Military Review

No parity

42
Russia can not yet begin negotiations with the United States to limit non-strategic nuclear weapons


The ability to maintain parity on individual types of weapons and, in particular, in the field of non-strategic (according to American terminology - “tactical”) nuclear weapons (NSNW) depends on the current and forecasted state of military security, which is a complex concept and requires the analysis of the ratio of different types of weapons and military equipment parties.

In the part of the American nuclear arsenal, we note the following. In the USA, four categories of readiness of nuclear ammunition (YaBP) for use are accepted:

1. “Operationally deployed” - nuclear warheads installed on carriers or kept in warehouses at air bases based on carrier aircraft.

2. “Operational storage” - nuclear weapons that are stored and ready to use. They are contained in readiness for installation on the carrier and, if necessary, can be installed (returned) on rockets and airplanes. Deployment dates are determined by the delivery time of the nuclear weapons to the carriers and the implementation of a complex of works on their installation on the carrier. In fact, they represent a “return potential”.

3. "Long-term storage" - backup nuclear warheads, stored mainly in military warehouses in assembled form, but of which the tritium-containing nodes and neutron generators have been removed.

4. "Strategic reserve" - ​​nuclear weapons, retired and awaiting their turn to be dismantled, as well as primary nuclear initiators and units of the second (thermonuclear) stage of charges.

No parity



The first two categories constitute the so-called “active arsenal”, the third and fourth - “inactive arsenal”.

The American arsenal of nuclear warheads for NSNWs consists of:

- approximately 300 nuclear warheads (YABCh) for sea-based cruise missiles (SLCMs) of Tomahawk, including 100 YXCh W80-2 “operational storage” and 200 YXCh W80-0 “long-term storage” (all contained in the US);

- approximately 800 nuclear bombs (YaB) of free fall (B61-3, B61-4, B61-10), including 200 “operational deployed”, 200 “operational storage” and 400 - for “long-term storage”. “Operationally deployed” nuclear weapons (B61-3, B61-4) are deployed at the US Air Force depots at six air bases in five European NATO countries — Belgium, Italy, the Netherlands, Turkey, and the Federal Republic of Germany. They are intended for use by tactical aircraft. aviation United Air Force (Air Force) NATO. About 200 “operational storage” bombs (B61-3, B61-4) and 400 (B61-3, B61-4, B61-10) “long-term storage” bombs are located in the United States.


The main part of the US tactical nuclear arsenal consists of В61 aerial bombs.


The return of nuclear weapons to the “active arsenal” from the category of “long-term storage” is theoretically possible, but very difficult and time-consuming, and from the category of “strategic reserve” is practically impossible. Therefore, the number of tactical nuclear warheads, which can be really applied, is determined by the volume of the “active arsenal”.

The United States has approximately 500 of the active arsenal for the NSNW (see tables 1, 2). According to foreign analysts, Russia has 2000-2500 units of ammunition for this purpose.

According to the US nuclear strategy (2011), all of the YBCs for the Tomahawk SLCM will be eliminated in the medium term, and all 400 tactical nuclear bombs B-61 “active arsenal” have been upgraded to extend the service life of 2040-61 to 4. To create a new modification - B2018-61, which, with 12, can become the main (or only) tactical YAB of the USAF. In this case, the number of tactical YAB "active arsenal" will not change.


The collapse of the Warsaw Pact (ATS) and the USSR, as well as the expansion of NATO to the east, led to a significant superiority of the alliance over Russia in general-purpose forces. In the future, this imbalance will only increase if only because the total military budget of the NATO countries is 12 times larger than the Russian in comparable prices. Many military and political figures in the United States have repeatedly pointed out that since the end of the twentieth century there is no one in the world and in the foreseeable future there will be no military threats that America could not cope without using nuclear weapons. The military-political leadership of the United States believes that it is precisely the nuclear potential of Russia, including the NSNW, that is a threat to the national interests of the United States. Therefore, under the guise of a reasonable mutual reduction of nuclear weapons (NW), the United States is striving to achieve absolute military superiority over the still potentially dangerous for them Russia, maintaining the status of a powerful nuclear power.

US Air Force Sgt. Sarah Caron is in charge of serving YAB B61 at Spangdahlem Base in Germany.

This is fully reflected in the words of Zbigniew Brzezinski: "The plan for the destruction of nuclear weapons is a plan for creating a world in which the United States can safely wage a conventional war." In the United States, options for reducing NSNW have been developed and promoted, suggesting its inclusion in the overall offsetting weapons together with strategic nuclear weapons. In particular, Undersecretary of State Rose Gottemoeller said that after the entry into force of the START-3 Treaty, the United States would seek further reductions in nuclear weapons (cumulatively strategic and non-strategic). Former employee of the National Security Council and the US Ambassador to Ukraine Stephen Peifer proposed to establish for the United States and the Russian Federation a limit on the total number of nuclear warheads for strategic and non-strategic carriers in 2500 units on each side. Proposals are also being developed to limit the number of nuclear warheads for NSNW to the level of 400-500 units on each side.

In modern conditions, the role of NSNWs in the US military force system is decreasing due to the priority development of conventional high-precision weapons (WTO) in the USA. And if a parity reduction of NSNWs is in the interests of the United States, then for Russia in modern conditions such an approach is unacceptable due to the need to compensate for the superiority of NATO in conventional forces and means. Moreover, it is unacceptable in the face of the danger of the proliferation of nuclear weapons technologies and the growth of the conflict potential in Asia, including the Far East, where Japan has territorial claims to Russia. Also, in the future, one cannot exclude the possibility that China will try to resolve controversial issues with individual states by force.


Russia's position should not be based on achieving parity on NSNWs with the United States or even with NATO (including French non-strategic or “sub-strategic” nuclear weapons), but on the principles of ensuring equal security of the parties based on defense sufficiency with regard to nuclear and conventional weapons (including the forces of the forward bases of the United States).

The main limitations of conventional armed forces in Europe are defined by the Treaty on Conventional Armed Forces in Europe (CFE), which was concluded in Paris in 1990 by 22 states, of which 16 were NATO members, and six were in ATS. The basis of the Treaty is the quantitative restrictions on the five main categories of conventional weapons in the Treaty areas, which are the European territory of the participating countries, including the Transcaucasus and the Asian part of Turkey. In the summer of 1991, the city ATS ceased to exist. After the collapse of the USSR, its quota under the Tashkent Agreement of 15 in May 1992 was distributed between the new sovereign states of the former Soviet Union, and the NATO bloc expanded at the expense of the former Soviet republics and allied states of the USSR. They were accepted into NATO together with quotas, which, in fact, belonged to the ATS (quotas as of 2007, in the 3 table).

At the Istanbul Summit of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe 19 in November 1999, an agreement on the adaptation of the CFE Treaty was signed, taking into account new realities. But only four of the 30 signatories ratified it - Belarus, Kazakhstan, Russia and Ukraine. Russia's proposals to restore the viability of the Treaty were rejected by the NATO country, which forced Moscow to impose a moratorium on the CFE Treaty in 2007.


The Klein Brogel Air Base in a “nuclear-free” Belgium is one of the points where the US NSNW is concentrated.


If we compare the quotas of conventional weapons of Russia and NATO countries in Europe, their ratio is 1 to 3-4 in favor of the alliance. Such an excess of the military potential of NATO requires (according to all canons of military science) measures to prevent the threat of military conflict, since the stability of the defense can be ensured with the superiority of the forces and means of the enemy no more than 2-3 times. However, the leadership of the North Atlantic alliance argues that the quota exceeding is virtual, that the expansion of the bloc to the east, like the implementation of the US plans to deploy troops in Bulgaria and Romania, is not directed against the Russian Federation and that NATO does not pose any military threat to any European state in including Russia. What are such statements vividly illustrated by the unprovoked NATO aggression against Yugoslavia in 1999. And the whole course stories Strictly confirms the relevance of Otto von Bismarck's dictum “... it’s not intentions, but opportunities that should be taken into account,” and even more so, we add, not words.

The balance of forces and means with NATO is not in favor of Russia, and it is even significantly worse than the CFE Treaty quotas (table 4). Comparison in the 5 and 6 tables of the possible compositions of the opposing groups deployed by the parties in the theaters of war (military operations) provides a more realistic picture of the balance of power than a comparison of the composition of the Armed Forces. The composition of the groups adopted the following:

In the West: from NATO - the grouping of the United Armed Forces (OVS), formed from the contingents of the national armed forces of the bloc countries transferred to it; from the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation - the main forces of the Western and Southern military districts, including the Northern, Baltic and Black Sea fleets, as well as part of the forces of the Central Military District.


In the East: on the one hand, the coalition group of the armed forces of the United States and Japan; on the other hand, the opposing grouping of the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation, which includes part of the forces of the Eastern Military District, including the Pacific Fleet.

Based on the data given in the 5 and 6 tables, it can be concluded that in the main strategic areas, the groups that oppose the Armed Forces of Russia have an overwhelming superiority:

- In the West, the NATO Allied Forces group exceeds the grouping of Russian Armed Forces by 9 times tanks, 5 times for airplanes, 6 times for ships, and also has absolute superiority in long-range cruise missiles of various bases and in the WTO as a whole;

- in the Far East, the coalition grouping of the US and Japanese forces exceeds the grouping of Russian aircraft 5 created in the Primorsky direction by ships, aircraft, tanks, 7,5 times by combat helicopters, and also has absolute superiority to long-range cruise missiles of various bases and in general on the WTO.

In the direction of the main attacks, the opposing side will be able to create a quantitative superiority over the groups of the RF Armed Forces up to 8-12 times.


The US NSNW located in Europe is clearly classified as strategic because it can be applied throughout the European part of Russia, while the Russian NSNW can not be applied across the United States. Therefore, it would be objectively justified to include American NSNWS in Europe in the offset of strategic offensive arms.

Leaving aside political statements about the “NATO’s consolidating bloc of the role of US NSNWS in Europe”, let’s try to determine why there is a significant supply of US nuclear bombs in Europe? The possibility of a "selective" use in the fight against "international terrorism" is highly questionable. Defeat of stationary objects covered by the air defense system with Tomahawk and Trident missiles is more effective than unmanaged YABs from manned aircraft. From a military point of view, the most plausible explanation is that they are intended primarily to impact on moving objects, the destruction of which often requires additional exploration. Such objects, most likely, can be military formations, field control points, as well as mobile missile launchers (tactical and operational-tactical).

Positional areas of mobile ground-based missile systems of the Strategic Missile Forces are located in the eastern regions of the European part of Russia, that is, almost at the limit of the tactical aviation of the Allied Air Forces of NATO from advanced airfields. It appears that the positioning areas of the Strategic Missile Forces - as the most important strategic targets - will reliably hide from the attacks of air attack weapons. Therefore, mobile missile launchers of strategic missiles can be targets for tactical aviation’s nuclear strikes, most likely in the event of the overwhelming air superiority of NATO over the entire European part of Russia.


The B-2 bomber can carry 16 B61 bombs.


Proceeding from this, it can be assumed that the US NNAs are viewed by the NATO leadership, primarily as a means of deterring Russia from using its NSNW to repel the alliance’s aggression, and also as a “battlefield weapon” when the bloc’s aggression develops into a nuclear war.

Considering the superiority of NATO in the general-purpose forces over any other states and coalitions in Europe, the NSNWS of the USA plays, apparently, also the role of a kind of "safety net" of strikes and offensive operations of NATO's Allied Forces using conventional means of destruction. Therefore, the presence of the US JAB in Europe is an indirect confirmation of the existing plans of the alliance for a possible power resolution of contradictions with other states of the region (Russia and Belarus in the first place) and, accordingly, a factor negatively affecting strategic stability.

Adopting parity on NSNWs without taking into account the superiority of the United States and NATO in the general-purpose forces in the context of the deployment of the global and European anti-missile defense systems will ensure the United States and its allies reduce the effectiveness of Russian nuclear deterrence policies at the regional level. When repelling aggression, the nuclear forces of the Russian Federation (especially with their further reduction) already at the initial stage of hostilities can suffer significant losses, which do not allow the full implementation of the deterrence task. Such a development of events will pose a grave threat to Russia's national security and will increase the likelihood of its forced transition to the use of nuclear weapons.

Officials and individual politicians of the United States are trying to convince the world community that the establishment of parity between the United States and the Russian Federation in the field of NSNW will contribute to the strengthening of strategic stability in the world. But it is obvious that this is a way of undermining stability, as when equalizing potentials on NSNWs, the military-strategic balance of the total potentials of nuclear and conventional weapons is disturbed, and the United States and NATO acquire an absolute uncompensated military superiority of general-purpose forces.

It can be stated that parity with the United States on NSNWS in modern conditions is unacceptable for the Russian Federation, and negotiations between the United States and the Russian Federation on imposing restrictions on the levels of non-strategic nuclear weapons can become possible for Russia only if the following conditions are met:

1. The withdrawal from Europe of American nuclear warheads into the national territory of the United States, that is, the United States, as well as the "non-nuclear" Belgium, the Netherlands, Germany, Italy and Turkey must fulfill the requirements of the first two articles of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons.

2. Obligatory consideration of the influence of nuclear and conventional weapons of other countries on strategic stability in regions adjacent to the territory of Russia, when determining the minimum allowable amount of the Russian nuclear weapons arsenal for NSNWs.

Vladimir Vladimirovich DYACHENKO - Candidate of Technical Sciences, Senior Researcher, Reserve Colonel
Vladimir Vasilievich MUSORIN - retired colonel
Igor Vsevolodovich OSTROUKHOV - Candidate of Technical Sciences, Senior Researcher, Professor of the Academy of Military Sciences (AVN), retired colonel
Mikhail Evgenievich SOSNOVSKY - Candidate of Military Sciences, Professor, laureate of them. A.V. Suvorov AVN, correspondent member of the AVN, retired colonel
Author:
Originator:
http://oborona.ru
42 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Varnaga
    Varnaga 22 August 2012 08: 39
    +4
    extremely crooked little article. Example: The ratio of tanks (let the engine correct, if that) NATO and the Russian Federation.
    T-72: in service: 990, from upgraded to T-72B2-155. In storage: 8000.
    T-80MVT: in service: 1224, modernized 31. In storage: 3100.
    T-90A: in service: 266
    Total: in service: 2480 + in storage: 11100. Total: 13580.
    Sources:
    warfare
    The Military Balance 2007 / C. Langton. - London: Routlege / The International Institute for Strategic Studies, 2007.
    + until 2020 ~ 2500 "Armata".
    Tape
    For modernization, I propose to look for ourselves. You can also add here the MBT of the CSTO countries, which the afftors did not do modestly, after all, we are like: one, proud Russia and the whole world. This already speaks volumes about the "level" of the article, such a feeling as if the scribblers from NG were paying for a modest grant.
    Question: what did the affectors of this onolithic article smoke?
    Threat got the total number of issued T-90 and in service with the Russian Federation.
    ZYY Here are some more links on MBT, who are interested, can see
    militaryparitet
    militaryparitet
    Yes, I also looked at the source-ch. editor-chairman of the Public Council under the Ministry of Defense, I think she is a clear signal to our "partner", or rather, a reminder that no one will agree on anything about TNW.
    1. Alexander Romanov
      Alexander Romanov 22 August 2012 08: 42
      0
      Varnaga, where did the data come from and when did they manage to deliver all of 1300? Such are the questions. Yes, and for t 80 there are questions.
      1. Varnaga
        Varnaga 22 August 2012 09: 14
        0
        See above.
    2. Alexander Romanov
      Alexander Romanov 22 August 2012 09: 14
      0
      And why did I change the post and did not answer mine belayI looked at the new one and did not see that you have valid information. Dry numbers from the Internet do not say anything. How much and what is in service is state mystery and it is not available to you and not to me. Your first one also says that the post that you deleted in which you wrote that we have 6500 and 80. There will be real numbers, I will be grateful.
      1. Varnaga
        Varnaga 22 August 2012 09: 26
        +1
        What does not suit you? Postscript is not the answer?

        Dry figures from the Internet do not say anything. How much and what is in service is a state mystery and it is not available to you and not to me

        Thanks, Cap.
        We understand what we mean? And afftors and I rely on open sources, right? And after all, such a thing must happen, there are all sorts of treaties, like the CFE Treaty, according to which the EMNIP of the states participating in it provide documents in which it is indicated, including the total number of regulated weapons.
      2. badabing
        badabing 22 August 2012 15: 00
        0
        http://malchish.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=296&Itemid=35
        here about tanks a lot and about planes and tactical
    3. segamegament
      segamegament 22 August 2012 12: 37
      +1
      When writing the article, they were apparently guided by this demotivator ...
    4. Passing
      Passing 22 August 2012 14: 55
      -4
      Quote: Varnaga
      T-72: in service: 990, from upgraded to T-72B2-155. In storage: 8000.

      Well, what's the use of these 8000 ancient T-72s? The war in Iraq clearly showed that obsolete tanks have no chance against the latest. Therefore, you need to consider the ratio of modern tanks, and here the situation becomes generally disastrous! And if you take into account that the plans of the Defense Ministry assume only 2000 Armats for the whole of immense Russia, then in the future the defense capability of Russia will be very conditional, it’s enough to fend off Georgia.
      1. Commodus
        Commodus 22 August 2012 16: 51
        +2
        extremely crooked little article. Example: The ratio of tanks (let the engine correct, if that) NATO and the Russian Federation.
        T-72: in service: 990, from upgraded to T-72B2-155. In storage: 8000.
        T-80MVT: in service: 1224, upgraded 31. Storage: 3100.
        T-90A: in service: 266
        Total: in service: 2480 + in storage: 11100. Total: 13580.
        Sources:
        warfare
        The Military Balance 2007 / C. Langton. - London: Routlege / The International Institute for Strategic Studies, 2007.
        + until 2020 ~ 2500 "Armata".
        Tape
        For modernization, I propose to look for ourselves. You can also add here the MBT of the CSTO countries, which the afftors did not do modestly, after all, we are like: one, proud Russia and the whole world. This already speaks volumes about the "level" of the article, such a feeling as if the scribblers from NG were paying for a modest grant.
        Question: what did the affectors of this onolithic article smoke?
        Threat got the total number of issued T-90 and in service with the Russian Federation.
        ZYY Here are some more links on MBT, who are interested, can see
        militaryparitet
        militaryparitet
        Yes, I also looked at the source-ch. editor-chairman of the Public Council under the Ministry of Defense, I think she is a clear signal to our "partner", or rather, a reminder that no one will agree on anything about TNW.


        And will you put the uncle Vasya the tractor driver into the tanks?
        Trained crews where to get? How to withdraw armored vehicles from storage if the enemy has overwhelming superiority in aviation and artillery, not to mention tactical cruise missiles. Amer is not idiots; they are the same rockets, they won’t let anything happen by accident, but for fuel storage facilities, warehouses with ammunition, barracks with soldiers.
        So become very right. Nizya allow parity for yao. Not tactical, not strategic.
        And the CIS countries: the same Kazakhstan, Belarus, it does not exist at all.
        1. M. Peter
          M. Peter 23 August 2012 18: 01
          0
          Quote: Commodus
          And will you put the uncle Vasya the tractor driver into the tanks?

          Do not worry there will be "Vasya", they will sit down for tanks and planes.
      2. M. Peter
        M. Peter 23 August 2012 18: 00
        +1
        Quote: Passing by
        Well, what's the use of these 8000 ancient T-72s? The war in Iraq clearly showed that obsolete tanks have no chance against the latest. Therefore, you need to consider the ratio of modern tanks, and here the situation becomes generally disastrous! And if you take into account that the plans of the Defense Ministry assume only 2000 Armats for the whole of immense Russia, then in the future the defense capability of Russia will be very conditional, it’s enough to fend off Georgia.

        And can you tell who has the Cueva clouds of modern tanks in NATO?
        In the USA, in England, in Germany, etc. ???
        How many tanks does the Bundeswehr have, how many of them are the latest versions?
        US how many M1A2 have? Nothing that the United States generally has 9 thousand tanks combined, modern and not?
        Some NATO members abandoned tanks altogether.
        Many members of the alliance are actively reducing their armies.
        Or observational figures can only be sent if they relate exclusively to Russia? But if we are talking about a "civilized, democratic foreign country", then they have not even a reduction, but a transition to a "new level" of development of the army, they say, more "high-precision" and unmanned, not like ours, right?
        smile
        1. Passing
          Passing 23 August 2012 21: 19
          +1
          Quote: M.Pyotr
          And can you tell who has the Cueva clouds of modern tanks in NATO?

          Russia - 1292 T-90 (480 T-90A tanks (2006), 263 T-90S tanks (2004))
          -------------------------
          USA - 4796 Abrams M1A1, 1174 Abrams M1A2 / SEP
          -------------------------
          Germany - 1351 "Leopard 2" of all modifications, as of 2010 year, including 225 tanks Leopard 2A6 and 125 - 2A5. [5] [6]
          Austria - 114 "Leopard 2A4", as of 2010 year [7]
          Greece - 170 Leopard 2A6HEL, as of 2010 [8].
          Denmark - 65 “Leopard 2A5”, as of 2010 [10].
          Spain - 108 "Leopard 2A4" and 206 "Leopard 2A6E", as of 2010 year [11]
          Canada - 40 Leopard 2A4 and 20 Leopard 2A6, as of 2010 [12].
          Norway - 52 "Leopard 2A4", as of 2010 year [15]
          Poland - 128 "Leopard 2A4", as of 2010 year [16]
          Portugal - 38 "Leopard 2A6", as of the 2010 year [17]
          Turkey - 298 "Leopard 2A4", as of 2010 [19]
          Finland - 100 Leopard 2A4, as of 2010 [21]
          Switzerland - 353 Pz-87 Leo, as of 2010 year [23]
          Sweden - 160 Strv-121 and 120 Strv-122, as of 2010 year [24]
          -------------------------
          Great Britain - 386 Challenger 2 tanks, as of 2010
          -------------------------
          France - 354 AMX-56 Leclerc tanks, as of 2010
          -------------------------
          Italy - 200 tanks "C1 Ariete", as of 2010
          -------------------------

          Compared to the T-72, all NATO members, without exception, have the newest tanks, designs / modifications dating back to 1984, and only the T-90 can withstand them.
          Europe + Turkey - 3917 (of which 2977 Leopard 22A4 / 2A5 / 2A6) + US 5970 Abrams M1A1 / M1A2 = 9887
          Total:
          Russia has relatively 1292 modern tanks.
          In relation to modern tanks, NATO has 9887 units.
          Or, if we consider the most modern modifications after 2000:
          Russia has 843 pcs.
          NATO - 2219 pcs.
      3. psv_company
        psv_company 4 November 2012 11: 06
        0
        And the same war showed that a simple RPG-7 would kill an abrams ...
    5. psv_company
      psv_company 4 November 2012 11: 02
      0
      Dude Dude, why are you revealing secrets, let them think that they have superiority 7-10 higher. In the event of a war, approximately 12 NATO tanks are opposed to 1 Russian, and from the forest because of the mountains the tanks are waiting for a command to battle !!! NOT a rhyme, but it will come down.
  2. Ascetic
    Ascetic 22 August 2012 09: 16
    16
    According to expert estimates, the active arsenal of Russian non-strategic nuclear munitions (those that can be deployed in case of military necessity) at the beginning of 2012 amounted to about 2 units. These are up to 050 warheads for the Tochka-U and Iskander ground-based operational-tactical missiles, about 80 tactical aviation missiles and bombs for air force attack aircraft (Tu-500M22, Su-3M and Su-24IB), and about 27 aviation weapons for naval strike aircraft (Tu-300M22, Su-3M, Be-24 and Il-12), about 38 warheads for sea-based cruise missiles and others, about 240 anti-submarine missiles, depth charges and torpedoes, as well as a total of up to 230 warheads for 700T53 interceptor missiles of the A-6 missile defense system deployed around Moscow, and for S-135 and S-300 anti-aircraft missile systems.
    The data are taken from the article by V.I. Yesina NUCLEAR FORCES OF RUSSIA
    The USA does not have such long land borders as we do. Canada is their faithful satellite, a supplier of raw materials and, apparently, in the near future, a part of the North American States (which will include the United States, Canada and Mexico). Mexico does not bear a military threat, the supplier to the States of cheap labor, oil and yes needs help - there is now a real war with the drug mafia.
    Russia has an unresolved territorial dispute with Japan, the most powerful army of the PRC, an unstable Central Asia, and a strong army of Turkey. And the threat from NATO has not gone away.
    Tactical nuclear weapons for Russia, in the face of the weakening of its conventional armed forces, which cannot be acquired in any way, are a serious factor in threatening and deterring neighbors.
  3. HUMANOID
    HUMANOID 22 August 2012 09: 22
    +1
    Dogs of the Russian bear are taxed
    1. drossel81
      drossel81 22 August 2012 09: 47
      +1
      I would correct the jackals !!!
      1. JonnyT
        JonnyT 22 August 2012 14: 59
        0
        do not call the essence one - surround and prepare to attack!
  4. Igarr
    Igarr 22 August 2012 09: 41
    +9
    Even if the authors lied twice. Yes, even though three times.
    All the same, "curvature" does not work.
    But it turns out that what Varnaga opposed - the advantage of NATO and those who joined them (possible) - is overwhelming.
    But whether Russia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Armenia, Belarus will take up the stage will still have to look.
    And in any case - it is best to rely only on yourself.
    .
    "There is such a profession - to defend the Motherland" ....
    It seems like a new profession is emerging - to die. Together with the motherland.
    1. Forget
      Forget 22 August 2012 10: 18
      -1
      why so gloomy soldier
    2. stariy
      stariy 22 August 2012 22: 04
      -1
      Quote: Forget
      why so gloomy

      And this is not the first time soldier
  5. ShturmKGB
    ShturmKGB 22 August 2012 10: 21
    -1
    If we take into account that our soldier is worth 10-ry enemy, then we are on an equal footing ... The whole world is still impossible to resist, it is necessary to negotiate, create alliances ...
  6. Leisure
    Leisure 22 August 2012 10: 38
    0
    One hope for nuclear weapons, and I trust in him. They took everything away, one club remained, and they want to clean it.
  7. Serb
    Serb 22 August 2012 10: 48
    +1
    Forget,
    Yes, it remains only to believe and prepare. Sooner or later, people want to fight on a large scale. Well, to find out who is cooler) 10-fold superiority certainly makes you think.
  8. Ratibor12
    Ratibor12 22 August 2012 11: 01
    +6
    But some 20 years ago, the Warsaw Pact countries had an advantage in conventional weapons. At the time, NATO relied on nuclear weapons as the only means to delay or stop our armies. Yes-ah ... Come on! It will now be like a classic: "They were waiting, it used to be, from the south, lo and behold, an army is climbing from the east"
    Marked has done a lot of things. "Pioneer" was destroyed, "Oka" was ruined!
    By the way, I wonder how many warheads you need to have at a minimum in order to repel a large-scale attack on the CSTO ???
    In any case, Russia needs a strong army. And not compact, but rather large. Now is the time. War is on the nose. Again we turn to the classic:
    So that the ends of their possessions
    Guard against attacks
    Need brothers contain
    Numerous troops.
    1. Passing
      Passing 22 August 2012 15: 11
      0
      Quote: Ratibor12
      Marked has done a lot of things. "Pioneer" was destroyed, "Oka" was ruined!

      This is one of the few positive achievements of Gorbachev. Let me remind you that on conventional weapons we had parity, but we exchanged the Oku for Pershing. I hope you understand the difference between Pershing in ten minutes of summer from Moscow and Oka in ten minutes of summer from Geneva.
      1. Ratibor12
        Ratibor12 22 August 2012 18: 02
        0
        Quote: Passing by
        This is one of the few positive achievements of Gorbachev. Let me remind you that on conventional weapons we had parity, but we exchanged the Oku for Pershing.


        I strongly disagree. Pershing-2 and Tomahawk (ground) were changed to "Pioneer", RK-55 "Relief" and oldies R-12, R-14. And Pershing-1A at Temp-S. "Oka" is a "gift" (betrayal) of Bullseye and Shevardnadze to America. On its performance characteristics OTR-23 did not fall under the contract. Short-range missiles are 500-1000 km, and "Oka" - 400 km.
        "... As the Hero of the Soviet Union, the standard-bearer of the legendary Victory Parade, General V.I.Varennikov, rightly pointed out in the process of the GKChP case, we have reduced our carriers 2,5 times and 3,5 times more warheads than the United States How, apart from betrayal of national interests, can explain Gorbachev's decision to include among the types of weapons to be destroyed the ultra-modern Oka complex surpassing all foreign analogues. After all, besides the fact that it has just entered production, some socialist countries have already switched to this weapon and our military districts in the West, that it cost a lot of work of scientists and workers, that it cost the people billions of rubles - it simply did not qualify for reductions in terms of its parameters and should not have been eliminated. ”Even among many American specialists, this monstrous treacherous step caused surprise - under the treaty, ground-based missiles with a flight range of 500 km and above (except for intercontinental ones) were subject to elimination, while the Okaflight range up to 400 km ... "
        1. Passing
          Passing 22 August 2012 18: 52
          -1
          Well, we exchanged Pioneer, Temp, and in addition, for some reason, the Oka (apparently the United States also rested) for Pershing. And still, we got immeasurably more than we lost - we lost the opportunity to bomb European cities, but we strengthened the ability to bomb US cities, i.e. eliminated the danger of an instant disarming strike. Well, and what is more important? Europe, even in the worst nightmare, will not initiate an attack on Russia, unlike the United States, which this prospect never scared, and was essentially a planned event, so the only real deterrent is a threat to US cities.
          But who really irrevocably undermined the defense of Russia, it’s a lawyer Medvedev who signed, in the context of the US deployment of a global missile defense system, the limit of deployed warheads is 1500, and that of carriers 700 pieces. Let me remind you that today the United States has more than a hundred anti-ballistic missiles, by 2016 it will be two hundred and fifty, and by 2020-30 they will have hundreds of anti-ballistic missiles theoretically capable of shooting down absolutely all our warheads / carriers. This is not a loss of some tactical missile like Oka, but this is already, sorry, FULL ASS!
  9. leon-iv
    leon-iv 22 August 2012 11: 39
    +3
    82 tanks in the Far East is not even funny.
    Article minus.
    I don’t believe in NATO because they were blown away for a long time.
    1. tungus
      tungus 22 August 2012 13: 19
      0
      There are no fresh numbers, but on 2005 the Far East had 3000 tanks, 3800 BBM, 3500 AU.
      The number of personnel in the district was 73500 people.
      It should also be borne in mind that a significant number of parts are cropped.
    2. stariy
      stariy 22 August 2012 22: 22
      0
      Quote: leon-iv
      I don’t believe in NATO because they were blown away for a long time

      I support !! Russia needs to be fought for a long time and they won’t even pull a long and bloody war together. Moreover, Russia is still an industrial country, it’s not Iraq and Afghanistan. Yes, and if they all argue that we will let them go the world, they will live in gas masks for a long time
  10. Forget
    Forget 22 August 2012 11: 45
    +1
    It is enough to build up atomic bombs with long-lived isotopes, that is, dirty bombs, this will provide a guaranteed ecological catastrophe for all mankind for many centuries and this will make any war impossible. It is also enough to pollute reservoirs, seas and oceans with radioactive waste (which we have in bulk) and the end will come to everyone. So: either we live in the world and develop, or we all die together.
    1. leon-iv
      leon-iv 22 August 2012 12: 02
      -1
      But why dirty BB. We have a lot of pure nuclear weapons at all enough, but little will be added. And the RF Armed Forces have no reflections on its use.
      1. PSih2097
        PSih2097 22 August 2012 17: 44
        +2
        And the RF Armed Forces have no reflections on its use.

        Why will it not, the Minister of Defense will have Taburetkin and civil authorities, where they study with them, where money is stored, where villas and other, other, other, are bought, because it’s obvious that it’s not in the territory of the Russian Federation ...
  11. segamegament
    segamegament 22 August 2012 12: 34
    -2
    The main thing is that the spirit, after the first blow, is not kicked out ...
    1. Gazprom
      Gazprom 22 August 2012 12: 58
      -1
      Now put it all together and put China or India on one side.
    2. leon-iv
      leon-iv 22 August 2012 13: 11
      +1
      Damn rukulitsa.Zhpg.
      How many times have disassembled such button accordions shaw just a gun.
      I'll just leave it here.


      http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2045226/British-Army-generals-tanks-stuf


      fed-penpushers.html
      There are 256 brigade and other generals in the British Armed Forces, and only 200 Challenger II tanks, according to figures given by a former senior military intelligence officer. This refers to combat-ready (out of 350), in addition, this year they will be reduced by 50 pcs.
      Or there are three times as many senior officers as Apache verts
      At the same time, the general salary (with one star) is rising from £ 100,000 per year
      Z.Y. In the Koroevsky fleet - the same thing, there are more admirals than active ships
      1. M. Peter
        M. Peter 23 August 2012 18: 06
        0
        Quote: leon-iv
        The British Armed Forces have 256 brigade and other generals, and only 200 Challenger II tanks

        In in! What are we talking about.
        Germany, too, is actively reducing the army, while actively saturating the personnel with Lisbians and all sorts of gays.
  12. Gazprom
    Gazprom 22 August 2012 12: 57
    0
    Again calculation by mass ?! "
    Is this the old Russian habit of the crowd?
    Let me remind you of 41 Germans who were not much superior.
    High-quality and new weapons of the 21st century are needed,
    In a word, a child prodigy.
  13. nycsson
    nycsson 22 August 2012 14: 20
    +1
    I apologize for being off topic!
    The personnel of the Russian naval base in the Syrian port of Tartus - the last of Russia's remaining far abroad - is prepared for evacuation. 78 sailors, including the head of the fortified post, Colonel Dmitry Zhavoronkov, were moved aboard the PM-138 technical support vessel, which is standing on barrels in the harbor. In case of receipt of an order from the high command of the floating base with the Russians, it is ready at any time to go to sea and leave the Middle East, they write with reference to the headquarters of the Russian Navy, Izvestia.
    http://warfiles.ru/show-11879-smi-rossiya-prigotovila-k-evakuacii-personal-svoey
    -posledney-dalney-voennoy-bazy-za-granicey.html
    Such are the things ............
    1. DDT_1976
      DDT_1976 23 August 2012 07: 55
      +1
      Not true, refuted. Here is the link: http://vz.ru/news/2012/8/22/594601.html
  14. Evil Tatar
    Evil Tatar 22 August 2012 15: 07
    0
    I did not believe the article, but plus ... The goal is the same - let the person who reads think for a moment and figure out how and with what (in the sense of berdana and karamultuk) to be if that ...

    For a very long time he expressed how much he lived, always lamented that all the great upheavals that could have passed turning the tide of history, our grandfathers and great-grandfathers had ended and nothing had come to us (the acre of Afghanistan and Chechnya), it turned out to be in vain regret - everything is ahead .. .
    Now there is one problem, so as not to become dilapidated, when it finally begins, so as not to regret later that I was in the period of historical upheaval, and therefore I did not participate, I was not, I was not involved ...
    And how would you like in the field of such conclusions of article affectors to end up with one grenade against five enemy tanks ...
    Or with F-koy with a ring in his other hand, against at least a dozen enemies huddled over him ...
    And the Star of the Hero, there’s no reason at all ...
    1. Igarr
      Igarr 22 August 2012 15: 18
      +2
      Oh, Eugene ..
      ".. at least a dozen enemies huddled over themselves ..."
      Scientists have all become ....
      A dozen droids will be above you and drones in the sky.
      And snotty dudes with chewing gum in their mouths will sit somewhere on a thread in Birmingham - and examine your (and mine) ring in hand on their battle tablets.
      And, foully neigh.
      .
      I will go.
      Caramultuk clean.
    2. PSih2097
      PSih2097 22 August 2012 18: 06
      0
      The goal is the same - let the one who reads think it over and figure out how and with what (in the sense of berdana and karamultuk) to be if that ...

      Better to scream KARAUL now !!! Than then P *** zdets ... Purely IMHO.
      Yesterday I came here such a sight - LEUPOLD VX-3L 3.5-10x56:

      at the weekend I’ll go to make a table, at the same time I’ll try new bipods.
  15. Evil Tatar
    Evil Tatar 22 August 2012 15: 34
    +1
    Quote: Igarr
    I will go.
    Caramultuk clean.

    In-in, and after all, everything is just like - a 21st century karamultuk should have been in every basement of a residential building for a long time, and several activists have the key ...
    Every weekend, and some and not only, are ready (for example, me), to "hang out" at the training ground, improving their skills ...
    And as for fighting iPhones and tablets, all this is not even a medium-term prospect, but the result of the development of military technologies. Do not bend ...

    Although thin. film works, like the historical classics - "War of the Worlds", "The Terminator", etc., only confirm the possibility of the fantasy of science fiction writers ...

    I have a small but accurate karamultuk ...
    Better start digging caches and dugouts ...
    Although I understand that I had to do this for a long time ... How not to be late ...
  16. Rossmk
    Rossmk 22 August 2012 18: 06
    0
    Russia does not need such a huge army as the United States or China, and the current forces will be enough for self-defense, and in case of a serious large-scale threat there is a strategic nuclear forces.
    That's why they are containment forces. Nobody will climb to us knowing that it threatens with a nuclear strike.
  17. Ratibor12
    Ratibor12 22 August 2012 18: 17
    0
    Quote: Passing by
    I hope you understand the difference between Pershing in ten minutes of summer from Moscow and Oka in ten minutes of summer from Geneva.

    I hope you understand that the policy of appeasing the aggressor leads only to the fact that, sooner or later, you have to fight the enemy, only on the worst terms for yourself. I hope you see what the activities of the then leadership of the USSR led to and are able to give this an adequate assessment. The position of the USSR was to remain tough:
    1) Placement of the Oka in the GDR and Czechoslovakia. A radius of 400-450 km, allowed to sweep the entire territory of Germany, that is, to deliver a preventive disarming strike at the locations of the Pershing.
    2) The "absolute zero" program - in response to the withdrawal of the "Pioneer", the United States refused to deploy "Pershing-2", the withdrawal of tactical nuclear weapons from Europe and the elimination of the forward-based system and the elimination of the British and French IRBMs.
    3) Negotiations on the INF Treaty only in a package with negotiations on space weapons (i.e. SDI). The Euro-rocket-SDI link posed a threat to the security of the USSR: first, the enemy strikes a decapitation blow with Euro-rockets, then a counter-force strike with the help of ICBMs with an RGCh IN and then intercepts with the help of SDI a weakened strike of Soviet strategic nuclear forces.
    The USA is like a dog - it feels fear and weakness. If you falter, they will press until the very end. One must be able to say "NO" to the face of the enemy.
    Glory God The Communist Party of the Soviet Union that now even "Iskander" is available!
  18. Darck
    Darck 22 August 2012 20: 34
    +2
    Yes at the moment, nuclear weapons for Russia is a cheap and effective method of deterrence. And in their place I would not lose such a trump card, although graters with America are also possible because of this, which is also not very good.
    If we consider that our soldier is worth 10 enemy
    Don’t be confused, bravado doesn’t lead to anything good, if you take into account the troubles in which the USSR and Russia participated, it shows you just the right way. It’s not worth the preparation, not the technical equipment, the salary. I don’t know about the rest but according to MBT, Russia is much inferior to NATO and the United States. And those T72, T80 that stand cannot fight on equal terms with LEO, Abrams, Challengers, not out of equipment not out of general combat readiness. It’s not enough to have a lot of tanks, it’s necessary that they were ready to join the battle, if only 1000 of 300 tanks start up, what is the use of it? And the preparation by the tankman wishes to leave the best.
  19. Nikopol
    Nikopol 23 August 2012 00: 11
    0
    Looking at these numbers, it’s not at ease. Involuntarily you start to think - and the government is thinking about something ... what are the plans to reduce armaments - you need to rivet tanks, infantry fighting vehicles, armored personnel carriers, planes like matches. Otherwise, we ourselves will become the raw material for the matches of Americans and Europeans.
  20. Evil Tatar
    Evil Tatar 23 August 2012 09: 42
    0
    Quote: Darck
    After all, it’s not enough to have a lot of tanks, it’s necessary that they are ready to join the battle, if only 1000 of 300 tanks start up, what is the use? And the preparation by the tankman wishes to leave the best.

    A military expert-tanker spoke on "Zvezda", so he immediately answered a question about our tanks in Iraq and their crews that the tank equipment did not meet modern war requirements, that the Iraqi crews were not sufficiently trained to handle this equipment. confront the Americans, etc.
    However, he says that if he had the opportunity to fight in a tank with the crew with which he had once fought, with guys who understand each other without further ado, then we would pile on the Americans without children, even on those tanks on which the Iraqis blown away ...

    Therefore, to study, study, and still study, as the great Lenin bequeathed ...
    I’m sure that now contract soldiers will get out of the tanks to wash, eat and sleep, which means
    LEO, Abramsam, Challengers
    - it’s hard to have a fight with ours ...