there is not a word about OU in the article. if the author tried to prove instrumentally that "glazing" is impossible, then this is an empty action. That it is impossible, as well as the split of the planet with the help of nuclear weapons, if desired, a tenth grader can count.
    2. The leader of the Redskins
      The leader of the Redskins 8 December 2020 07: 38
      -11%
      The author should go on an excursion to the Chernobyl zone and talk to the guides.
      But in 1986 there was no explosion, that is, a shock wave, light radiation, amy already in the "minus". And how many Soviet people later died?
      And in the picture, yes - just take the map and declare, as in the "ice age" - we will live here!
      1. Sentinel-vs
        Sentinel-vs 8 December 2020 08: 26
        +20
        Do you still not realize the difference between how much radioactive material was released during the explosion at the Chernobyl nuclear power plant and how much is released when using nuclear weapons?
        Google for general development.
        1. Akuzenka
          Akuzenka 8 December 2020 13: 50
          +5
          Quote: Sentinel-vs
          during an explosion at the Chernobyl nuclear power plant and how much is emitted when using nuclear weapons

          For general development. The explosion of the "vigorous bonba" produces a bunch of SHORT-LIVING isotopes. They quickly lose their radioactivity. There is a 7 by 7 rule. within 7 days, the radioactivity drops by 7 times. During a thermal explosion at the Chernobyl nuclear power plant, there was a release of LONG-LIVING radioactive elements with a half-life of billions of years. Therefore, the consequences of the release at the Chernobyl nuclear power plant are much more dangerous.
        2. Serg4545
          Serg4545 8 December 2020 18: 14
          +12
          Quote: Sentinel-vs
          Do you still not realize the difference between how much radioactive material was released during the explosion at the Chernobyl nuclear power plant and how much is released when using nuclear weapons?
          Google for general development

          And by the way about the nuclear power plant.
          Why hasn't the situation with the strike on American nuclear power plants been considered? They have 99 reactors.
          Let's remember the same Chernobyl. During its explosion, only 10% of all fuel was thrown out of the reactor. Almost all of this fuel remained near the reactor (and was subsequently buried). And only 1% of the initial amount of fuel from the reactor got into the atmosphere. And it was this 1% who did everything that happened later in Europe and the USSR.
          Now let's imagine that we hit each American reactor with two (for guarantee) standard 550 kiloton warheads.
          The result will be this: every reactor will be destroyed. The fuel will partially evaporate. But for the most part, it will be sucked inward by the rising explosion mushroom and delivered to an altitude of more than 20 km. And then high-altitude air currents will carry hundreds of tons of highly radioactive rubbish over great distances. All 100% of the fuel will enter the atmosphere.
          And so it will be 99 times.
          That is, the Americans will receive the equivalent of 10000 (in words, ten thousand) Chernobyls. One day.
          Moreover, these Chernobyls will not occur in one place. American reactors are located more or less evenly throughout the country. This means that radioactive precipitation will also be more or less uniform.
          No, of course America will not die out all. And even in a couple of months it will be possible to breathe in most of the country without gas masks.
          But what happens during this time? How many million people will die? And how many tens of millions will suffer and will be forced to be dependent on the state for the rest of their lives?
          In fact, this will be an analogue of our losses in the Great Patriotic War. Only here it was all stretched out for 4 years. And the Americans will get it all within a week. Will they then be able to effectively wage war? I doubt.
          And yes. We will only use up 200 warheads.
          And there will be about 1500 more warheads to reason with the enemy.
          And there will be several thousand more tactical nuclear weapons, which the author for some reason did not mention at all. Yes, they are difficult to apply across the United States. But the author has mentioned numerous American military bases and American allies. But against them, tactical nuclear weapons (and we have plenty of delivery vehicles for them) will be no less effective than strategic warheads.
      2. KKND
        KKND 8 December 2020 09: 20
        +8
        Quote: Leader of the Redskins
        And how many Soviet people later died?

        How many died? And how long does it take? And most importantly, how long did they lose their ability to work?
      3. tihonmarine
        tihonmarine 8 December 2020 10: 25
        +6
        Quote: Leader of the Redskins
        And in the picture, yes - just take the map and declare, as in the "ice age" - we will live here!

        I am not an expert in assessing nuclear explosions, but I know that with the last powerful volcanic eruptions, we still feel their consequences. How much dust, dirt, etc. will enter the atmosphere. with JV, and to what effect they will lead. And whether "nuclear winters, or droughts, or floods, or other cataclysms will fester - who can assess this?"
        1. dauria
          dauria 8 December 2020 11: 12
          +11
          And whether "nuclear winters, or droughts, or floods, or other cataclysms will fester - who can assess this?"


          Will not come. They counted, evaluated, checked. Everything cited by the author was taught in the military schools of the USSR in the discipline "WMD and protection of troops and objects." Perhaps, I did not mention only the "cube root" rule. It makes no sense to throw 1 mgt, much better 10 pieces of 100 kt each.
          The author simply soberly stated what is. The USSR's shield was not nuclear weapons. And nuclear weapons plus the strongest ground army in the European theater at the turn of the GDR. Biscay is just a stone's throw away. And for the United States, any war meant the loss of Europe forever, without a chance to repeat the "landing in Normandy".
          And now ... Fuck knows what now. We do not decide, but China and the United States.
          1. shahor
            shahor 8 December 2020 13: 24
            +3
            Quote: dauria
            The author simply soberly stated what is.

            I beg your pardon. I wanted a plus, but I got distracted and pressed the wrong button. (It's good that I don't serve at the command post of the Strategic Missile Forces). I ask you to consider my minus a plus.
      4. timokhin-aa
        8 December 2020 11: 31
        +6
        The author should go on an excursion to the Chernobyl zone and talk to the guides.


        There are many more animals than outside of it. And it's not just that, I guess. Excursions go there, by the way, but I have not the slightest desire to go to Ukraine.
        1. The leader of the Redskins
          The leader of the Redskins 8 December 2020 11: 47
          0
          And I was there in 2014 on an excursion. There are animals, as well as the horses of Przhivalsky who have taken root, and some returnees. But more than thirty years have passed! All these animals came later from other areas, and the horses for the experiment from Mongolia.
    3. Boa kaa
      Boa kaa 9 December 2020 13: 09
      0
      Quote: Finches
      The energy of a nuclear explosion is distributed approximately as follows: 50% is spent on a shock wave, 35% on light radiation, 10% on radioactive contamination, 4% on penetrating radiation, and 1% on an electromagnetic pulse.

      Zhenya, are you talking about the COBALT and NEUTRON bombs you painted the energy distribution of the explosion !? bully
      Therefore, you do not need to poke wiki everywhere, because there are variations on the theme ...
      1. Finches
        Finches 9 December 2020 21: 46
        +1
        So the wiki is not lying here, but I definitely studied at the school - can only the level of knowledge, unfortunately, be lower than the requirements that you make? Excuse me! laughing
  • Poganini
    Poganini 8 December 2020 07: 44
    +1
    Yes, write already 200 million less, what their Muscovites feel sorry for! PS You also need to be able to lie at least a little believably, then there is a small chance that there will be suckers who believe.
    1. Poganini
      Poganini 8 December 2020 07: 48
      +1
      Damn, not yet mastered. The quote from Aerodromny probably had to be inserted about 20 million.
      1. KKND
        KKND 8 December 2020 09: 23
        0
        Comments to comments have an arrow to the right of the time, so everything is clear about his injection of about 20 million (the injection was not a big letter).
        1. Poganini
          Poganini 8 December 2020 09: 38
          0
          Thanks I'll know. )
  • Kapany3
    Kapany3 8 December 2020 07: 50
    +2
    Give birth to THREE, you don't have to throw your hats, and so your comment does not deserve anything but minuses.
  • Varyag71
    Varyag71 8 December 2020 08: 49
    -4
    Hurray the patriots fiercely minus.
    1. Fan-fan
      Fan-fan 8 December 2020 12: 20
      0
      Hooray for patriots, such an article is a cold shower. They then thought that they could easily "the whole world to dust," but then they were explained that even the main enemy could not be destroyed, this runs counter to all their fantasies, in which they so sweetly stay.
  • Civil
    Civil 8 December 2020 10: 51
    +2
    This is the analysis, this is the scale)
  • flicker
    flicker 8 December 2020 14: 02
    -1
    Quote: Aerodrome
    So, how can we jump around the United States?
    hats ...! better pink. over the past 20 years, the population has decreased by 20 million, as after the Second World War. at such a rate, there will be no one to "shy away". 15 thousand will remain, for service of "ventilators" as Thatcher said. skip ahead, pink-eyed! hooray!

    Well, you and a giant.
    The text (in the form of an analytical book) was posted at 3:50, and you managed to thoughtfully read and unsubscribe in 20 minutes. laughing
    ---
    I agree with the author of the analytical masterpiece:
    It is necessary to deliver a massive nuclear strike first.
    ---
    The countries of the USA, Great Britain and Israel should become targets for a nuclear attack.
    ---
    bully
    1. t-34marina
      t-34marina 8 December 2020 15: 27
      +4
      Do not forget Poland, they are just running into ...
      1. flicker
        flicker 8 December 2020 20: 48
        +2
        Do not forget Poland, they are just running into ...

        Poland is a strange formation with strange contents, in peacetime it seems to be as it is, but in wartime it does not seem to exist.

        When Napoleon went to the East, he did not notice any Poland on his way. When Kutuzov drove Napoleon back to France, he also did not notice any Poland.
        When Hitler went to the East, he also did not notice any Poland.
        When Zhukov drove the Fritzes back, he also did not notice any Poland.
        ---
        It looks like there is no Poland, but there is some kind of incomprehensible content (which has an extremely harmful smell), which periodically "ozonizes" the surrounding space.
        1. t-34marina
          t-34marina 8 December 2020 23: 25
          +1
          A very correct and not trivial definition. Just how much blood has been spilled for this misunderstanding ... for liberation ... right up the tree-stick ...
        2. Reader 2013
          Reader 2013 11 December 2020 17: 45
          0
          Commander-in-Chief, I report the interstellar fleet is concentrated in orbit.
          Great, we start the capture from Poland
          Why from Poland
          I don’t know, but on this planet it’s accepted
  • Alexey Sommer
    Alexey Sommer 8 December 2020 17: 32
    +3
    Quote: Aerodrome
    over the past 20 years, the population has decreased by 20 million

    Why lie so crookedly?
  • 3danimal
    3danimal 13 December 2020 00: 36
    0
    The story about Thatcher is from the same category as about Churchill.
  • Thrifty
    Thrifty 8 December 2020 05: 25
    +4
    Alexander, this is just one of the variants of war, of which there is innumerable, and for the best so that we do not have to actually check any of the variants of reconciliation of weapons of mass destruction!
    1. Aleksandr1971
      Aleksandr1971 8 December 2020 06: 11
      +8
      Lean, you don't need to check, but you need to model. In this case, it is simulation that takes place. Although, in my opinion, a lot of other circumstances and factors that could affect the result were not taken into account.
      Precisely in order for the result of modeling to be not deplorable, it is necessary to adequately prepare for war.
      1. Sotskiy
        Sotskiy 8 December 2020 19: 55
        +4
        Quote: Aleksandr1971
        Precisely in order for the result of modeling to be not deplorable, it is necessary to adequately prepare for war.

        Damn, I'd better not say anything about how we "adequately" prepare for war, starting in 1985.
        So, for example, do you know at least one equipped bomb shelter from your home, preserved from the USSR? It's about those notorious "counter-value" attacks on the population, which are considered the most valuable asset in any war. In our country, the population is being deliberately driven by lack of work in the periphery to big cities and "optimized" for medicine. Probably so that everyone goes to heaven at once and does not suffer. The readiness of the authorities and "optimized" medicine for mass cataclysms was shown by a small such virus COVID-19.
        So if something happens, "Not only everyone will survive" (V. Klitschko) lol hi
        1. Mordvin 3
          Mordvin 3 8 December 2020 22: 41
          +3
          Quote: Sovetskiy
          Do you know at least one equipped bomb shelter from the USSR that is closest to your house?

          I know one thing, but there the housing and communal services plumbers store all kinds of nonsense, so it has long been converted.
          1. Sotskiy
            Sotskiy 8 December 2020 22: 53
            +3
            Quote: Mordvin 3
            I know one thing, but there the housing and communal services plumbers store all kinds of nonsense, so it has long been converted.

            fellow That is, if what, bring life support systems with you, do we optimize the population on individual square meters of underground space? lol
            And if it is also private, then money! laughing
            1. Mordvin 3
              Mordvin 3 8 December 2020 22: 59
              +3
              Quote: Sovetskiy
              do we optimize the population on separate square meters of underground space?

              Has long been. The bourgeois do not bother building and maintaining some kind of bomb shelters. Under the bed, you will have to hide from flashes.
              1. Sotskiy
                Sotskiy 8 December 2020 23: 07
                +1
                Quote: Mordvin 3
                The bourgeois do not bother building and maintaining some kind of bomb shelters.

                And in vain, a profitable business in case of war. As the saying goes: "To whom the war, and to whom the mother is dear." laughing A striking example - bombiles after the explosion in the subway in the same St. Petersburg.
    2. timokhin-aa
      8 December 2020 11: 30
      +2
      Well, if we continue to remain in illusions, we will have to check.
  • Yura
    Yura 8 December 2020 05: 25
    +14
    Moreover, a number of American military preparations indicate that they are preparing for this: to wage a nuclear war with the use of strategic weapons, and it is precisely for a surprise attack first. This is a very serious threat.
    Yes, they have been talking about it for a long time and are preparing for this, the first plan of a massive nuclear strike against the USSR "Dropshot" was approved by the US Chiefs of Staff Committee on December 19, 1949, and they still cannot decide to implement it and all subsequent ones, but here you have a whole article with an invitation to guests, they say, do not be afraid, they will kill you, but not all at all, so be bolder. To the author - the consequences of a nuclear strike are not beyond the possibility of a retaliatory strike (although this is also), the consequences of a nuclear strike are in the impossibility of the full functioning of the state, precisely as a state, that is, the state that received such a gift will restore energy, industry, restoration to a normal state of social economic functions depending on the damage inflicted - for decades, will adapt to climate change, to catastrophic natural disasters caused by these strikes. Therefore, strikes are also planned in the United States, and probably we have not on cities but on strategic objects, which, in addition to launchers, power generating facilities, reservoirs with dams and dams, nuclear power plants, etc., etc. Russia is not going to "glass" anyone, but in the likelihood that this is really our enemy must be sure, as well as in the fact that this will surely happen to them in the event of aggression towards us.
    1. Plastmaster
      Plastmaster 8 December 2020 19: 22
      +2
      Quote: Jura
      Yes, they have been talking about it for a long time and are preparing for this, the first plan of a massive nuclear strike against the USSR "Dropshot" was approved by the US Chiefs of Staff Committee on December 19, 1949, and they still cannot dare to implement it and all subsequent ones

      Well, this is understandable a general without show-off, not a general. It is more terrible when the president with show-off meets with such a general. And if they also throw something. And then it will begin.
  • Dimy4
    Dimy4 8 December 2020 05: 27
    +1
    Uff, mastered! Now he is calm, you can fight with vigorous loaves.
    1. tihonmarine
      tihonmarine 8 December 2020 16: 53
      +2
      Quote: Dimy4
      Uff, mastered! Now he is calm, you can fight with vigorous loaves.

      As a topic about war, so you read a lot from commentators, from "the guard is all gone" to "we will come in the face." The head starts to buzz with homebrew strategists. I’d better keep quiet, I’ll miss a glass of "bison".
  • Dude
    Dude 8 December 2020 05: 30
    +20
    Any reasonable and more or less educated person understands that nuclear weapons are not a panacea. The most powerful type of weapons - yes, the most serious deterrent - also, yes, but, as the author remarked very accurately, one type of weapon, even a super-powerful one, cannot win serious wars.

    But our sworn partners believe that they can neutralize the deterrent factor of nuclear weapons, and are intensively preparing for an aggressive war against our country.

    Otherwise, enemy reconnaissance aircraft and drones would not have flown along our borders (moreover, with the frequency of regular passenger airlines), the impressive staffs of special services and intelligence specialists of all stripes would not have been contained, under the guise of diplomats, in US diplomatic missions along the perimeter of Russia, all new ones would not appear military bases and military contingents of NATO on the territory of our neighbors.

    Even in the 80s. XX century, when the size of the USSR's nuclear arsenal was incomparably larger than that of the Russian Federation now, the possibility of a major war was noticeably different from zero. Naturally, after all the reductions, the deterrent ability of nuclear weapons has noticeably decreased since then, as has the scale of the hypothetically inflicted losses.

    The author brings this idea to the reader very clearly, for which thanks to him. As well as what is being prepared should be "on all fronts", and not rely solely on the strategic nuclear forces.
    1. Aleksandr1971
      Aleksandr1971 8 December 2020 06: 24
      +12
      Dude, I think that the author's logic is somewhat lame.

      The author shows the insufficient deterrent role of nuclear weapons with a red line throughout the entire article. And the author's conclusion is the opposite and not logical - that they say, it is necessary to develop the non-nuclear component of the RF Armed Forces.
      From the text of the article, the conclusion suggests itself that it is the SNF of the Russian Federation that need multiple strengthening in order to create the risk of liquidating the nations of the West.
      1. KKND
        KKND 8 December 2020 09: 26
        +6
        Quote: Aleksandr1971
        From the text of the article, the conclusion suggests itself that it is the SNF of the Russian Federation that need multiple strengthening in order to create the risk of liquidating the nations of the West.

        Unfortunately, then they will also build up their strategic nuclear forces, and since we have fewer goals for them than all NATO for us, as a result of this process, our navel may be untied. The strategic nuclear forces are not cheap.
        1. Aleksandr1971
          Aleksandr1971 8 December 2020 09: 35
          +5
          The article clearly shows that our strategic nuclear forces are not enough to destroy the United States. So we don't have to compare with the United States in terms of the number of strategic nuclear forces. Just the amount is enough to guarantee the death of the United States.

          As for the high cost, it is cheaper to compete with NATO in the sphere of strategic nuclear forces for Russia than in the sphere of conventional weapons. In addition, strategic nuclear forces do not require a large number of people for maintenance, compared to the same conventional weapons.
          1. KKND
            KKND 8 December 2020 09: 43
            +3
            Quote: Aleksandr1971
            Just the amount is enough to guarantee the death of the United States.

            We need a lot. At its peak, the USSR had only 50000 to 70000 nuclear devices (including tactical ones). Now building ballistic missiles in the thousands is crazy, to put it mildly. They are really very expensive.
            Quote: Aleksandr1971
            In addition, strategic nuclear forces do not require a large number of people for maintenance, compared to the same conventional weapons.

            Well, it only seems to you. How much does a cheap low-power rocket cost to launch a satellite into space? From $ 50 million. A ballistic missile will cost about 30+ lemons and it must be serviced for years on duty. It would be nice to dig a mine. The warheads themselves cost how much. Here are 50 lemons multiplied by at least 1000+ service for 20+ years.
            1. The comment was deleted.
            2. Aleksandr1971
              Aleksandr1971 8 December 2020 09: 51
              +5
              You will compare the performance of strategic nuclear forces and conventional aircraft. How many things can one division of the Strategic Missile Forces of 2,5-3 thousand people do? and how much one combined arms division will make with a full staff strength of 14-15 thousand people. Comparison of the result of the work will not be in favor of the combined arms division.

              So for a country that is losing in terms of population, that is, it is more profitable for us to keep reinforced strategic nuclear forces with a small number of conventional armed forces, the task of which will be only: 1) to protect the strategic nuclear forces; 2) participation in minor conflicts, such as Syria or Karabakh.

              Therefore, I strongly disagree with the idea of ​​the author of the article about the need to shift the emphasis from strategic nuclear forces to conventional troops. For conventional troops certainly do not pose a threat to the death of the United States, and strategic nuclear forces pose such a threat, at least to some extent.
              1. KKND
                KKND 8 December 2020 09: 59
                +2
                Quote: Aleksandr1971
                You will compare the performance of strategic nuclear forces and conventional aircraft. How many things can one division of the Strategic Missile Forces of 2,5-3 thousand people do? and how much one combined-arms division will make with a full staff strength of 14-15 thousand people.

                Sorry, but this is a comparison a la who is better than a tank or an airplane.
                Quote: Aleksandr1971
                For conventional troops certainly do not pose a threat to the death of the United States, and strategic nuclear forces pose such a threat, at least to some extent.

                If we had (theoretically) the Navy the strongest of the NATO fleet, we would have pressed them to their shores and forced them to sign a surrender on the most favorable terms, even without landing operations.
                Quote: Aleksandr1971
                Therefore, I strongly disagree with the idea of ​​the author of the article about the need to shift the emphasis from strategic nuclear forces to conventional troops.

                The author stepped a little here, and did not give another argument. And what if World War 3 will be completely without nuclear weapons or with the explosion of a couple and that's it. Let me remind you that Hitler and Stalin and the British had chemical weapons, but there are unspoken rules. Let me also remind you that after the First World War, explosive bullets are prohibited, although it would seem, compared to nuclear weapons, these are firecrackers for boys.
                1. Aleksandr1971
                  Aleksandr1971 8 December 2020 10: 09
                  +10
                  I am not researching who is stronger, a whale or an elephant.

                  The article raises the question of whether the level of our strategic nuclear forces is sufficient to protect our country. The author's answer is not sufficient. And the author proposes to ensure adequate protection of our country from the United States by building up conventional weapons. I believe that the author made the wrong conclusion.

                  I am not against the development of conventional weapons in Russia. I substantiate the idea that not conventional, but nuclear weapons will protect us from a US attack. And in the event of a war, our nuclear weapons will inflict this or that damage on the United States. And conventional troops will not cause this damage to US territory. In a nuclear war, there will be no rules. There will be genocide, and there will be no Nuremberg, for the judges will be killed.

                  I once again substantiate the idea that only nuclear weapons can protect the country from defeat because in terms of conventional weapons in the war with NATO we are guaranteed defeat. NATO can only be intimidated by a nuclear strike on their population.
                  We will not be able to strike the US population with conventional weapons because we are weaker, we are poorer. Our conventional weapons do not reach US territory.
                  1. La Peruse
                    La Peruse 8 December 2020 10: 40
                    -1
                    An end in any war is put by a simple infantryman. What the author writes about. After the exchange of nuclear weapons, the war continued with conventional weapons. The presence of nuclear weapons does not guarantee a non-attack. There were incidents, the Anglo-Argentine War, and numerous Soviet-Chinese conflicts.
                    1. Aleksandr1971
                      Aleksandr1971 8 December 2020 10: 46
                      +8
                      Your words refer to minor conflicts.
                      You better consider the applicability of your words to the idea of ​​the article under discussion. That is, the theme of life-and-death war between Russia and the United States.

                      Our marines will not take over the United States unless they launch a nuclear strike against the United States. But after the exchange of nuclear strikes, there will be no point in dropping infantry into the scorched radioactive territories. Neither them nor us.

                      And on the contrary, if nuclear weapons are banned all over the world, then the result of an armed clash between the United States and Russia will be the defeat of Russia. Therefore, it is necessary to build up Russia's nuclear weapons.
                      1. La Peruse
                        La Peruse 8 December 2020 11: 32
                        -3
                        Fussing for the same Kaliningrad and the Kuriles is full of minor conflicts. You can take the Vietnam-American War. It was certainly not shallow, as you can see America did not use nuclear weapons, although there were such plans, they were also during the Korean War, which was very large-scale. The essence of the whole article is that nuclear weapons are not a panacea, especially since the SA was constantly working out the database in radioactive areas after the exchange of nuclear weapons
              2. JD1979
                JD1979 8 December 2020 14: 47
                -2
                Quote: Aleksandr1971
                You will compare the performance of strategic nuclear forces and conventional aircraft. How many things can one division of the Strategic Missile Forces of 2,5-3 thousand people do? and how much one combined arms division will make with a full staff strength of 14-15 thousand people. Comparison of the result of the work will not be in favor of the combined arms division.

                For what period of time?))) Well, the Strategic Missile Forces division can make a very big rustle in the enemy's camp in half an hour, but without guaranteed destruction. A combined-arms division can slowly but surely zanocide to zero all living things in the same territory. And after the shooting of their toys, the Strategic Missile Forces turns ... into the infantry. There will be no recharge.

                Quote: Aleksandr1971
                So for a country that is losing in terms of population, that is, it is more profitable for us to keep reinforced strategic nuclear forces with a small number of conventional armed forces, the task of which will be only: 1) to protect the strategic nuclear forces; 2) participation in minor conflicts, such as Syria or Karabakh.

                As the last year of strategic nuclear forces has shown, these are such trifles ... one biological laboratory can send all of humanity to the next world cheaply and angrily, and no one will grab the hand)) And the whole infrastructure will remain)) And this scenario may turn out to be more real against the background of an increase in insanity and the fall of the moral foundations of political and military elites.

                Quote: Aleksandr1971
                Therefore, I strongly disagree with the idea of ​​the author of the article about the need to shift the emphasis from strategic nuclear forces to conventional troops. For conventional troops certainly do not pose a threat to the death of the United States, and strategic nuclear forces pose such a threat, at least to some extent.

                Remind me why the Americans gave up their dropshot at one time? There was something about 20 kilotons of tanks, two weeks and the waters of the Atlantic Ocean)))
            3. Aleksandr1971
              Aleksandr1971 8 December 2020 09: 56
              +6
              By the way, about the cost.
              You said the rocket costs $ 50 million. So this is the price of 5-7 pieces of fittings. Can 5 or 7 pieces of rebar kill several hundred thousand people in the United States? They cannot.
              To match the results of work with ICBMs, it is necessary to build an incredible amount of armature. So the strategic nuclear forces are many times cheaper than conventional troops.
      2. Simargl
        Simargl 8 December 2020 11: 31
        -3
        Quote: Aleksandr1971
        From the text of the article, the conclusion suggests itself that it is the SNF of the Russian Federation that need multiple strengthening in order to create the risk of liquidating the nations of the West.
        Why eliminate people directly? For the United States, about 50 explosive charges with a capacity of about 1 Mt will be enough for the economy to practically stop for several years. We can also be broken, but with a large number of charges, because here everything is somewhat more stable.
        Do you think a nuclear shootout does not happen because they are afraid of getting a response? No! They are afraid that after the shootout there will be a chance for those who did not participate in it! It hurts more.
      3. Dude
        Dude 8 December 2020 17: 51
        0
        ... From the text of the article, the conclusion suggests itself that it is the strategic nuclear forces of the Russian Federation that need multiple reinforcement ...
        The size and quality of the arsenal of strategic nuclear forces, at the moment, are regulated by existing international treaties. Besides, in possible conventional conflicts, it would be nice to have advanced and modern non-nuclear weapons. IMHO, this is obvious.
      4. SovAr238A
        SovAr238A 13 December 2020 11: 13
        0
        Quote: Aleksandr1971

        From the text of the article, the conclusion suggests itself that it is the SNF of the Russian Federation that need multiple strengthening in order to create the risk of liquidating the nations of the West.


        Look at the system comprehensively.
        Taking into account not only mathematics (we have 1500, we need another 500 warheads).

        If we withdraw from all the START treaties, then I can assure you that we will be trampled into the Stone Age for 10 years.
        By making the country a pariah

        By blocking the Internet, the international banking system.
        Absolutely all import-export operations will be blocked.
        All joint ventures will be stopped.

        And since none of our enterprises can operate without imported components and materials, our production, to put it mildly, will stop almost at once.

        All our communal infrastructure is also "import-dependent", oddly enough.

        You just ask what turbines are being installed now, what components are used in these turbines.
        and so on in everything.
        The cranes are powerful there.

        What will we do with tens of millions of unemployed?

        How will we feed them?
        1. Aleksandr1971
          Aleksandr1971 13 December 2020 16: 02
          0
          I already wrote a few days ago that if calculations show that as a result of non-military pressure on Russia, Russia will end, then we must attack first and drag the enemy into the grave. For to die yourself without destroying the enemy is not pleasant.
    2. Hagen
      Hagen 8 December 2020 06: 54
      +4
      Quote: Dude
      Otherwise, enemy reconnaissance aircraft and drones would not fly along our borders

      Otherwise, it would have been in practice what happened in Libya. Otherwise, in Syria, tomahawks would have walked over the positions of our troops. What? A head-on collision of NATO with Russia in the nuclear aspect is not scary. And in terms of the size of the land component, the advantage is on the side of NATO. After all, this is what the author claims. Only now, even in the camp of the enemy, they do not quite agree with the author and are afraid of something to go ramming. They are pushing more and more on the economy and the "fifth column".
      1. Fan-fan
        Fan-fan 8 December 2020 12: 29
        +2
        On the contrary, the author refers to their materials in his article. So in the camp of the enemy, responsible people think the same way as the author of the article. And it is much easier for them to harm us with the fifth column and the collapse of the economy than with a real war.
      2. victor50
        victor50 8 December 2020 12: 49
        +1
        Quote: Hagen
        Only now, even in the camp of the enemy, they do not quite agree with the author and are afraid of something to go ramming.

        Yet.
        Quote: Hagen
        They are pushing more and more on the economy and the "fifth column".

        And what are they doing wrong? And then - to the ram.
        1. Hagen
          Hagen 8 December 2020 13: 04
          0
          Quote: victor50
          And then - to the ram.

          Wait and see...
    3. Horon
      Horon 8 December 2020 09: 29
      +1
      In the event of a full-fledged war with conventional weapons, from 4 to 6 enemy soldiers will oppose you, plus a powerful industrial and economic potential that practically does not suffer from hostilities. You will receive outdated weapons, poor supplies, a badly destroyed industry and a killed economy. Are you still hoping to win with conventional weapons?
      1. Poganini
        Poganini 8 December 2020 13: 38
        +1
        The powerful economic potential will certainly come out. Together with all 100 tanks of the Bundeswehr that are on the move. ))) Here it would be to keep the dad, so that he with his 2 thousand of that ... did not reach the English Channel before us.)
    4. ccsr
      ccsr 8 December 2020 13: 20
      +6
      Quote: Dude
      Naturally, after all the reductions, the deterrent ability of nuclear weapons has noticeably decreased since then, as has the scale of the hypothetically inflicted losses.

      If you carefully analyze everything that American military analysts write, they consider it unacceptable even to detonate 100 standard nuclear warheads with a capacity of 400 kt or more on their territory, after which, as they predict, the US state will cease to exist due to the loss of control of the country. From this it becomes clear why they are so afraid of the nuclear programs of even North Korea, although by and large it does not threaten them in any way. in reality, the Americans will destroy it before the first launch is made. But this trick will not work with Russia, and the Americans always remember this, despite the fact that our potential is incomparably less than in the USSR. But even if we predict everything that will reach their territory, then the count will go not to one hundred, but at least 3-4, and I hope so. Whether it is enough for them or not, the Americans know this better than we do, which is why they will always be afraid of us until we are completely rid of nuclear weapons. And they tried to implement this scenario, but then China got out at the wrong time, the power of which is growing much faster than the Americans expected, and from here our problems with treaties began.
  • However, dear
    However, dear 8 December 2020 05: 44
    -1
    No one will trample on a nuclear power. all well, the benefit of the war should be as a result of some kind for the one who started. even a few warheads are enough for containment. even persistent rumors about its presence are enough (Israel). atomic bombs are used only against those who do not have them. the development of conventional weapons is absolutely the right goal. I liked the article. although I personally consider the main wars in the world between the superpowers now economic.
    1. Aleksandr1971
      Aleksandr1971 8 December 2020 06: 19
      +13
      They will trample if our nuclear potential can be neutralized by either the next treaties on the reduction of nuclear weapons, or the development of a missile defense system.

      They will simply accept partial losses as a necessity for the result.
      History says that the Western countries, even if they are a hundred times more democratic than us, will trample if they predict victory.

      In order not to be trampled on us, we should: 1) strengthen the protection of our nuclear weapons; 2) to increase our nuclear weapons quantitatively and qualitatively; 3) to create a nuclear weapons system that can not only cause large-scale destruction of Western cities, but also undermine the agricultural West for decades by radioactive contamination of farmland.

      1550 nuclear warheads are not enough to threaten the existence of Western nations. We need more nuclear weapons, and we need more protection for nuclear weapons.
      1. However, dear
        However, dear 8 December 2020 06: 52
        +3
        If the country is crushed economically, then there is no need to fight. The collapse of the USSR is an example of this.
        1. Aleksandr1971
          Aleksandr1971 8 December 2020 07: 03
          +4
          Then we need to attack first.

          After all, if modeling shows that, as a result of non-military pressure, the end will come to us anyway, then this will be the end only for us, but not for the enemy.

          It's boring for us to die alone. After all, this will not be fair if Russia disappears while the United States and other Western nations remain.

          If, as a result of the intrigues of the West, the collapse of Russia is inevitable, then it is necessary to drag the enemy into the grave. And to guarantee the death of the enemy, the existing 1550 warheads are not enough.
          1. However, dear
            However, dear 8 December 2020 07: 13
            -1
            As a result of non-military pressure for the people, the end was still not physical. Or is it necessary to arrange a mutual suicide as soon as possible if the model at the headquarters shows that we are economically unable to butt further? maybe it's better to live?
            1. Aleksandr1971
              Aleksandr1971 8 December 2020 07: 57
              +3
              Better to live.
              But the modeling of the conflict in the headquarters of the West should show the West that Russia does not want to die alone. Therefore, it is better not to put pressure on Russia, it is better to abandon intrigues. Then life both in our country and in the West will be calm. And if the West decides to continue to prepare for our non-military death, then let it prepare for mutual destruction.
              1. However, dear
                However, dear 8 December 2020 16: 55
                -5
                What can I say? In response to economic pressure and, as a result, defeat in the Cold War, the USSR still chose life, which pleases, and quietly collapsed. We would not have talked with you if 30 years ago we had chosen "the whole world to dust" for goodbye. I'm not a historian, but one example comes to mind when a country, in response to economic pressure, went to war. This is Japan. In response to the oil embargo, she started a war with the United States in WWII. She ended up, however, badly. But then she transformed, became friends with America, became one of the leading countries in the world. Not just everything in this life.
        2. victor50
          victor50 8 December 2020 12: 58
          +5
          Quote: However, Dear
          If the country is crushed economically, then there is no need to fight.

          The risk remains that it might recover.
          Quote: However, Dear
          The collapse of the USSR is an example of this.

          The USSR can hardly be an example of a purely economic defeat. Then many factors came together. The main one was that people wanted to live under socialism, and to consume as under capitalism (and at least the capitalist middle class), everything, from top to bottom. The Russian Federation exists, although it is in a worse economic situation than the USSR, and largely depends on imports.
  • Mykhalych
    Mykhalych 8 December 2020 05: 44
    -2
    Such a lengthy article and one thing is effective - nowhere without infantry ... request So no one disputed it.
    1. timokhin-aa
      8 December 2020 11: 28
      0
      It's not really about the infantry. The infantry cannot reach the United States.
  • Cottodraton
    Cottodraton 8 December 2020 06: 02
    -2
    1. Even if 2000 warheads do not directly inflict any special damage on the population, where will the dust from them fly (and there is a fatal contamination for hundreds of kilometers)? It cannot all go into the "ocean", especially in the center. The USA has a very high population density and very cardboard houses. (Any tornado blows away an American town, which is clearly shown by the footage of the chronicle)
    2. I do not think that after a blow to them, the statehood will be especially preserved there. A bunch of groups will immediately appear, which will begin to fight for control of the remaining resources, the same food. In other words, anarchy and chaos! There will definitely be no time for us.
    Cover is an allegory. But close enough. As a whole state, the United States will disappear for a long time. And whether it will recover in the future is a big question.
    1. Aleksandr1971
      Aleksandr1971 8 December 2020 06: 44
      +8
      In modern nuclear weapons, the energy of the explosion is mainly the result of the synthesis of hydrogen nuclei. From such a reaction, the radioactive contamination of the area is small.

      To infect enemy territory, technically possible, but in practice, charges based on cobalt-60 are theoretically more effective. It is assumed that only 510 kg are needed to infect the entire Earth, and to stop all agriculture on Earth. of this substance.
      1. timokhin-aa
        8 December 2020 11: 27
        +1
        This is unacceptable for obvious reasons.
        1. Aleksandr1971
          Aleksandr1971 8 December 2020 17: 19
          +1
          Our country apparently will not dare to do this. And the DPRK has enough spirit for that.
          1. Vadim237
            Vadim237 8 December 2020 22: 06
            0
            Where will the DPRK take 510 kilograms of Cobalt 60?
  • sleeve
    sleeve 8 December 2020 06: 06
    +3
    Yes ... Serious materials with argumentation and reasoning about JV evoke melancholy. You have to think hard ...
  • aybolyt678
    aybolyt678 8 December 2020 06: 07
    -1
    something I did not see as the targets of the residences of the Rockefellers, Rothschilds ... In the absence of these goals, the war is really useless
    1. Aleksandr1971
      Aleksandr1971 8 December 2020 06: 46
      +1
      not the Rothschilds are fighting against the Rottenbergs, but the nation. Therefore, it is necessary to strike at the places of concentration of nations.
      1. aybolyt678
        aybolyt678 8 December 2020 07: 21
        +1
        Quote: Aleksandr1971
        not the Rothschilds are fighting against the Rottenbergs, but the nation. Therefore, it is necessary to strike at the places of concentration of nations.

        I have a niece in America, for 20 years already, she was Russian, now she is a US citizen. Who is she by nation ?? And you need to beat with a guaranteed and pointwise where there is a cluster of those very best names, so that they know that there is no escape on Mars, this is a guarantee of a peaceful future
        1. Aleksandr1971
          Aleksandr1971 8 December 2020 08: 06
          +6
          What is a guarantee of victory and a guarantee of preventing the enemy's rebirth if not the death of the enemy himself?
          History shows that the destruction of enemy armies and the conclusion of peace are only episodes in conflicts between nations. And these conflicts sometimes last for centuries. After a while, the lost, but surviving nation revives its best names, its army, and then is again ready for the next war. Therefore, it is necessary to defeat the entire enemy nation, and not just its best names or its army.
          My own daughter has been living in the USA for several years. And I live in Russia and sometimes I go to her. So what? Every person, wherever he is, is a part of the nation that he considers his own.
          1. aybolyt678
            aybolyt678 8 December 2020 08: 46
            +2
            Quote: Aleksandr1971
            What is a guarantee of victory and a guarantee of preventing the enemy's rebirth if not the death of the enemy himself?

            the guarantee of victory is the destruction of any factor that unites people into a nation - for example, the destruction of ideology, or leaders, or the media
            1. paul3390
              paul3390 8 December 2020 19: 39
              -2
              No ... It's all the past century. It is not America that needs glass, but Taiwan .. TSMC alone makes more than half of the world's chips .. If there are no chips, then there will be no more America ..
              1. SVD68
                SVD68 8 December 2020 21: 01
                0
                Taiwan is not allowed. There at this time (the time of the nuclear missile war between Russia and the United States) Knrovites will be.
    2. Krasnodar
      Krasnodar 8 December 2020 22: 35
      +1
      Quote: aybolyt678
      something I did not see as the targets of the residences of the Rockefellers, Rothschilds ... In the absence of these goals, the war is really useless

      You also need to hit the synagogue of the Luminati Masons - that's where the real Margaret Thatcher is hiding am
  • parusnik
    parusnik 8 December 2020 06: 18
    +5
    Nuclear American missiles will fly to Ford, Procter & Gamble, Pepsi and Coca Cola factories, etc. the Russians will hit the American real estate of our rich. smile
    1. aybolyt678
      aybolyt678 8 December 2020 07: 14
      +3
      Quote: parusnik
      Russians will hit the American real estate of our rich.

      indeed, Zen published an article about Medvedev's son who owns a supermarket chain in America.
    2. aybolyt678
      aybolyt678 8 December 2020 07: 22
      +2
      Quote: parusnik
      American nuclear missiles will fly to Ford factories, Procter & Gamble,

      factories are better nationalized than bombed. And you need to bomb the Fed and the Wall Street Exchanges
      1. Krasnodar
        Krasnodar 8 December 2020 22: 38
        +1
        Quote: aybolyt678
        Quote: parusnik
        American nuclear missiles will fly to Ford factories, Procter & Gamble,

        factories are better nationalized than bombed. And you need to bomb the Fed and the Wall Street Exchanges

        Justin Bieber's house and Sarah Jessica Parker's apartment should be bombed. I hate Sarah Jessica Parker and Justin Bieber laughing
  • oracul
    oracul 8 December 2020 06: 37
    +3
    The author should be more closely guided by the recommendation of F. Engels: "... the reasons for what is happening must be sought not from the head, but with the help of the head in the surrounding factors of material production." And also remember Stalin's "painted on paper, but forgot about the ravines, and walk on them."
  • Errr
    Errr 8 December 2020 06: 37
    +22
    From the article:
    The photo below shows the epicenter of the explosion of the "Tsar Bomba" AN602. The most powerful explosive device in history, with the TNT equivalent, as we know today, at 58 megatons.
    Alexander, the owl is already begging: "NINADA !!!" laughing After the AN602 was activated at an altitude of 4000 m above the target, no crater remained on the surface of the landfill on Novaya Zemlya. Your photo shows a crater from a ground explosion at the Semipalatinsk nuclear test site. More careful, please, with the presentation of the material. smile
    1. Pessimist22
      Pessimist22 8 December 2020 07: 10
      +6
      It certainly doesn't look like a new land.
      1. Fan-fan
        Fan-fan 8 December 2020 12: 42
        0
        That's right, there must be rocky terrain. The author obviously messed up here.
    2. Aleksandr1971
      Aleksandr1971 8 December 2020 07: 11
      +6
      Errr, the same I was surprised to see this photo! After all, the Tsar Bomb was blown up on Novaya Zemlya, that is, in the Arctic. And the photo shows a funnel in the steppe.
    3. aybolyt678
      aybolyt678 8 December 2020 07: 36
      -1
      The blast wave after the explosion on Novaya Zemlya circled the Earth three times. At least the seismic sensors recorded. All polar bears and seals were destroyed within a radius of 100 kilometers. It seems that everything is not so scary as the author writes. But this very bomb was three-stage. The third stage was imitation, since Kurchatov was afraid of a thermonuclear chain reaction of the Earth's atmosphere. Is there no danger of this very chain thermonuclear reaction in multiple explosions ??
      1. KKND
        KKND 8 December 2020 09: 14
        +3
        Quote: aybolyt678
        Is there no danger of this very chain thermonuclear reaction in multiple explosions ??

        Uh ... is there so much deuterium or tritium in the atmosphere? In more detail, you can talk about a thermonuclear chain reaction in the Earth's atmosphere, comrade Kremlin bot number 678 (why are you too lazy to invent a normal nickname there? fool )?
        Quote: aybolyt678
        All polar bears and seals were destroyed within a radius of 100 kilometers.

        Can you link to exactly 100 kilometers?
        1. aybolyt678
          aybolyt678 8 December 2020 12: 13
          -1
          https://zen.yandex.ru/media/cyrillitsa.ru/zachem-sssr-vzorval-carbombu-na-novoi-zemle-5eec4c52058020546c67929b
          Quote: KKND
          Can you link to exactly 100 kilometers?
          1. KKND
            KKND 8 December 2020 12: 21
            +1
            Yes, Yandex Zen is certainly a powerful source. I have no more questions. soldier
      2. Horon
        Horon 8 December 2020 09: 49
        +2
        Is there no danger of this very chain thermonuclear reaction in multiple explosions ??

        There is a high probability when a thermonuclear explosion with a power of more than 50 Mt is detonated in the ocean. Hydrogen in water can work there, multiplying the effect, and even making it total. For some reason they stubbornly keep silent about this. Poseidon is suitable for this ammunition, it is its detonation that can turn the Earth into a lifeless copy of the Moon. But it is better to write articles about the inefficiency, or even the safety of nuclear weapons.
        1. KKND
          KKND 8 December 2020 10: 05
          0
          Quote: Horon
          Hydrogen in water can be triggered, multiplying the effect, or even making it total. For some reason they stubbornly keep silent about this.

          So what is the percentage of tritium in the world's oceans? And the density of this tritium should be very high per unit volume.
          1. Horon
            Horon 8 December 2020 11: 23
            +1
            Tritium does not burn in the sun. To excite the thermonuclear fusion of tritium, lower temperatures and pressures are needed than for hydrogen, therefore, to activate it, it is sufficient to use a nuclear charge. But when using a powerful thermonuclear charge, it creates conditions sufficient for the activation of hydrogen in the ocean. This is precisely what Sakharov was afraid of. Yes, such a thermonuclear reaction will decay rather quickly, but it will lead to an increase in the main charge and the release of a large number of isotes. A super-powerful explosion will shake the continental plate and possibly even damage it, which in turn will lead to massive tectonic processes. And this is undermining only one charge.
            1. KKND
              KKND 8 December 2020 11: 27
              +5
              Quote: Horon
              But when using a powerful thermonuclear charge, it creates conditions sufficient for the activation of hydrogen in the ocean.

              The density is not enough.
              Quote: Horon
              A super-powerful explosion will shake the continental plate and possibly even damage it, which in turn will lead to massive tectonic processes. And this is undermining only one charge.

              About the atmosphere did not flow, the continental plate did not flow about the hydrosphere. wassat Of course, our propagandists please me. You don't have to go to the circus.
              1. Horon
                Horon 8 December 2020 12: 01
                -1
                Are you really a physicist? winked
                Have you been to nuclear test sites? Did you communicate with the creators of nuclear weapons?
                As a result of the large energy release in the center of the atomic bomb, the temperature rises to 10 to the 8th degree of K, and the pressure to 10 to the 12th degree of atm. The substance turns into scattering plasma.

                Conditions are close:
                The sun shines due to thermonuclear energy that is generated in its core. The temperature there reaches 15 million degrees Celsius, the density is 160 g / cm3, the pressure is 3,4x10 to the 11th degree of atm.

                How would it be! But whose propogandon you are - the question!
                1. KKND
                  KKND 8 December 2020 12: 13
                  +3
                  Quote: Horon
                  Are you really a physicist?

                  I have not claimed anywhere that I am a physicist.
                  Quote: Horon
                  As a result of the large energy release in the center of the atomic bomb, the temperature rises to 108 K, and the pressure to 1012 atm. The substance turns into scattering plasma.

                  Ahaha, the clowning continues. laughing Density of hydrogen. Not the density of the compressible environment. Now, if the entire atmosphere or the hydrosphere were made of hydrogen, and even preferably deuterium with tritium, then somehow pulling by the ears you could still say that the thermonuclear reaction has started. And even then there would be questions about the duration of the reaction due to the different compression rate of the medium and the rate of the reaction itself.
                  Quote: Horon
                  Have you been to nuclear test sites? Did you communicate with the creators of nuclear weapons?

                  The appeal to authority is just the opposite.
                  Got it ...
              2. aybolyt678
                aybolyt678 8 December 2020 12: 17
                +2
                Quote: KKND
                Of course, our propagandists please me. You don't have to go to the circus.

                have you forgotten about the nuclear winter? smile or also intrigues?
                1. KKND
                  KKND 8 December 2020 12: 28
                  +5
                  Quote: aybolyt678
                  have you forgotten about the nuclear winter? or also intrigues?

                  Do you work together there? Stop amusing me. Nuclear winter is nothing but a confirmed theory. Created in the 80s during perestroika.
                  In the 19th century, there was an eruption of the Krakatoa volcano, due to dust as a result of Rayleigh scattering, the sky turned red. The temperature remained practically unchanged, people grew food calmly. Edvan Munch painted his Scream for the occasion. Humanity has had an amazing experience.
                  1. Krasnodar
                    Krasnodar 8 December 2020 22: 42
                    +1
                    Quote: KKND
                    Quote: aybolyt678
                    have you forgotten about the nuclear winter? or also intrigues?

                    Do you work together there? Stop amusing me. Nuclear winter is nothing but a confirmed theory. Created in the 80s during perestroika.
                    In the 19th century, there was an eruption of the Krakatoa volcano, due to dust as a result of Rayleigh scattering, the sky turned red. The temperature remained practically unchanged, people grew food calmly. Edvan Munch painted his Scream for the occasion. Humanity has had an amazing experience.

                    Burning wells in Kuwaiti is another example
      3. Errr
        Errr 8 December 2020 10: 10
        +3
        Somewhere before I came across infa that Sakharov really wanted to test exactly the version with uranium belts of the third stage, but not finding support for this idea in the project management, literally "on his knee" in the shortest possible time had to replace uranium with lead. Do not think of it as tactless, but I will simply quote from Pikabu:
        "Product 602" [AN602] had a three-stage design. The nuclear charge of the first stage had a power of one and a half megatons and was designed to start a thermonuclear reaction in the second, the power of which reached 50 megatons. The same amount was provided by the third stage in the fission of uranium-238 nuclei.
        Having calculated the consequences of the explosion of such a charge and the area of ​​subsequent radioactive contamination, it was decided to replace uranium elements in the third stage with lead. Thus, the estimated power of the bomb dropped to 51,5 megatons. Khrushchev explained this with his characteristic humor: "If we detonate a bomb with a capacity of 100 million tons where it is needed, it can break our windows too." smile
        https://pikabu.ru/story/kuzkina_mat_sssr_istoriya_sozdaniya_samoy_moshchnoy_tsarbombyi_v_mire_3931923
        The estimated power of the explosion actually turned out to be slightly lower than the real one, but at the same time, a crater was still not formed on the landfill; only the snow cover has just evaporated, pebbles from those that are lighter have blown away, and damaged the doors to underground structures. Alas, I do not know anything about the dead seals with bears, as well as the possibility of a self-sustaining thermonuclear reaction in the atmosphere of our planet. I'm not sure that the latter is generally possible at any power of a single explosion, as well as at any total power of simultaneous multiple.
        1. KKND
          KKND 8 December 2020 10: 59
          0
          Quote: Herrr
          I'm not sure that the latter is generally possible at any power of a single explosion, as well as at any total power of simultaneous multiple.

          The old nonsense ala "the accumulated nuclear weapons are capable of destroying all life on Earth several times" want to be pulled by the ears. A chain reaction occurs in nuclear weapons. Those. you need a certain substance in a very dense state. A thermonuclear one needs tritium, and its density on Earth is such that let our storytellers go to kindergarten with their fairy tales.
          1. Errr
            Errr 8 December 2020 11: 22
            +6
            Quote: KKND
            ... let our storytellers go to kindergarten with their fairy tales.
            In order not to be a country of unafraid idiots, your proposal is very welcome, for a cultured person can be such only within the framework of generally recognized self-restraints. good
            A thermonuclear or just a nuclear weapon is, oddly enough, rather a psychological thing, since it is really possible to use it with impunity only against an adversary that is obviously weak and incapable of a similar response. But this is traditionally and without any problems crushed with a wildly bearded grandfather's "conventional club", there is no need for fusion. Of course, the planet, even with a world thermonuclear massacre, will not split in any way, only it will be badly defiled, which obviously will not improve the living conditions of the surviving representatives of the human race.
    4. Local from the Volga
      Local from the Volga 9 December 2020 17: 18
      +1
      The author has long proved that he is more competent than the General Staff and all the special services of the world! fellow
  • Hagen
    Hagen 8 December 2020 06: 42
    +1
    In fact, this is an illusion. And, worst of all, the leaders of the country who are responsible for making important strategic decisions believe in it. This nuclear illusion is nothing more than a good wish. In fact, everything is different.

    Yes, of course!!! The leaders of the country, who have specialized institutions, specialists who have confirmed their competence by many years of practical activity, believe, it turns out, in illusion, but the unknown author of all the dark and the lost will lead them on the right path !!! Comrade author, who are you? Provide readers with your books, reviews of them from people respected in the relevant industry. Maybe you have some serious certified software systems for digital modeling of the described processes? I would like to understand how much you are smarter and more authoritative than those whom you criticize. And then, you know, they write a lot on the fences, but you look ... it doesn't fit ... laughing
    1. mark2
      mark2 8 December 2020 07: 56
      -3
      The author is a star of large and small Internet portals, and his name is too well known to be called
      1. Hagen
        Hagen 8 December 2020 07: 57
        0
        Quote: mark2
        The author is the star of large and small Internet portals

        laughing laughing
    2. cmax
      cmax 8 December 2020 08: 43
      +5
      Quote: Hagen
      In fact, this is an illusion. And, worst of all, the leaders of the country who are responsible for making important strategic decisions believe in it. This nuclear illusion is nothing more than a good wish. In fact, everything is different.

      Yes, of course!!! The leaders of the country, who have specialized institutions, specialists who have confirmed their competence by many years of practical activity, believe, it turns out, in illusion, but the unknown author of all the dark and the lost will lead them on the right path !!! Comrade author, who are you? Provide readers with your books, reviews of them from people respected in the relevant industry. Maybe you have some serious certified software systems for digital modeling of the described processes? I would like to understand how much you are smarter and more authoritative than those whom you criticize. And then, you know, they write a lot on the fences, but you look ... it doesn't fit ... laughing

      Yeah, disposed. The Doomsday plane in Taganrog was dismantled into blocks. An example of a disregard on the part of responsible workers (more accurate words from the street folk lexicon come to mind here). This is just one example of the situation in the country. And you are about programs, authorities. Come down to our land. The author properly analyzed the situation that awaits us, to the extent of its information content. He did not pretend for more.
      1. Hagen
        Hagen 8 December 2020 09: 07
        -4
        Do you want to trust "strangers"? Your right. Personally, I'm just wondering if the author has something more serious behind his soul, besides the desire to make my brain for the money of the editorial office?
        Quote: cmax
        He did not pretend for more.

        What the author claims, he will not tell you or me the truth .... But you can believe.
        Quote: cmax
        Come down to our land.

        I just stand on the ground and understand that for one position they pay a fee, and for another they can be sent out on the street with a "wolf ticket". And the question of the veracity of the information may not be in principle. At one time we were taught about propaganda and counter-propaganda. Something settled in the brain. But this is my point of view, and I am not agitating you for it ...
        1. Fan-fan
          Fan-fan 8 December 2020 12: 47
          0
          Are you implying that the Americans paid the author?
          1. Hagen
            Hagen 8 December 2020 13: 28
            0
            Quote: Fan-Fan
            Are you implying that the Americans paid the author?

            I have no data to assert this, but a version is possible. Can you guarantee not?
            1. timokhin-aa
              8 December 2020 21: 13
              0
              The Americans paid the author for calls to seriously prepare for war with the Americans. Pink ponies are so pink, no words.
              1. Hagen
                Hagen 8 December 2020 21: 30
                +3
                Quote: timokhin-aa
                Pink ponies are so pink, no words.

                What got you so stuck on the pony? Didn't you ride a carousel as a child?
                Quote: timokhin-aa
                The Americans paid the author for calls to seriously prepare for war with the Americans.

                The United States through its State Department in 2020 poured more than 700 million greens into Russia. Someone got them ... Why not you? I don't assert or accuse, I build versions. The decadent article, which engenders disbelief in, or even contempt for, one's leadership is fully in line with the aspirations of the US Embassy in Russia, which announced this year a "call" for a paid job on the Internet. What's wrong? The editors, of course, are now giving me another warning. "Pacers" are not welcome here laughing But you decided to laugh, I supported.
                1. timokhin-aa
                  9 December 2020 12: 37
                  -1
                  Someone got them ... Why didn't you?


                  What is the point of paying money to the only Russian who has repeatedly called for the physical destruction of the United States? Are they there in your opinion masochists or what?

                  They know me, by the way. And at the College of the Navy in Newport, at the Jamestown Foundation, and more. "On the pencil" I am there with them.
                  And my humble persona does not bring them joy, by the way.
                  1. Hagen
                    Hagen 9 December 2020 13: 34
                    +3
                    Quote: timokhin-aa
                    "On the pencil" I am there with them.

                    If you know about this, then you have feedback.
                    Quote: timokhin-aa
                    What is the point of paying money to the only Russian who has repeatedly called for the physical destruction of the United States?

                    Stirlitz also zigged in front of Müller, but this made him a traitor in his homeland. laughing
                    Quote: timokhin-aa
                    And my humble persona does not bring them joy, by the way.

                    How do you know? The Pentagon did not write anything about this to NI ... laughing
                2. ccsr
                  ccsr 9 December 2020 12: 39
                  +4
                  Quote: Hagen
                  What's wrong?

                  The fact that you all correctly noticed, and the author of the article immediately fussed, and this is "not so" for him ...
    3. timokhin-aa
      8 December 2020 11: 21
      0
      Yes, of course!!! The leaders of the country, who have specialized institutions, specialists who have confirmed their competence by many years of practical activity, believe, it turns out, in illusions, but the unknown author of all the dark and lost will lead to the true path !!!


      Remind you of the author of the quote "we are all in heaven, and you will just die"?
      1. Hagen
        Hagen 8 December 2020 11: 57
        +3
        Quote: timokhin-aa
        Remind you of the author of the quote "we are all in heaven, and you will just die"?

        Excuse me, but the repetition of other people's emotional gems is not yet an indicator of the depth of knowledge of the subject. And this kind of condescending about "hurray-patriots cleaning guns with bricks" is just a manifestation of disrespect for the mass of your readers who do not agree with you on everything. Not pretty ... request
        1. timokhin-aa
          8 December 2020 12: 48
          -2
          Excuse me, but the repetition of other people's emotional gems is not yet an indicator of the depth of knowledge of the subject.


          And from what Putin had such emotions, he is not a schoolgirl.

          And disagreement must be confirmed by facts. Or buy a T-shirt with a pink pony, there are no intermediate options.

          What exactly do you personally disagree with?
          1. Hagen
            Hagen 8 December 2020 14: 03
            +3
            Quote: timokhin-aa
            What exactly do you personally disagree with?

            All your calculations and leads to the thesis that all our "low-precision" nuclear weapons are not capable of inflicting unacceptable damage to a potential enemy, do not seem convincing to me, more playing into the hands of those who believe that it is necessary to quickly "negotiate" with them, otherwise everything is lost, there is no protection, etc.
            And yours
            targeting an intercontinental ballistic missile is still a process. Just like that, by pressing a dozen buttons, it is impossible to do it. For obvious reasons, the author cannot reveal this topic even in the form of a hint ..... Let's just assume that by some miracle it turned out to retarget all the missiles.

            is it like "we have such devices ....."? wassat Without going into details, you can comment that yes, you just can't aim the missile. Here, the process is a commission, with a separate order of the Strategic Missile Forces, which arrives at the combat post with the carrier of the flight task (pre-calculated) for input into the corresponding LSI, etc. The procedure provides for the necessary promptness to avoid hopes of a miracle. And all this can be found in open sources, omitting unnecessary details and not violating the secrecy regime.
            A bunch of small strokes, barbs about lowered pants and so on about our capabilities, exaltation of the abilities of the enemy army, once again speaks of your biased view of the subject being described. The negative attitude towards their country simply "hits" the eyes.
            Quote: timokhin-aa
            And from what Putin had such emotions, he is not a schoolgirl.

            Did you think he burst into tears of grief? In general, why do you remember this? Yes, they, our "partners" will die, along with those who greet them on our side. I agree with that. Are you against? But how does this generally characterize the possibilities and consequences of the exchange of nuclear strikes? What are you talking about? Is it necessary to bite Putin?
            1. timokhin-aa
              8 December 2020 15: 21
              -3
              ... The procedure provides for the necessary promptness to avoid hopes of a miracle. And all this can be found in open sources, omitting unnecessary details and not violating the secrecy regime.


              The procedure is very lengthy in nature and a large number of actions requiring the participation of personnel, so to speak.
              Well, or in Russian - not the fact that we will have time.

              A bunch of small strokes, barbs about lowered pants and so on about our capabilities, exaltation of the abilities of the enemy army, once again speaks of your biased view of the subject being described. The negative attitude towards their country simply "hits" the eyes.


              It's just a weak nervous system - you have it. Your personal perception, nothing more.

              Did you think he burst into tears of grief? In general, why do you remember this?


              Besides, Putin knows something about which you were not told on TV, here's what.
              Something that urgently and urgently requires thinking about nuclear war seriously, and not trying to scare your partners - they will not be scared anyway.
              And we are trying to scare.

              Yes, they, our "partners" will die, along with those who greet them on our side. I agree with that. Are you against?


              With our approaches to military construction, they will NOT COMPLETELY die.
              And not just NOT COMPLETELY, but DIFFERENT FROM US - NOT COMPLETELY.

              And that doesn't suit me. And you seem quite.
              1. Hagen
                Hagen 8 December 2020 16: 51
                +5
                Quote: timokhin-aa
                It's just a weak nervous system - you have it.

                Leave your assessment of my nervous system. As you are not an analyst on SNF issues, so on nervous systems even more so.
                Quote: timokhin-aa
                To the fact that Putin knows something that you were not told about on TV

                Well this is self-explanatory. Top management never tells everything they know with a blue eye. Also a secret to me! We were not told .... did you? What TV?
                Quote: timokhin-aa
                With our approaches to military construction, they will NOT COMPLETELY die.

                And those who are unlucky enough to die right away will envy the dead, because they will have to suffer in the conditions that will remain after the nuclear apocalypse. You, of course, will object to me, like, the dust from the explosions will settle, the sun will look out, and the world will remain as joyful and fresh as before ... I'm not sure about that. And no one is sure. That is why they argue whether there will be a nuclear winter or not. But the fact that the world of Caucasians will mostly consist of cripples, irradiated and other disadvantaged, that's for sure. Therefore, when it comes to "fried" everyone, at the very least, begins to agree. You predict an imminent war and our defeat, but I think (unlike you) - we will live a little longer. Future will tell...
    4. victor50
      victor50 8 December 2020 13: 16
      +1
      Quote: Hagen
      The leaders of the country, who have specialized institutions, specialists who have confirmed their competence by many years of practical activity, believe, it turns out, in illusions, but the unknown author of all the dark and lost will lead to the true path !!!

      If we accept your position on the unconditional competence of the ruling as an axiom, then the following questions arise:
      1. Why did RI collapse? (If we take the world practice, then not only it)
      2. Why did the Soviet Union collapse?
      3. Why are we living ... well, not brilliant at all?
      Maybe you should listen to an unknown author? Like A. Timokhin?
      1. Hagen
        Hagen 8 December 2020 14: 15
        +4
        Quote: victor50
        Maybe you should listen to an unknown author? Like A. Timokhin?

        Maybe it's worth it, but how does he prove it? Offering pink pony T-shirts? And if apart from this he has nothing to prove his worth, then what is the point in it? Explain ...
        Quote: victor50
        If we accept your position on the unconditional competence of the ruling as an axiom

        And it should not be taken for an axiom. You have to think with your head and be guided by common sense. If you, do not take it for familiarity, want to present your view on a narrowly specialized topic, then prove that you are an expert in this topic. Why don't you like this approach? I think that people with serious professional knowledge and skills cannot be unknown, because in the process of accumulating this knowledge they can become authoritative only in comparison with other people of the same specialty, which means they cannot be anonymous. People are not born geniuses, but they become gradually and only in society.
        1. victor50
          victor50 8 December 2020 14: 29
          +3
          Quote: Hagen
          I think that people with serious professional knowledge and skills cannot be unknown, because in the process of accumulating this knowledge they can become authoritative only in comparison with other people of the same specialty, which means they cannot be anonymous.

          Did many know the Bolsheviks until October 17? Stalin's name never left the front pages of newspapers? And many people outside of St. Petersburg have heard about Putin before he became prime minister? Yes, if you take the history of the world - such examples are countless. And who can be at the very top - as an example, the "great military leader" Serdyukov. Maybe Alexander Timokhin is just "in the process of accumulating knowledge"? smile An argument based on the principle - who are you? - allows you not to refute the provisions expressed by the author? Are all the smartest at the top? Why do states disintegrate, why do revolutions occur in them and other troubles?
          1. Hagen
            Hagen 8 December 2020 14: 41
            0
            Quote: victor50
            Maybe Alexander Timokhin is just "in the process of accumulating knowledge"?

            For God's sake!!! So let him prove the accumulation of knowledge not among retired military personnel, but among specialists, for example, from the main operational directorate of the General Staff of the RF Armed Forces. A good audience, doing exactly what Alexander Timokhin tells us about. And he, I think so, should come to us with his ideas, having at least a few supporters from the GOU GSh. Then I would say that you can listen to him. It is no accident that people are admitted to a political party on the recommendations of several members of that party.
            Quote: victor50
            Did many know the Bolsheviks until October 17?

            Enough to follow their promises. And Stalin was in authority in his society, and they knew about Putin in Moscow. In any case, the Duma approved him for the premiership. Only these are all politicians, not nuclear physicists. It means a lot ...
            1. victor50
              victor50 8 December 2020 17: 26
              0
              Quote: Hagen
              having at least a few supporters from the GOU GSh.

              Do you think this is permissible for them?
              Quote: Hagen
              Only these are all politicians, not nuclear physicists. It means a lot ...

              And what prevents them from expressing their opinion on this site? Perhaps there are also military personnel from the General Staff and nuclear specialists. And I did not see any comments that unambiguously and convincingly refute the author. Although I am sure that there are enough people who understand the topic more or less and simply think.
              1. Hagen
                Hagen 8 December 2020 18: 20
                0
                Quote: victor50
                Do you think this is permissible for them?

                In order not to think, but to know, normal editors organize interviews with specialists in the areas of interest, and then articles are written not by unknown authors, but by quite venerable specialists who know the subtleties that interest readers at work. It's just that all this is somewhat more expensive than an article born in the silence of an office by an author without ambitions for the Pulitzer Prize. I have already spoken about this here more than once, but apparently the financial situation of the resource does not allow to aim at something more than it is. Therefore, in the absence of a maid ...
                1. victor50
                  victor50 8 December 2020 18: 59
                  0
                  Quote: Hagen
                  then the articles are written not by unknown authors, but by quite venerable experts who know the subtleties at work that interest readers

                  What exactly are you trying to find on this, such ... well, in general, an amateurish resource? Alexander Timokhin's articles always cause heated discussion. And make you think. Perhaps, I would like to hope - and those who make decisions. There are grounds for this if you track all of his publications.
                  1. Hagen
                    Hagen 8 December 2020 19: 41
                    0
                    Quote: victor50
                    What are you on this, this ... well, in general, amateur resource trying to find?

                    After that, somehow it does not fit
                    Quote: victor50
                    make you think. Perhaps, one would like to hope - and those who makes decisions

                    Do you think that people at the decision-making level are suspicious of this resource? Such people are usually very busy and ... they don't read anything, especially amateurish. This is the reading of pensioners who are bored with their loved ones and are trying to find a "club" by their interests. What am I trying to find here? Most likely interesting commentators with whom you could discuss the topic and learn something new. But this is getting worse and worse. On the other hand, the general level of reasoning, thoughts, ideas about various aspects of life is also interesting. Even a simple analysis of the interlocutors' rejection of some ideas can highlight the characteristics and preferences of a group of commentators. Interesting ...
      2. Volder
        Volder 8 December 2020 20: 00
        +1
        Quote: victor50
        1. Why did RI collapse? (If we take the world practice, then not only it)
        2. Why did the Soviet Union collapse?
        3. Why are we living ... well, not brilliant at all?
        Don't mix everything up: politics and defense, politicians and military / scientists. Until now, nobody has conquered the Russian state. The collapse of the Republic of Ingushetia and the USSR have purely political and economic reasons, but not military ones. Key Russian leaders understand the need to strengthen the country's defenses without getting involved in an arms race. As for the quality of life, Russians live within their means. This is inevitable while maintaining sovereignty and abandoning Western values. See how the population of sovereign China, India, Pakistan, Iran, North Korea, Cuba, Venezuela, Belarus ... and other countries that are not US strategic allies live.
  • 9PA
    9PA 8 December 2020 06: 52
    -5
    Blast a rocket into the jelonstone
    1. aybolyt678
      aybolyt678 8 December 2020 07: 39
      -3
      Quote: 9PA
      Blast a rocket into the jelonstone

      Forces of nature to help us!
      1. KKND
        KKND 8 December 2020 09: 29
        +5
        Quote: aybolyt678
        Forces of nature to help us!

        No, damn it, the forces of propaganda to help us.
        1. Fan-fan
          Fan-fan 8 December 2020 12: 49
          +2
          These are the ones who write about "To blast a rocket right into the throat with a rocket" and there are jingoistic patriots and this article is for them.
          1. Volder
            Volder 8 December 2020 20: 13
            -2
            The Yellowstone problem does exist, as does the idea of ​​helping him erupt. Google: Yellowstone Sivkov.
  • Operator
    Operator 8 December 2020 07: 01
    -15%
    Another article of the Okrainsk blogger, who was recently blown away by the head of the organization-developer of ZGRLS "Container".

    Nobody is going to drain the continents or deliver a counterforce strike against the enemy's strategic nuclear forces - yet.

    The number of nuclear warheads that Russia has on strategic delivery vehicles is quite enough to defeat all targets on the North American continent without exception, including million-plus cities, military bases, industrial centers and infrastructure facilities.

    Plus medium-range missiles for engaging the same class of targets in the European subcontinent, the Near and Middle East, Japan and South Korea.

    For real glazing of the coastal zone of all foreign countries, without exception, the promising Poseidon RV with 100-Mtn charges on board and a 70-km zone of continuous destruction are intended. Plus a plume of highly radioactive precipitation from the third uranium stages of nuclear warheads over 700 km long.

    In other words, 99% of the mob potential of all foreign countries of the world (with the exception of Bolivia, the Central African Republic and other underdeveloped states without access to the sea) will be written off.

    And this is without taking into account the strikes against the nuclear reactors of nuclear power plants, which are gigaton mines installed by the enemy's own hands on their territory.

    As a result, those countries that have a lower population density now will win in TMV, i.e. primarily Russia.

    And so that there are no misconceptions among the inhabitants of the Okrug - now it is nothing more than a theater of military operations, which means a legitimate target for the primary delivery of tactical nuclear strikes, both from our side and from the NATO side.

    D ... ly in everything, obviously.
    1. Varyag71
      Varyag71 8 December 2020 09: 25
      +5
      Open your eyes, and see where and who has a lower or higher density.
    2. timokhin-aa
      8 December 2020 11: 20
      0
      Minusanul along with the others.
  • Poganini
    Poganini 8 December 2020 07: 10
    -2
    So I want to comment from the heart on this rare nonsense. But getting banned from the first comment is not comme il faut like.
    1. KKND
      KKND 8 December 2020 09: 52
      +1
      Quote: Poganini
      So I want to comment from the heart on this rare nonsense.

      Not well, an article from authors with signs of damage to mental health, but in principle I did not see anything crazy here. This is roughly the case with nuclear weapons. Indeed, in the mass consciousness, its power is exaggerated excessively and indeed it is necessary to develop both strategic nuclear forces and conventional weapons.
      1. timokhin-aa
        8 December 2020 11: 19
        +1
        And this man blames others for megalomania ...

        Ask your doctor to count how many authors the article has, it says below
        laughing
        1. The comment was deleted.
          1. The comment was deleted.
      2. Poganini
        Poganini 8 December 2020 11: 59
        -3
        On the mass consciousness it is violet, the main thing is that this importance is exaggerated (in fact, not) in decision-makers. They understand very well that a blow to nuclear power plants, refineries, large power facilities and megacities will throw the United States into the world of Mad Max for a decade at best. Regarding the author and the need to develop strategic nuclear forces and conventional weapons, I strongly agree. )
    2. timokhin-aa
      8 December 2020 11: 20
      -1
      Yes, do not hesitate, have a drink of water, then, when you calm down, write something.
  • mark1
    mark1 8 December 2020 07: 11
    +5
    As I got to the absence of torpedoes in the article, I immediately realized that the author was Timokhin and 99 percent Klimov.
    [quote] [We need to prepare general purpose forces for war as if there were no nuclear weapons. ... ... And it is not useless to anger the enemy, and make the conflict insoluble even by force. / Quote]
    In short - "Katz proposes to surrender" because, being drawn into an absolutely hopeless business of equalizing forces in conventional weapons (mind you, with an incomparable economy) with the collective West, we will die from overstrain without even farting towards the evil foe.
    General-purpose forces are, of course, important, but how to fight the United States? ocean? Are we going to land troops in Alaska? Or to fight them on our territory (well, maybe even on the Ukrainian and Belarusian ones?) An enemy like the United States can be stopped only by the threat of its complete physical destruction (they will not regret us anyway). In hostilities in Europe, we can butt on equal terms with NATO only with the massive use of tactical nuclear weapons, a nuclear strike-offensive, a clean-up-offensive and nothing else. And do not forget about the threat of chemical weapons, we destroyed ours, and they will pour all their chemical shit on us and we can adequately respond to them only with nuclear strikes.
    1. timokhin-aa
      8 December 2020 11: 18
      +1
      In short - "Katz proposes to surrender" because, being drawn into an absolutely hopeless business of equalizing forces in conventional weapons (mind you, with an incomparable economy) with the collective West, we will die from overstrain without even farting towards the evil foe.


      This is nothing more than your speculation, no need to speculate for me.
      1. mark1
        mark1 8 December 2020 11: 25
        -2
        Quote: timokhin-aa
        no need to speculate for me

        I don’t think so. Re-read everything you wrote again.
        1. timokhin-aa
          8 December 2020 11: 37
          -1
          I remember very well what I wrote, there is no need to attribute my inventions to me
  • Nazar
    Nazar 8 December 2020 07: 41
    -4
    As the author puts it, "glazing" the US will not work, there are a lot of targets there and we don't have very many missiles and the population there is dispersed all at once, here the author is apparently right, but the question is, does the US have more carriers or charges? Or do we have fewer goals for them? There is no need to talk about the dispersal of the population; it is enough to look at the map. But as for the "unacceptable losses", here the author has a "discrepancy", the US even "screwed up" with the DPRK, handed it back, and this despite the fact that there was no risk of receiving a blow in response to the territory of the states themselves. Some risk of getting hit was for Guam, and even that was unacceptable for the US. And the author is not clear why he decided that the loss of 10-20% of the US population would painlessly endure - this is not so.
    And about radiation - a quote: "... it takes 2 to 7 days in a shelter to prevent harm to health and risk to life." ??? Where does this nonsense come from? In the mid-50s of the last century, near Chelyabinsk, there was a release of radiation (not even an explosion), it took almost 70t years - it is not safe to be there even now.
    The same Chernobyl - what, also 2-7 days in the shelter and that's it? Complete nonsense.
    But with the author's conclusion that it is necessary to develop as much as possible non-nuclear Armed Forces, I agree to all 200% yes
    1. Aleksandr1971
      Aleksandr1971 8 December 2020 08: 19
      +5
      You, Nazar, are wrong, comparing the radioactive contamination of a nuclear explosion with the radioactive contamination from emissions from the Mayak enterprise or the Chernobyl nuclear power plant.

      In the explosion of a nuclear and thermonuclear bomb, no more than 50 kg are involved. fissile matter (a ball the size of an orange), and the synthesis of hydrogen does not produce radioactive contamination of the area (penetrating radiation is another thing).

      In the accident at Mayak, 256 cubic meters were thrown into the air. radioactive isotopes. And in the Chernobyl NPP it is 19 times more.

      This does not mean that a nuclear (thermonuclear) explosion is safe from the point of view of radioactive contamination. But it is not necessary in this matter to put a nuclear (thermonuclear) bomb on the same level as the accidents mentioned above.
      1. Svidetel 45
        Svidetel 45 9 January 2021 00: 46
        0
        There is also induced radiation, when materials on the ground are not radioactive, they become so after irradiation at the time of a nuclear explosion.
    2. Horon
      Horon 8 December 2020 10: 32
      0
      But with the author's conclusion that it is necessary to maximize the development of non-nuclear aircraft, I agree to all 200% yes

      It is necessary to develop them, and no one asked the author about this, but will someone in their right mind try to equalize the army of Russia and the United States in quantitative and qualitative terms? Russia will not pull it out either in terms of economy or population. There are more than 2 times less people in Russia, and you will have to fight not with the United States, but with NATO and those who will support them!
      1. Nazar
        Nazar 8 December 2020 10: 51
        +4
        Horon - Quote: "... trying to equalize the army of Russia and the United States in quantitative and qualitative terms?" - Why equalize? these armies have completely different tasks, the United States is trying to "dominate" the entire planet, its Armed Forces are scattered across hundreds of bases in dozens of countries, and the RF Armed Forces are faced with the task of defending their own territory. And therefore, quantitative equality with the US Army is completely unnecessary. The difference in the tasks of the Armed Forces also determines the qualitative differences between them, for example, we traditionally have better developed air defense-missile defense systems, and the USA has strike aviation.
        So the development of non-nuclear forces should not be understood as an attempt to "catch up" with the US and NATO.
        1. Horon
          Horon 8 December 2020 11: 39
          -4
          The author brings the conclusion to the equalization of armies according to all criteria, while reducing nuclear weapons to the level: "it is not effective, it will not help and in general no one will fight them because ...".
          I would refrain from the traditionally developed Russian missile defense and air defense system. In the first, we were stagnant, but they continued to develop and build up, the second has not yet seriously shown itself. In aviation, even without taking into account the quality, in terms of numbers, we are critically losing
    3. Jacket in stock
      Jacket in stock 8 December 2020 10: 36
      +5
      Quote: Nazar
      Does the US have more carriers or charges? Or do we have fewer goals for them? There is no need to talk about the dispersal of the population, just look at the map

      Look at the map. Helpful.
      A third of the population of Russia is two cities, Moscow and St. Petersburg. Plus there are several more million-plus cities. Enough missiles from one submarine.
      1. timokhin-aa
        8 December 2020 11: 17
        +2
        Despite the fact that the missiles in the mines of which the "Moscow" and "Leningrad" were painted during the Cold War were on EVERY American SSBN.
      2. 2 Level Advisor
        2 Level Advisor 8 December 2020 13: 10
        +2
        I completely agree .. it is easier for us to demolish the population - 55 percent of the territory is not inhabited at all, and 85 percent of the population lives on 30% of the area .. and indeed a third of Moscow time and St. Petersburg .. purely a blow to 15 million people and half of the country disappears with most of the industry and administrative organs - and how to fight after that is a big question .. so in terms of population, just the US has a great advantage that they are not so dense .. it's only on the map that the minke whales are much smaller than us, in fact they are 60 percent of our territory, and almost all of them are populated much more evenly.
      3. Sergej1972
        Sergej1972 8 December 2020 21: 53
        +3
        18 million live in these two cities, while the population of the Russian Federation is 147 million. And so, we have 15 million-plus cities in Russia. A quarter of the country's population and a third of the urban population live in the 18 largest cities of the Russian Federation. Taking into account their agglomerations, this share rises by about a third.
        1. 2 Level Advisor
          2 Level Advisor 9 December 2020 08: 27
          -1
          but this is strictly according to official data .. for example Stavropol 450t. this is for any other 100t unaccounted for (students who have arrived from villages) and Mikhailovsk -150t-ie. already 700t .. Krasnodar is officially less than 1 million, but in fact it is already approaching 1,5 ... so is Moscow time, a lot of people without registration, plus Balashikha, Podolsk, etc. are counted .. unofficially only Moscow time agglomeration 20 million Peter 10 ... legally -12 million is correct, but for nuclear weapons - the main thing physically .. that is. in fact - I think much more than 25% of the population in millionaires, tk. only Moscow time and Peter - 20% hi
    4. victor50
      victor50 8 December 2020 13: 30
      0
      Quote: Nazar
      In Chelyabinsk, there was a radiation release (not even an explosion), almost 70 years have passed - it is not safe to be there even now.

      Aha! They still live in bomb shelters! Since then, no one has served in the army from these places, and no one has been working for 70 years due to disability from birth or after the release of radioactive
      substances. lol The author considered the possible potential of the enemy to continue the war after a nuclear strike, and not the consequences for part of the population for the next decades.
      1. Nazar
        Nazar 8 December 2020 19: 42
        -3
        victor50 (Victor) - Have you been to those places? Are you familiar with radiation from the Internet? - "the continuation of the war after a nuclear strike ..." - I would see how you would continue the war grabbing a dose of radiation. Two hours of time for the calculation of a tactical rocket launcher for deployment in the radiation damage zone and shooting off the entire ammunition load, after two hours - that's it, the calculation is not combat-ready.
        The author took the text and pictures from the state agitation, in which lately they began to convince everyone that a nuclear war is not so scary - well, a week in your own shelter, and then everything will be as before - "rough estimates. Source: Martin Vargic"
        1. victor50
          victor50 9 December 2020 10: 33
          0
          Quote: Nazar
          victor50 (Victor) - Have you been to those places? Are you familiar with radiation from the Internet? - "the continuation of the war after a nuclear strike ..." - I would see how you would continue the war grabbing a dose of radiation. Two hours of time for the calculation of a tactical rocket launcher for deployment in the radiation damage zone and shooting off the entire ammunition load, after two hours - that's it, the calculation is not combat-ready.

          I've been. And there are relatives. And those who have served in the army .. several generations. Both those who worked and those who work there. So don't compose, don't exaggerate. And for the rest, don't make yourself an expert.
          1. Nazar
            Nazar 9 December 2020 10: 52
            +2
            victor50 (Victor) - I lived in Chelyabinsk for many years, studied at school there, graduated from the university and for several years I had a pass to the residential area of ​​Ozersk. May the Lord grant health and long life to your relatives, but three of my peers even then "left" - leukemia.
            And so - yes, I also went to the Irtyash to rest and fish ... the main thing is to stock up on alcohol, it removes nucleides from the blood wassat
            And yet, about "two hours" - this is not my invention - it was so "inspired" at the military department of the university, but it began with the fact that the major-teacher did not let me use a calculator - only a mechanical adding machine, to my question - why so ? -, he answered - glad in the zone. defeat, the calculator will not work, that's when I asked - can I work ?, Major and explained to me, "the estimated power reserve" - ​​2 hours, and added that we "rocket scientists" were still lucky, but the tankers had the estimated time crew life in battle and 15 minutes at all request
            1. victor50
              victor50 9 December 2020 11: 04
              +1
              Quote: Nazar
              victor50 (Victor) - I lived in Chelyabinsk for many years, studied at school there, graduated from the university and for several years I had a pass to the residential area of ​​Ozersk. May the Lord grant health and long life to your relatives, but three of my peers even then "left" - leukemia.
              And so - yes, I also went to the Irtyash to rest and fish ... the main thing is to stock up on alcohol, it removes nucleides from the blood wassat
              And yet, about "two hours" - this is not my invention - it was so "inspired" at the military department of the university, but it began with the fact that the major-teacher did not let me use a calculator - only a mechanical adding machine, to my question - why so ? -, he answered - glad in the zone. defeat, the calculator will not work, that's when I asked - can I work ?, Major and explained to me, "the estimated power reserve" - ​​2 hours, and added that we "rocket scientists" were still lucky, but the tankers had the estimated time crew life in battle and 15 minutes at all request

              I am not claiming that there is no increased mortality from cancer. But everything is far from how you tried to present it. Especially in light of the impact of radiation on combat effectiveness immediately after the use of nuclear weapons.
              1. Nazar
                Nazar 9 December 2020 11: 25
                +1
                victor50 (Victor) - Colleague. I was trying to dispute the data of that map, which is given in the article - "rough estimates. Source: Martin Vargic", because it says complete nonsense,
                some kind of "white zones" where there is no radiation at all ... here not so long ago a small release in the Urals - and all of Europe howled, "pollen" was brought to them.
                And not only this map, the whole article is pretty stupid - to destroy the population, why hammer in a square-nesting way through residential areas? Just a few strikes at power plants, maybe even at nuclear ones, and their population will wrap itself in sheets and crawl to the cemetery. How can they survive without electricity, and therefore without i-net?
            2. timokhin-aa
              9 December 2020 12: 31
              +1
              but the tankers' estimated crew life in battle is 15 minutes at all


              How long can you say this nonsense?
              1. Nazar
                Nazar 9 December 2020 20: 09
                0
                timokhin-aa - Colleague, well, my text says that it was at the military department at the university that we were so "inspired" by the major teacher. and you took it seriouslylaughing
        2. ccsr
          ccsr 9 December 2020 12: 54
          +4
          Quote: Nazar
          The author took the text and pictures from the state agitation, in which lately they began to convince everyone that a nuclear war is not so scary - well, a week in your own shelter, and then everything will be as before - "rough estimates. Source: Martin Vargic"

          This is actually the case, and some couch fighters have hung their ears or are trying to prove that radiation is not scary at all. But whoever visited the Mitinskoye cemetery in Moscow saw the graves of the Chernobyl victims near the entrance, and these are only those who died almost immediately. But how many died later, there is still no exact data. So if the explosions themselves do not destroy the entire population at once, then panic and man-made disasters will hit all those who remain, and no one, even warships, will go to sea, tk. further continuation of the war is already unthinkable, and people will not want to fight after such a catastrophe. But those who have sat out in this nuclear war in vain think that it will bypass them - they are unlikely to last long, if only due to the fact that a huge number of conflagrations will change the composition of the atmosphere for a long time, and how the process will proceed, no one I know.
    5. Captain Nemo
      Captain Nemo 9 December 2020 01: 28
      +4
      The countries of the "golden calf" have a crystal economy. Undermining ONE! warheads at an altitude of 70 km above the middle of the United States will lead to complete paralysis of all modes of transport, a complete shutdown of the US power system. And the reason for this is the continuous destruction of microprocessors built in everywhere and the failure of transformer fields from the action of EMP. Large transformers are mass-produced only in South Korea, China and Germany. Recovery in the most favorable conditions will take years. Moreover, over the years, death from hunger, disease, chaos, and lack of drinking water is very likely for up to 90% of the US population.
      A dozen high-altitude explosions over the centers of modern civilization will lead to a sharp reduction in the population of the entire planet. Maybe that's why Trump changed his mind with North Korea. And in Finland and Switzerland, it is not without reason that grain was stored for a decade ahead.
      Probably the most terrible preparation of the Russian Federation for war for NATO will be the resettlement of Russia's megalopolises in the countryside and the arrangement of a well, a stove and a good cellar in every village house.))) It is high time, cities and in peacetime - demographic holes. And do not forget that every tractor driver is almost a ready-made tanker.)))
  • staer-62
    staer-62 8 December 2020 07: 49
    +6
    I have always said that any arms limitation treaty is unprofitable for us. I do not understand the meaning of such restrictions if all of Europe and the United States are against us. From this article it can be seen that we are kapets in any case, after all, he does not take into account Europe, and we will not have the strength for it at all.
    1. Imobile
      Imobile 8 December 2020 10: 20
      -3
      How did it happen that everyone is against us? And most importantly, neighbors. Can Lavrov be kicked out? Swear with the whole world, like a bazaar woman and I can. Americans are hated by everyone, but everyone is ready to protect them. And we do not have a single union, Belarus and Armenia are just waiting to be protected, and they themselves will betray at the slightest breeze
      1. cmax
        cmax 8 December 2020 15: 30
        +2
        Quote: Imobile
        How did it happen that everyone is against us? And most importantly, neighbors. Can Lavrov be kicked out? Swear with the whole world, like a bazaar woman and I can. Americans are hated by everyone, but everyone is ready to protect them. And we do not have a single union, Belarus and Armenia are just waiting to be protected, and they themselves will betray at the slightest breeze

        So the Americans are rich, they print money themselves. They printed as much as necessary, just recently they clicked 500 billion in a week (just in a week). And that Russia, what example can set. With all the natural resources available, almost a third survive from paycheck to paycheck, pension to retirement. In Moscow, probably a third of residents from all regions are newcomers, trying to earn money. And in the provinces ........ Well, who will take an example from Russia and be her ally. Poverty is poverty. Russia will be successful, and its leaders (duma, governors, government) will not be hucksters, for whom everything is not enough (when they are already grabbed) by statesmen, but residents will live with dignity, and then other countries and allies will be drawn to appear, and not beggars on freebies.
      2. Volder
        Volder 8 December 2020 20: 33
        0
        Quote: Imobile
        How did it happen that everyone is against us? And most importantly, neighbors.
        This was the case throughout the entire history of the existence of the Russian state, i.e. from time immemorial. We border on many states, so there are many times more external problems than those of the United States.
        Americans are hated by everyone, but everyone is ready to protect them.
        Because this is a hegemon who is better not to anger if you are a weak country. So you have to grovel. No one will save the hegemon in a nuclear war.
    2. timokhin-aa
      8 December 2020 11: 16
      -4
      Well, in general, it is beneficial, because otherwise the United States will receive a guaranteed multiple superiority in means of attack.
    3. Poganini
      Poganini 8 December 2020 12: 03
      -3
      Why should we glass Europe? We still have to go along it in tanks to the English Channel. )
      1. cmax
        cmax 8 December 2020 15: 34
        -1
        Quote: Poganini
        Why should we glass Europe? We still have to go along it in tanks to the English Channel. )

        The Armenians wanted to go to Baku over there, count how many armored vehicles they had left. The rest was scrapped by a drone. Maybe you should still learn from other people's mistakes, and not from your own. How Armenian tanks differ from Russian ones. The answer is nothing.
        1. Poganini
          Poganini 8 December 2020 16: 08
          +1
          Armenian tanks are not very different from Russian ones. But the air defense is very different. Russian air defense is very different from air defense of all countries in general. It's not a fact that they, in principle, are able to catch up with us.)
          1. cmax
            cmax 8 December 2020 17: 23
            +1
            Quote: Poganini
            Armenian tanks are not very different from Russian ones. But the air defense is very different. Russian air defense is very different from air defense of all countries in general. It's not a fact that they, in principle, are able to catch up with us.)

            You did not think why the air defense of mattress mats is not very well developed. And the reason is simple, they are not going to wait for Russian planes to arrive, they themselves will strike first. With their abundance of money, they also have an abundance of high-precision missiles, awesome analysts, excellent intelligence (it's not for nothing that their planes sniff out for days at the borders of Russia, they don't resemble the flights of German planes near the borders of the USSR in 1941, how it turned out at the beginning of the war, you know), an order of magnitude more planes (F35 have already been riveted + various others), excellent aircraft industry (so many planes are riveted in a month that they won't do in Russia in a year). Therefore, the air defense is good, but we must remember that it can also be knocked out and very quickly (Example Israel-Dutch Heights 1982, there was a zilch from the air defense). In short, we would live like this. I hope, nevertheless, that Russia, also in 10 years, will be able to oppose something to such a strong enemy and it will not be hats.
  • Yulaevich
    Yulaevich 8 December 2020 07: 51
    -8
    They have an Achilles heel, this is Yellowstone, like sugars, he developed a scheme for laying charges so that this fault in tectonic plates would move, but if it wakes up, then the whole world will have a bit tough, then the principle “we are in heaven, and you all die "
    1. timokhin-aa
      8 December 2020 11: 15
      0
      This is a myth, like the San Andreas Fault, nothing like that will happen.
      1. Volder
        Volder 8 December 2020 20: 39
        0
        Quote: timokhin-aa
        This is a myth, like the San Andreas Fault, nothing like that will happen.
        Konstantin Sivkov does not think so. Whom to listen to?
      2. The comment was deleted.
      3. Yulaevich
        Yulaevich 9 December 2020 21: 32
        0
        https://pub.wikireading.ru/127790 "...Гарантированным, как предполагает Константин Сивков, источником катастрофных геофизических процессов может быть, прежде всего, удар по Йеллоустоунскому супервулкану. Даже одиночный наземный взрыв 5—7-тонного боеприпаса инициирует мощнейшее извержение. В результате США прекратят своё существование, хотя и для остального мира последствия окажутся катастрофическими..."
        yeah, the Soviet academician Sakharov and Doctor of Military Sciences Sivkov Konstantin Valentinovich understandably are fools, they were engaged in nonsense, their theses, scientific developments on this issue of stupidity, because Alexander Timokhin said: this is a myth. What do you think, whose statements inspire more confidence, these two well-known Soviet scientists (and in Soviet times, they didn’t engage in shap and populism, they really and adequately assessed the possibilities there) or your short and unfounded “this is a myth”?
        1. Imobile
          Imobile 12 December 2020 14: 51
          -2
          Here is the news
          Exposure to a sufficiently powerful nuclear weapon can initiate catastrophic events that can completely destroy infrastructure USA large-scale tsunami on the Pacific coast.

          But how they conjectured
          As a result, USA will cease to exist, although the consequences for the rest of the world will be catastrophic ...
  • Boris55
    Boris55 8 December 2020 08: 03
    0
    An example of the accident at Fukushima and the spread of radiation along the shores of the Pacific Ocean did not teach them anything. Sitting behind a puddle will no longer work - the weapon has become different, we will get it in the American outhouse.

    1. Avior
      Avior 8 December 2020 09: 36
      +4
      radioactive contamination from a nuclear explosion and a nuclear power plant is very different.
      in an explosion, the contamination is relatively small.
      1. Horon
        Horon 8 December 2020 10: 44
        +1
        Doesn't the USA have nuclear power plants? Will they survive the nuclear bombardment by some miracle? There's a lot more, but why talk about it, nuclear weapons are Putin's bluffs, they are no more dangerous than a terrorist with a grenade!
        1. Avior
          Avior 9 December 2020 12: 46
          0
          Yes
          but their total number is incomparable with the number of charges
          also do not exaggerate the danger.
          this is a 10 percent increase in oncology in peacetime - a reason for a lot of noise.
          In the military, this will not be very noticeable.
          30 km - exclusion zone with all possible reinsurance. on a national scale, it is not very large, especially since in the States nuclear power plants are in many cases in a deserted area.
      2. bk316
        bk316 9 December 2020 12: 36
        +3
        nuclear power plants are very different.

        Japan has 40 reactors
        More than 50 in France
        More than 90 in the USA

        And if in France the reactors are mostly modern, and when all systems are turned off, no radiation contamination is expected. The reactors must be destroyed. Then in the USA they are basically like on Fukushima (disconnected from power lines, demolished diesel engines that are on the surface and expect an explosion in a couple of hours) - Farewell America
  • vel1163
    vel1163 8 December 2020 08: 23
    +3
    Well, in general, the consequences of a nuclear explosion may be different. We are watching a lockout when a failure in the control room left a third of the United States without electricity. The question is different. The presence of nuclear weapons does not even theoretically allow the United States and NATO to occupy Russia. That is, the United States cannot physically carry out a ground operation to occupy Russia. The presence of nuclear weapons does not allow planning any kind of coercion through constant bombing until the moment when Russia throws up the white flag. Also, the presence of nuclear weapons and the determination to use them makes it senseless to reason: "how much is Poland can capture Kaliningrad. It is appropriate to recall the question of NS Khrushchev to the British ambassador: "Do you know how many missiles are needed to destroy England? And I know. The author could also analyze how many missiles are needed to destroy Poland and even Germany. Given the colossal density of population and infrastructure. In the same way, Russia can only restrain and threaten the United States and NATO with unacceptable damage. Without being able to take control of either the United States or its allies. This is equal weight. The same is with the Kuriles. Well, the Japanese have ships better. But how many missiles are needed to destroy or completely neutralize the threat?
    1. timokhin-aa
      8 December 2020 11: 15
      -2
      They cannot occupy, but they can suddenly strike with their strategic nuclear forces. And they will strike if, instead of preparing for war, we continue to ride.
      1. Poganini
        Poganini 8 December 2020 12: 08
        +2
        Cognitive dissonance is not tight, is it? They cannot occupy, but they can strike strategic nuclear forces, so let's develop conventional weapons. L - logic! )
        1. timokhin-aa
          8 December 2020 12: 53
          -5
          What's wrong with the need to develop conventional weapons? Besides, it’s not all about them.

          You seem to have seen something of your own in the text, or maybe the voices in your head sang.
          1. Poganini
            Poganini 8 December 2020 13: 54
            +1
            Alexander, you must understand, there are only two options, if a person wrote nonsense: 1) IQ with gulkin ... hmm ... well, let it be a nose, 2) decided to get drunk for a little money. Well, the second would still be so and so. But when a person, wriggling like in a frying pan, tries to fight the dew of God, then this hints at the first. There is, of course, a sub-option of the second option - add hell and Israel in the comments. But this is too conspiracy theories. )
            1. timokhin-aa
              8 December 2020 15: 15
              -4
              You just don't understand the meaning of what you are reading.
              1. Poganini
                Poganini 8 December 2020 15: 35
                +1
                Alas, Alexander, you do not understand what you are writing about. Half of the site is already trying to chew on an extremely simple truth for you, and you slow down everything. )
                1. timokhin-aa
                  8 December 2020 21: 09
                  -4
                  Half of the site is just hysterical, the other half of the site understands everything.
                  But in fact, everything is simple - without effective MUNS and well-proven operations for their use in the course of ensuring the surprise of a nuclear strike, this strike will not achieve its goal of removing the enemy from the war.
                  As well as without realizing the real significance of the ASYaF as a tool for CONTINUING a nuclear war after the exhaustion of missiles, as well as without realizing the need to ensure the combat stability of SSBNs, which would allow them to be used after the ammunition is fired, with reloading of the launcher.

                  We do not have this understanding; instead, a fetishization of nuclear weapons and a dogmatic-religious perception of its meaning (incorrect). You and other horses are a prime example of this.
        2. Lex_is
          Lex_is 8 December 2020 19: 46
          -1
          Was Yugoslavia occupied?
          Is Libya occupied?

          Did the absence of occupation help them a lot?
      2. vel1163
        vel1163 8 December 2020 13: 33
        +1
        Well, that's what we are talking about. If they zhahn, then we zhahn. Therefore, strategic nuclear forces are a priority. You cannot solve all the problems of the Armed Forces, solve the most critical ones. And these are strategic nuclear forces and submarine missile carriers. And then when no one can twitch, you can develop and build other components. By the way, this is why the West is now solving the problem of hybrid wars. Because there is not enough
  • Ross xnumx
    Ross xnumx 8 December 2020 08: 23
    +9
    Nuclear illusion. It will not work to "glaze" the enemy

    Sometimes I begin to "enrage" the abstruse reasoning of the "marshals" ... Wow. Glazing will not work. And in a greenhouse with broken glass, something will ripen in a frost of -30 ° C?
    For example, R-36M2: power - 10 warheads, 800 kt each; the affected area is 30 square kilometers. For example, the area of ​​New York is 000 1 km² ... In your opinion, if 214 kt explodes in the center of the "apple", will it remain intact? And I think there will be splashes of "puree".
    Strategic nuclear forces are not a jihad mobile. Having in stock a small amount of nuclear weapons, North Korea was able to “explain on the fingers” to the American AUG that walking back and forth, shaking with its power, is unsafe.
    1. timokhin-aa
      8 December 2020 11: 14
      -2
      In your opinion, if 800 kt explodes in the center of the "apple", will it remain intact?


      I mentioned this in the article. And you can turn on nukemap and "bomb" America with Russian 800 kT warheads. There is a link in the article
      1. Ross xnumx
        Ross xnumx 8 December 2020 11: 57
        +7
        Quote: timokhin-aa
        In your opinion, if 800 kt explodes in the center of the "apple", will it remain intact?

        I mentioned this in the article. And you can turn on nukemap and "bomb" America with Russian 800 kT warheads. There is a link in the article

        I see, young man, you prefer specific literalism. Good...
        With this in mind, we need to stop perceiving nuclear weapons as a kind of fetish and a 100% guarantee of our security. This is not true. It's just a very powerful and terrible weapon and nothing more. For our main enemy, it does not even guarantee his exit from the war. In the light of the latest trends in the United States, it does not guarantee non-aggression from the American side - it no longer guarantees.

        Yours
        With this in mind, we need to stop perceiving nuclear weapons as a kind of fetish and a 100% guarantee of our security. This is not true.

        But as? Perceive nuclear weapons as your own headache? As a source of potential environmental pollution? Nuclear weapons should be perceived as protection from territorial encroachments and political pressure. Like a big "fly swatter" against dung flies who want to feast on our table at our expense. Exactly. Confirmation of this is the peaceful existence of the USSR after 1945 (more precisely, after 1949).
        It's just a very powerful and terrible weapon and nothing more.

        This is not just a powerful and terrible weapon, but a weapon capable (!!!) in seconds to smash into dust any operational center of the highest command personnel and cause material damage to the economy, military production, the accumulation of equipment and manpower of the enemy.
        For our main enemy, it does not even guarantee his exit from the war.

        The presence of nuclear weapons guarantees a complete lack of desire to enter the war with the Russian Federation, because the GDP and the General Staff made up this:
        Russia reserves the right to use nuclear weapons in response to the use of nuclear and other weapons of mass destruction against it or its allies, as well as in case of aggression against Russia with the use of conventional weapons, "When the very existence of the state is threatened."

        In the light of the latest trends in the United States, it does not guarantee non-aggression from the American side - it no longer guarantees.

        Let Kim Jong-un tell you what Trump told him and where he went after that ... A country whose nuclear potential is equal to (???) missile range, capable of carrying a nuclear warhead is equal to (???) just took and deployed the American AUG who was going to put things in order ...
        Well, and then you give an example of a US attack on a country that has nuclear weapons ...
        1. timokhin-aa
          8 December 2020 12: 51
          -2
          Yours


          My.

          But as? Perceive nuclear weapons as your own headache?


          So you yourself pulled out the answer to this question from my article below. Do you want me to repeat it? What for?

          I see no reason to comment on further hysteria.
    2. Terran ghost
      Terran ghost 8 December 2020 15: 02
      +2
      Having in stock a small amount of nuclear weapons, North Korea was able to “explain on the fingers” to the American AUG that walking back and forth, shaking with its power, is unsafe.

      We'll probably start with what is North. Korea is SUDDENLY China. Especially in the current conditions, when after the program for the creation of nuclear weapons in the North was introduced for violating the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons. A number of not very pleasant international economic sanctions have been imposed on Korea. The North Korean frog will dance as the "big brother" from Beijing will say, since it is this very "big brother" that "regulates the intensity of the flame under the pan with the frog."
      Second. And who said that the current ruling dictatorial-tyrannical regime in the North. Is Korea so fundamentally dissatisfied with the ruling circles of the United States of America?
      1. Sergej1972
        Sergej1972 8 December 2020 22: 08
        +1
        You obviously do not know very well the history of relations between the PRC and the DPRK over the past 60 years. In the DPRK, the Chinese are not considered older brothers.
  • Doctor
    Doctor 8 December 2020 08: 44
    +1
    The article is super! Previously, these went under three zeros.
    At the same time, even with the number of nuclear warheads during the Cold War, a complete "paragraph" did not come to the planet.
    1. timokhin-aa
      8 December 2020 11: 13
      -1
      It never went under three zeros)
      1. Doctor
        Doctor 8 December 2020 11: 54
        +3
        It never went under three zeros)

        It went on. Starting from Totsk.
        The very list of three-zero documents with their names went under one zero. bully
  • t-12
    t-12 8 December 2020 08: 46
    +1
    You will have to bomb not only the territory of the United States, but also the territory of the allies (at least England + missile defense radars in Europe).

    In addition, the factor of neutral countries is not taken into account. If Russia is destroyed and the US loses 30-50% of its population, who will win the war? Neutral countries will win: China, Germany, Turkey ... But the United States cannot allow China to win, so they will be forced to strike at Chinese cities (so that China also suffers some damage from the war). China, in turn, will be forced to strike at India.
    1. The comment was deleted.
    2. timokhin-aa
      8 December 2020 11: 13
      -1
      You will have to bomb not only the territory of the United States, but also the territory of the allies (at least England + missile defense radars in Europe).


      This is exactly what is being solved by tactical nuclear weapons - Iskander, Caliber, bombs, etc.
    3. Ross xnumx
      Ross xnumx 8 December 2020 12: 12
      +4
      Quote: t-12
      You will have to bomb not only the territory of the United States, but also the territory of the allies (at least England + missile defense radars in Europe).

      You won't have to. You think GB doesn't know that:
      The main component of Russia's nuclear shield is the Strategic Missile Forces (Strategic Missile Forces). They account for 375 missile systems and 1259 nuclear charges. These forces are distributed among 11 divisions. The Strategic Missile Forces are armed with missile systems of the following types: R-36MUTTH / R-36M2 (SS-18) - 58 pieces, carrying 10 nuclear charges, UR-100NUTTKh (SS-19) - 70 units, carrying 6 nuclear charges, Poplar, mobile (SS-25) - 171 units, 1 nuclear charge each, Topol-M mine (SS-27 ) - 52 pieces, Topol-M, mobile (SS-27) - 18 pieces, RS-24 mobile (Yars) - 6 pieces, each carrying 3 nuclear charges. More than 90% of all ground-based nuclear weapons are in one minute readiness for launch.

      https://topwar.ru/2937-kak-segodnya-vyglyadit-yadernyj-shhit-rossii.html

      and that eight P-243M809 (+36 b / g) are enough to "cover" its territory of 2 km² ...
      They will sit and be silent, like that uncle in the wardrobe ...
  • spolo
    spolo 8 December 2020 08: 48
    -6
    And we also have a lot of waste ... You can fill the states with it. It would be on what. After all, dying from an explosion is not at all the same as suffering from a radiation ...
    1. Jager
      Jager 8 December 2020 11: 08
      0
      USA - 94 operating reactors at nuclear power plants. RF - 36 reactors. There are also more R&D and experienced ones. About the TOTAL number of reactors, taking into account nuclear submarines - I generally keep quiet, you can fill up the entire Rassiyushka with American waste.
    2. timokhin-aa
      8 December 2020 11: 12
      0
      What is the military sense of this? How to bring them to the USA?
  • Horon
    Horon 8 December 2020 09: 14
    0
    The author is a fine fellow to the weak army in comparison with the forces of the enemy, he added a "devastating" article on the weakness and inability of our nuclear triad. It remains for everyone only to hang out a white flag (the author is apparently already) and run towards America with snot and tears to ask the whole world for mercy and forgiveness. And whoever has not yet understood the insignificant position of Russians on planet Earth is a "hurray-patriot" who does not understand anything about the real state of affairs. Bravo!
    1. timokhin-aa
      8 December 2020 11: 11
      -2
      This is your wretched understanding of the question and nothing more.
      1. Horon
        Horon 8 December 2020 11: 47
        +2
        This is poor analytics! Even a funnel from another test was passed off as a funnel from a superbomb explosion.
        1. timokhin-aa
          8 December 2020 12: 43
          -1
          Yes, this is indeed a mistake, otherwise you simply did not understand anything, but you jump here like a maydown on Khreshchatyk
  • voffka
    voffka 8 December 2020 09: 19
    0
    We need to retarget all 1.5k warheads to Europe and Japan and announce this to everyone. Then the striped ones will not risk being left alone in this world with the Chinese.
  • KKND
    KKND 8 December 2020 09: 35
    -4
    An article about what everyone already knows. The author comes too into megalomania, the Kremlin is well aware of everything and has even more accurate and complete information. I am a layman whose hobby was atomic physics, and at the same level I provided myself with everything. And in the event of a nuclear war, it will not matter what those same philistines believe in there, patriots, even in paradise, even in models close to reality, there will still be no sense from them, not only will they be saved, they will not be fed, let them believe in Santa Claus.
  • Eroma
    Eroma 8 December 2020 09: 44
    -4
    Wars start in order to gain an advantage, or to eliminate it! A nuclear war against the Russian Federation is not reasonable, due to the absence of any advantages from Russia on the part of Russia, why the hell would the West lose tens of millions of people? What does it give them? Today we are a gas station with an economy torn to shreds (which is not very far from the truth), logically, we should start a war in order to eliminate the advantage of the West over us. But we somehow saw to their advantages, the main thing is that they would not interfere with our lives, but they cannot believe it, or do not want, that there would be a reason for cutting the dough in the military-industrial complex.
    But the development of China is a real threat to the dominance of the United States, and if China really starts to move the United States with a pedistal, then the Yankees may be tempted to use their military superiority in order to resolve the issue with China, and then the question arises with Russia, which may be overly powerful state after the US conflict with China and their mutual weakening. Here we can get into the batch to the heap.
    1. EvilLion
      EvilLion 8 December 2020 10: 33
      0
      You might be a gas station. But gas stations do not have nuclear weapons. And we have. And more.