Military Review

"Rusty" American intercontinental ballistic missiles

160
"Rusty" American intercontinental ballistic missiles

During the fighting on the Korean Peninsula, it turned out that the B-29 Superfortress long-range bombers, which until the mid-1950s were the main means of delivering American atomic bombs, are very vulnerable to MiG-15 jet fighters.


In this regard, even before the adoption of supersonic interceptors in the USSR and the mass deployment of anti-aircraft missile systems, the United States began the development of intercontinental ballistic missiles capable of delivering nuclear warheads across the ocean, regardless of weather conditions and anti-aircraft defense forces.

The history of the creation and service of American ICBMs during the Cold War


In 1954, the American company Convair received an order to develop the first long-range ballistic missile, which later acquired the name "Atlas" (Atlas).

In October 1959, the 576th US Air Force Strategic Missile Squadron, which was armed with SM-65D Atlas ICBMs (six missiles in two launch complexes, three stationary launchers each), began combat duty.

SM-65D Atlas rocket launch

The firing range of the Atlas-D liquid-propellant rocket with a launch weight of 120 tons exceeded 10 km, the KVO was 000–1 km.

The missile, which had a length of 23,1 m and a diameter of 3,05 m, was equipped with a monoblock thermonuclear warhead with a capacity of 1,44 Mt. In total, by May 1961, 30 such missiles were deployed, which were operated until 1964.

The first American ICBMs were placed on unprotected launch pads. But most of the Atlas-D missiles were stored in closed reinforced concrete hangars in a horizontal position.

Before launch, the roof of the hangar was moved apart, the rocket was brought to a vertical position and refueled with rocket fuel components (kerosene and liquid oxygen). It took 15-20 minutes to prepare for the launch.

In the early 1960s, two more modifications were created and put into service - Atlas-E and Atlas-F.

They had an improved control system and a monoblock warhead with a capacity of 3,75 Mt. The missiles were stored in a mine 53 m deep, filled with kerosene, and refueling with an oxidizer was carried out immediately before launch. It took 5-7 minutes to refuel. The rocket, already refueled, was lifted from the shaft to the surface using a special elevator.

Rocket "Atlas-E" at the starting position

ICBMs of the Atlas family proved to be problematic in operation, and several explosions occurred during combat duty due to fuel and oxidizer leaks. Due to the high risk of accidents and the unsatisfactory security of launch sites, in April 1965, all Atlas missiles were removed from combat duty.

Subsequently, they were converted into launch vehicles and used in space programs.

In case of failure with the creation of rockets of the Atlas family, Martin was given an assignment in 1955 to design the Titan I ICBM. The engines of this rocket also ran on kerosene and liquid oxygen. The mass of the rocket exceeded 105 tons, the length was 31 m and the diameter was 3,05 m. The maximum range was about 10 km. KVO - 000–0,9 km.

The SM-68 Titan I ICBM was originally supposed to be located in protected mines, its deployment from April 1961 was carried out in parallel with the Atlas family of missiles.

The launch complex of the Titan-1 ICBM was located underground and included three mines with missiles spaced 400–500 meters apart. At each launch shaft there was an underground storage of liquid oxygen and fuel and a control bunker.

Launch position of the SM-68 Titan I ICBM

Since rapidly evaporating liquid oxygen was used as an oxidizer, refueling took place when a command was received to prepare for launch.

It was impossible to launch from the mine, the fueled rocket was raised on a special elevator and started from the surface. Refueling and lifting of the rocket took about 15 minutes.

To equip six missile squadrons, 101 missiles were received (9 missiles per squadron). In total, there were 54 missiles in the mines, 6 more missiles were in operational reserve, with the ability to quickly load into the mine. The rest of the ICBMs were stored in warehouses.

Due to the advent of more advanced ICBMs, the duration of the combat service of the Titan-1 missiles was short. By May 1965, all the Titans of the first model were removed from the mines and sent to storage, where some of them remained until the 1980s.

Even at the development stage of the Titan-1 rocket, it became clear that the use of liquid oxygen greatly complicates operation, does not allow the rocket to be launched quickly after receiving the command, and creates the preconditions for emergency situations.

Service and operational and tactical and technical characteristics can be significantly improved through the use of self-igniting fuel components and the use of more powerful engines on both march stages.

Mine launcher, technical bunker and command post for controlling the launch of the Titan-2 ICBM

The transition to a fully inertial control system made it possible to place ICBMs in separate mines, 11-16 km apart from each other, and increase their resistance to a disarming strike.

In March 1962, flight design tests of the LGM-25C Titan II rocket took place, which was put into service in June 1963.

Rocket launch LGM-25C Titan II

Aerozine-50 (a mixture of equal parts of unsymmetrical dimethylhydrazine and monomethylhydrazine) was used as a fuel for both stages of the rocket, and nitrogen tetroxide was used as an oxidizer. The rocket was launched directly from the mine according to a hot gas-dynamic scheme with the launch of the first stage engines.

The launch weight of the Titan-2 ICBM increased to 150,5 tons. Length - 32,92 m. Diameter - 3,05 m. Firing range - up to 15 km.

The missile was equipped with a monoblock thermonuclear warhead with a capacity of 9 Mt with a CEP of no more than 1,6 km. This warhead was the most powerful among American ICBMs. To increase the probability of overcoming missile defense, the missile also carried light inflatable decoys and chaff.

In total, 108 Titan-2 missiles were built, and in 1967 the largest number of them was deployed - 63 units.

Although the rocket was originally expected to last no more than 10 years, it turned out to be much longer. But after a series of severe accidents that occurred in the late 1970s and early 1980s, President Ronald Reagan in October 1981 decided to decommission all Titan-2 ICBMs.

The last missile of this type was withdrawn from service in May 1987. A significant part of the Titan-2 ICBM was converted into launch vehicles and used to launch spacecraft.

Thanks to the progress made by American chemists in the field of creating effective formulations of solid jet fuel and the availability of industrial facilities for establishing its mass production, the development of solid propellant ICBMs began in the second half of the 1950s.

The use of solid fuel made it possible to make the operation of rockets much safer, more convenient and less expensive, as well as to significantly extend their service life.

The Boeing company won the competition for the creation of a new rocket, the subcontractors responsible for the manufacture of solid fuel and engines were Aerojet and Thiokol.

When creating a rocket, which received the initial designation SM-80A (since 1963, LGM-30A Minuteman I), the task was to create a simple, relatively cheap ICBM, in the design of which, without a fundamental change in the main elements, various improvements could be made regarding the power plant, control systems, guidance and combat equipment.

The first successful test launch of the Minuteman at Cape Canaveral took place on February 1, 1961.

In parallel with the tests at the Maelstrom airbase (Montana), the construction of silo launchers for the first combat wing began.

Test launch of the Minuteman-1 rocket

Serial production of Minuteman-1A missiles began in 1962. This three-stage missile turned out to be the most compact among serial ICBMs. Its length was 16,37 m. Weight - 29,7 tons. Diameter of the first stage - 1,68 m. Firing range - up to 9 km. KVO - 300 km.

ICBM "Minuteman-1", prepared for a test launch

The Mk.5 detachable warhead was equipped with its own small-sized liquid engine and carried a thermonuclear charge with a power of 1 Mt.

Compared to the liquid-fueled Titan 2 rocket, the Minuteman was a significant advance. It became the world's first mass-produced solid-propellant ICBM launched directly from the mine, the time from receiving the launch command to the launch of the rocket was only one minute. A squadron of Minutemen was nearly equal in missile numbers to nine squadrons of Titans.

From the very beginning, the Minutemen's priority targets were elements of the Soviet strategic nuclear forces: ICBM launchers, submarine and long-range bomber bases.

In July 1962, the first Minuteman-1A ICBMs entered service with the 341st Strategic Missile Wing deployed at Maelstrom Air Base.

The 341st Wing included three missile squadrons. Each squadron included five launch units (10 silos and one command post). Thus, the squadron was armed with 50 ICBMs, and 150 missiles in the wing.

Shortly after being put into service, the improvement of the first modification of the Minuteman continued.

The LGM-30B ICBM received a new on-board computer with increased memory, which made it possible to enter the coordinates of two targets - the main and the spare. The KVO was reduced to 600 m. Some of the stainless steel structural elements were replaced with titanium ones.

Thanks to weight savings, a heavier warhead with a charge of 2 Mt was installed on the rocket. The length of the new modification of the rocket increased to 17,05 m, the weight increased to 31,3 tons. The firing range is 10 km.

The first three missile squadrons armed with Minuteman-1B ICBMs reached combat readiness in the autumn of 1963. By mid-1965, the US Air Force had 650 Minuteman-1B and 150 Minuteman-1A missiles deployed. Combat duty was also carried by 54 LGM-25C Titan II ICBMs (Titan-1 and Atlas missiles were removed from service by that time).

In total, 930 Minuteman-1 ICBMs of both modifications were manufactured, which were operated until the mid-1970s.

For all its merits, the Minuteman-1A / B ICBMs were not able to hit targets throughout the USSR.

In this regard, an assignment was issued to develop a more long-range variant.

The new modification in running order weighed 33,7 tons. The length of the rocket was 17,68 m. The firing range was 11 km.

The missile, known as the LGM-30F Minuteman II, entered service in August 1965 and partially replaced the LGM-30A/B ICBM.

A total of 688 Minuteman-2 ICBMs were built, and 500 missiles were put on combat duty.

In April 1967, the number of deployed American ICBMs reached its maximum - 1 units, including 054 Titan-54s and 2 Minutemen.

In 1991, the US strategic nuclear forces included 450 deployed Minuteman-2s and about 50 missiles were in reserve.

In 1993, the withdrawal of the Minuteman-2 ICBM from combat began.

By the beginning of 1996, all of them were removed from service.

For their time, the Minuteman ICBMs of the first and second models had a high degree of technical excellence and very good performance. However, the prospects for the development of missile defense systems in the USSR largely devalued the combat significance of missiles carrying single-block warheads.

In the mid-1960s, ICBMs began to be equipped with decoys - corner reflectors and inflatable simulators of warheads, designed to deceive missile defense radars.

The next step in developing the ability to overcome missile defense was the introduction of multiple reentry vehicles.

In 1968, tests began on the LGM-30G Minuteman III ICBM, equipped with a third-stage engine with extended operating time. The new missile carried three Mk.12 warheads with 64 kt W170 charges and several decoys.

The decrease in the power of each nuclear charge compared to the Minuteman-2 warhead was compensated by better accuracy (KVO 300–400 m). The firing range has increased to 13 km. The length of the Minuteman-000 was 3 m. Weight - 18,24 tons.

Platform with models of warheads Mk.12 in the museum exposition

In April 1970, the first Minuteman-3 ICBM was put on combat duty at the Minot base, and by the beginning of 1972, the 91st Wing, which had previously operated the Minuteman-1B ICBM, was completely re-equipped with them.

From the middle of 1976, 450 Minuteman-2 and 550 Minuteman-3 ICBMs were on alert.

A total of 830 LGM-30G missiles were delivered, a significant part of which was used up during control and training launches.

ICBM LGM-30G Minuteman III in silos

In the 1970s and 1980s, the LGM-30G ICBM underwent several improvements in stages.

In particular, it became possible to quickly retarget, and the CVO decreased to 250 m. More than half of the missiles were equipped with Mk.12A warheads with a W78 charge with a capacity of 340 kt.

By 2006, the Americans unilaterally reduced the number of warheads on all Minuteman-3 missiles to one.

In the period from 2007 to 2012, part of the Minuteman-3 missiles was re-equipped with Mk.21 warheads with a W87 thermonuclear warhead with a power of 300 kt. W87 warheads were removed from retired LGM-118 Peacekeeper ICBMs.

In the mid-1970s, nuclear-missile parity was achieved between the USSR and the USA.

In addition, American experts predicted a sharp increase in the accuracy of Soviet heavy ICBMs, which, combined with equipping them with numerous individually targetable warheads, dramatically increased the risk of a sudden massive disarming strike.

Taking into account all the factors, in the late 1970s, an assignment was issued to develop a promising missile that significantly exceeds the existing ICBMs in accuracy, the ability to break through the missile defense system, the number and power of warheads.

The program for creating such a rocket was called the Missiele experiment (MX). At the same time, the new missile was supposed to become very compact and fit into the silos built for the Minuteman ICBM. It was also planned to create mobile soil and railway complexes.

Another important innovation incorporated into the MX concept was the cold start technology. The "hot" start involved starting the first stage engine directly in the mine, as a result of which the internal elements of the silo were damaged, and the quick reloading of the ICBM was impossible.

Final assembly and overall design was carried out by Martin Marietta. Boeing, Aerojet, Thiokol, Hercules, Rockwell and Northrop were involved in the production of individual elements of the MX rocket.

The length of the three-stage rocket assembly was 21,61 m. The diameter was 2,34 m. The launch weight was 88,44 tons. The firing range was 9 km.

The missile carried a ten-shot warhead with Mk.21 warheads and W87 charges with a capacity of 300 kt. Such warheads had a CEP of 100–120 m.

Thanks to individual guidance, the warheads of one missile could hit targets located at a distance of up to 100 km from each other. In addition to warheads, there were means of breaking through missile defense. The outer surface of the rocket body had a special coating designed to protect it from damage by dust and soil raised by a nuclear explosion.

Mk.21 warhead platform

The first launch of the MX from the Minuteman mine took place in August 1985, and in 1986 the missile was put into service under the designation LGM-118A Peacekeeper. The first four Peacekeepers were put on combat duty in April 1986 at the positions of the 400th Missile Squadron at Warren Air Force Base in Wyoming.

Launch of ICBM LGM-118A from silos

From the very beginning, various options for placing ICBMs LGM-118A were envisaged. Due to excessive dimensions and mass, the soil complex was considered unviable.

According to the plan adopted in early 1983, it was supposed to deploy 100 missiles in the mines. By 1992, another 50 mobile railway launchers (25 trains with two missiles each) were to be put into operation.

However, in the future, the construction of the BZHRK was abandoned, and the number of missiles deployed in silos was limited to 50 units. The release of ICBMs LGM-118A was completed by 1998. A total of 114 missiles were built.

The service of the Pikekeeper ICBM was short-lived.

The last missiles were removed from duty in September 2005. They were liquidated in connection with the signing of treaties on the reduction of strategic offensive arms. After the end of the Cold War, Trident-2 SLBMs deployed on missile submarines were recognized as the best alternative.

After the decommissioning of the LGM-118A Peacekeeper ICBM, Orbital Sciences Corporation used the rocket stages to create Minotaur IV launch vehicles.

The structure of strategic missile units of the US Air Force


Currently, the US Air Force Global Strike Command has the 20th Air Force (headquarters at Warren Air Force Base), which includes the 90th Strategic Missile Wing (319th, 320th and 321st Missile Squadrons), 91st e strategic missile wing (740th, 741st and 742nd missile squadrons), 341st strategic missile wing (10th, 12th and 490th missile squadrons).

The 20th Air Army also includes the 576th Flight Test Squadron, the 582nd Helicopter Group, the 377th Base Air Wing and the 620th Missile Training Squadron.

Missile squadrons of the 90th Strategic Wing (headquarters at Warren Air Force Base, Wyoming), the 91st Strategic Wing (headquarters at Minot Air Force Base, North Dakota), the 341st Strategic Wing (headquarters at Maelstrom Air Force Base, Montana) are combat duty units armed with silo-based LGM-30G Minuteman III ICBMs.

The Vandenberg Space Force Base in California operates the 576th Flight Test Squadron, which is currently mainly engaged in providing control and test launches of Minuteman-3 missiles.

Satellite image of Google Earth: mine launcher in the northwestern part of Vandenberg airbase

There are several operational silo launchers in the vicinity of Vandenberg Air Force Base suitable for ICBMs. However, these shafts are currently only used for testing purposes. After each rocket launch, it takes several months to restore the silo.

Satellite image of Google Earth: preparation for a test launch on one of the silos. Photo taken in 2019

Up to two dozen old missile silos still remain along the coast. But test launches of Minuteman-3 ICBMs are made only from four located in the northwestern part of the base.

Test launch of the Minuteman-3 ICBM

The 585th Helicopter Group (headquartered at Warren AFB) operates UH-1N Twin Huey helicopters. In 2021, Hueys began to be replaced by MH-139A Gray Wolf helicopters.

Helicopter UH-1N with fighters of the rapid response group at Warren Air Force Base

Separate squadrons of the 585th helicopter group, based in ICBM deployment areas, are designed to support the activities of missile squadrons and the operational deployment of rapid response units in the event of a crisis.

The 377th Base Air Wing (headquarters at Kirtland Air Force Base, New Mexico) has units that provide security, supply, technical and medical support for missile units on combat duty.

Number and condition of the ground component of the American strategic nuclear forces


In a number of Russian media, the idea is actively promoted that the ground component of the American strategic nuclear forces has long been "rotten", and the "rusty" and "small" silo-based Minuteman-3 ballistic missiles do not pose a particular threat to us.

Let's try to figure out if this is actually the case.

Mine launcher ICBM "Minuteman-3" in Montana

According to information published in open sources, up to 400 silo-based LGM-30G Minuteman III ICBMs are currently deployed in the US states of Wyoming, Colorado, Montana, North Dakota and Nebraska.

Scheme of placement of American ICBMs and control points of starting links

The missile silos are separated from each other by 8-14 km, which excludes the defeat of one nuclear warhead by an explosion. The removal of the silo from the control post is from 8 to 24 km.

The layout of the launch units of the 10th missile squadron of the 341st missile wing

One and a half hundred ICBMs and 15 command posts belonging to the 341st Missile Wing are scattered around Maelstrom Air Force Base in Montana.

Satellite image of Google Earth: control point of the launch link "B" from the 10th Missile Squadron of the 341st Missile Wing in Montana

The control centers of the starting units are connected with higher headquarters and silos by cable communication lines, by radio and via satellite channels. It also provides for the transmission of combat control signals from the Doomsday aircraft E-4B and E-6B.

Satellite image of Google Earth: silo ICBM LGM-30G Minuteman III of the 10th Missile Squadron from the 341st Missile Wing

Launchers of the 90th missile wing are located in the states of Nebraska (72 mines), Colorado (44 mines) and Wyoming (34 mines).

Satellite image of Google Earth: silos of ICBMs LGM-30G Minuteman III of the 319th Missile Squadron from the 90th Missile Wing, in Wyoming

In western North Dakota, there are 150 mines and 15 control centers for three squadrons of the 91st Missile Wing.

Satellite image of Google Earth: control point of the launch link "M" from the 742nd missile squadron of the 91st missile wing

Although the three strategic missile wings of the 20th Air Army serve 450 silos, no more than 400 intercontinental ballistic missiles are actually on combat duty.

All of them are equipped with only one Mk.12A warhead with a W78 warhead with a capacity of 350 kt or a Mk.21 warhead with a W87 warhead (dismantled from LGM-118A Peacekeeper missiles) with a capacity of 300 kt.

Initially, the Minuteman-3 ICBM could carry three individually targetable warheads, but by 2006, the Americans unilaterally reduced the number of warheads on all silo-based missiles to one.

Since the W78 warheads do not meet modern safety requirements, and are also in the final stage of their life cycle, we should expect the decommissioning of the Mk.12A warheads.

However, there are still approximately two hundred more recent W87 warheads in nuclear storage, and if necessary, they can be put on missiles.

The LGM-30G Minuteman III missile entered service in 1970, and serial production ended in 1978. Thus, the age of the freshest American ICBM on combat duty is more than 40 years old.

Based on this, "patriotic" Russian citizens declare the "incapacity" of American silo-based ballistic missiles.

Also, some American experts specializing in the field of strategic nuclear weapons consider the combat value of the existing Minutemen in a very peculiar way.

A number of American experts believe that the main purpose of the four hundred Minuteman-3 ICBM silos scattered across Montana, Nebraska, Colorado, Wyoming and North Dakota is to “absorb” enemy warheads.

Taking into account the fact that nuclear submarines with Trident-2 missiles on combat duty are practically invulnerable to a simultaneous surprise attack, a potential aggressor will most likely try to disable stationary silos, the coordinates of which are known.

Destroying the more vulnerable control centers of the starting units will not give a result, but will only delay the retaliatory strike. In this case, reserve options are provided. In particular, control commands can broadcast E-4B and E-6B aircraft.

To neutralize 400 silos, launch control infrastructure, missile bases and arsenals, according to the most conservative estimates, at least 600 warheads will be required. That is, the main task of the old "Minutemen" may be to divert enemy warheads, which can potentially be used against other important objects.

Hence the nickname of intercontinental ballistic missiles - America's "nuclear sponge".


Between 1998 and 2009, all LGM-30G missiles currently on combat duty went through life extension activities, which should ensure their service until 2030.

Only $ 543 million was spent on replacing solid fuel in three stages. A number of critical components were also replaced and control equipment was updated.


As part of the REACT (Rapid Execution And Combat Targeting) program, work was carried out to improve the performance of the control and remote control system.


Control points for launch units and launch complexes received modern communication and information display equipment. This made it possible to improve the passage of combat teams, to reduce the time for redirecting missiles.

To confirm the reliability of the existing Minuteman-3 ICBMs and test elements of the missile defense system, missile launches are regularly carried out from Vanderberg airbase.


Not all tests are successful.

Sometimes the communication equipment is not able to receive and process the combat control signals broadcast from the E-6B aircraft. In this case, the launch is delayed for some time, and the rocket is launched at the command of the ground command post.

So, during the tests conducted by the 576th Flight Test Missile Squadron in 2020–2021, out of five launches, one was considered unsuccessful, one was postponed due to “unfavorable conditions”, and one more was canceled by a computer during the prelaunch preparation.

Based on the statistics of control and test launches published in the United States, we are making statements about the inability of the "rusty" Minuteman-3 ICBMs to perform a combat mission.


However, it should be understood that the oldest missiles, taken from storage and re-equipped by specialists from the 576th Flight Test Squadron, are used for shooting at the range.

According to expert estimates, if necessary, the US Air Force Global Strike Command will be able to launch at least 70% of the available ICBMs within half an hour. Another 20% of the missiles, provided that their positions are not destroyed, will launch in the next 24 hours.

Of course, some missiles will fail in flight, and part of the warheads can be intercepted by anti-missile defense systems. But even in this case, more than two hundred warheads with a capacity of at least 300 kt will break through to the targets.

With an air detonation of a thermonuclear charge with such an energy release, urban buildings will be completely destroyed within a radius of up to 1,5 km from the epicenter. Within a radius of 3 km there will be a collapse of residential buildings. At a distance of up to 6 km, people caught in an explosion in an open area will receive third-degree burns. At a distance of 3 km from the point of explosion, windows will be shattered.


A nuclear explosion with a power of 300 kt can completely destroy the central part of such a million-plus city as Voronezh. In this case, about 200 thousand people will die or be seriously injured.

Russia will suffer very heavy losses in the event of a sudden strike on megacities. At least 34,5 million people live in sixteen million-plus cities - almost every fourth Russian.

That is, only very naive citizens or people with an inadequate psyche can claim that American ICBMs do not pose a danger to us.

Plans to upgrade American silo-based ICBMs


In 2019, the US Air Force decided not to extend the service life of the Minuteman-3 and concentrate on creating a new missile.

Since 2020, Northrop Grumman has been developing a new generation of GBSD (Ground Based Strategic Deterrent) ICBMs in the United States. The amount of the contract for R&D and testing is $13,3 billion.

It is tentatively scheduled to deploy the first new-generation ICBMs in 2029. It is planned to purchase 659 missiles, 400 of which will be deployed in existing silos, and the rest are intended for test launches and reserves.

GBSD missiles will be able to carry both monobloc and multiple reentry vehicles. As warheads, it is supposed to use modified Mk.21s with updated W87-1 charges.
Author:
160 comments
Ad

Subscribe to our Telegram channel, regularly additional information about the special operation in Ukraine, a large amount of information, videos, something that does not fall on the site: https://t.me/topwar_official

Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. paul3390
    paul3390 31 January 2022 18: 18
    +2
    in the event of a sudden strike on megacities

    In this case, the citadel of democracy will get the hell out of it ... Then everyone will be raked to the very tonsils, not only us .. Another thing is whether it is necessary to iron megacities at all, with the current number of warheads? After all, if you process the infrastructure, for example, energy, the cities themselves will perish, but you will not look like an outright cannibal ..
    1. Kayala
      Kayala 31 January 2022 18: 32
      +13
      Colleague, after a nuclear strike, everyone will already deeply care who and who they will look like. Not until then, and especially no one. Those who survive will really envy the dead!
      1. paul3390
        paul3390 31 January 2022 18: 40
        +2
        I hope that even for such a scenario there are some agreements - like not hitting big cities .. Yes, and the point is that today's megacities have not been industrial centers for a long time, but if they are deprived of, say, electricity, they themselves will be covered with a copper basin, and the enemy - several tens of millions of snouts will remain in their hands, absolutely not adapted to survival and which will somehow have to be supplied, at least to a minimum .. Which after a massive nuclear strike will become a very non-trivial task .. And after all the reductions, warheads are not bags, Isn't it better to spend them on nuclear power plants, hydroelectric power stations, large interchanges, ports, etc., etc.? Beyond purely military purposes?
        1. Kayala
          Kayala 31 January 2022 18: 45
          +13
          At the expense of the agreements, when did the Americans actually comply with them ?! I believe that no one here has any illusions.
          But from the point of view of logic, yes, it makes sense to destroy infrastructure and industry in the first place, the rest will be bent by itself.
          1. paul3390
            paul3390 31 January 2022 18: 52
            +3
            At the expense of the agreements, when did the Americans actually comply with them ?!

            They observe them only when they have the power to make them do it.. Here - I think just such a case, because if anything - their cities will get no less than ours.. If not more. Another thing is whether their real rulers really need to preserve the urban population? After all, if you think about it - why the hell do they need millions of people who, by and large, do not know how to do a damn useful thing? But - accustomed to eat a lot and plentifully .. And - download rights ..
            1. Kayala
              Kayala 31 January 2022 18: 59
              +5
              Well, according to this logic, they need to bring all blacks, Latinos and other non-Anglo-Saxons to megacities like New York and direct our rockets on GPs themselves. laughing good
              1. engineer74
                engineer74 31 January 2022 19: 56
                +6
                At times it seems that this is exactly what is happening. recourse
                And nuclear strikes will not be needed: it is enough to reduce the "stern base" and the "undesirable contingent" will safely cut itself out wink
            2. Wildcat
              Wildcat 31 January 2022 19: 11
              +5
              after all, if anything, their cities will get no less than ours .. If not more.
              "they" have fewer cities, more cities, due to "suburbia" they are more "smeared" over the territory than cities of five - and nine-story buildings.

              And "they" have more nuclear weapons. And their country is to the south. The fact that, in the opinion of many, we have more tactical nuclear weapons, "them" will not upset, but will upset only the Europeans. And "their" tactical nuclear weapons reach us quite well.

              So even if you "throw around the cities", then the "exchange" will be amazing and devastating for us.
              For "them" - IMHO, in the "20th century we will bomb", perhaps even in the 50s.

              By the way, this question was also sorted out on VO, look at the archives of articles.
              1. paul3390
                paul3390 31 January 2022 19: 37
                -6
                "they" have fewer cities, more cities, due to "suburbia" they are more "smeared" over the territory than cities of five - and nine-story buildings.

                But - their houses are much less resistant to the damaging factors of a nuclear explosion and the subsequent inevitable fires .. Look - what remains of them even after an ordinary hurricane? Even our Khrushchevs - perhaps only the roof would be crushed ..
                1. OgnennyiKotik
                  OgnennyiKotik 31 January 2022 20: 49
                  +5
                  Quote: paul3390
                  Look - what remains of them even after an ordinary hurricane?

                  You have no idea what you are writing about.
                  After the “hurricane” (which is a storm) in Moscow in 2017, 18 people died. And this is only a strong storm, not up to category 1 hurricane. If a hurricane of at least 2-3 categories had reached us, there would have been thousands of deaths and the Khrushchevs would have piled up one by one. The United States is regularly hit by Category 4-5 hurricanes.
                  Houses are built from this calculation. Easy 1-2 floors, quickly built and insured. A full-fledged concrete basement in which everyone hides. Which will play the role of a bomb shelter. And these houses burn very badly, the materials are suitably prepared.
                  As a result, we have a dispersed population, with individual bomb shelters. Yes, there will be a lot of destruction, but people will die only in the epicenter.
                2. Wildcat
                  Wildcat 31 January 2022 21: 02
                  +9
                  Of course, our five-story buildings are better. winked
                  Not the oldest topic, not only the article is interesting there, but also the comments on it: https://topwar.ru/130127-rf-protiv-nato-rol-avianoscev-v-yadernom-konflikte.html
                  "Unfortunately, "on the Internet" you constantly have to deal with remarks on the topic "We will be attacked, and we are the whole world in dust!" Alas... Our country has about 1100 cities. Of course, one standard 100 Kt warhead will not be enough to destroy some of them, but nevertheless. As for the United States, they have about 19 cities. And hit them all by hitting 000 warheads, absolutely impossible. And besides ... there will be no 1600 of them. It never happens that absolutely all missiles launch normally - there will still be a certain percentage of failures. In other words, having used up all of their strategic nuclear potential deployed today, we are not the world - we do not dare even the United States into dust. We will inflict terrible losses, destroy a significant number of the urban population - yes. We will eliminate most of the industrial potential - of course. fact.

                  "The whole world is in ruins" - this is from the times of the USSR. When we had not 2550-2600 warheads, but 46 (FORTY-SIX THOUSAND) - that's when - yes, we really could "sow" them on the territory of the United States, and, probably, all of Europe, if not to the complete destruction of any intelligent life, that's very close to it.
                  At the same time, we ourselves, if the Americans choose our cities as a priority goal, will find ourselves in an extremely difficult situation. The vast majority of the urban population will perish. In essence, our losses are unlikely to exceed those of the United States, but we need to understand that they have significantly more cities and population than we do, and they will suffer losses of equal size than we do. 326 million people live in the USA, it is more in 2,22 times than in the Russian Federation. But having an approximate parity in the warheads, we cannot expect to inflict more damage to the Americans in 2,22 times.

                  We can deliver a blow that will kill tens of millions of Americans at once, and many more later, from injury, disease, infection, and as a result of the destruction of their country's infrastructure. And we ourselves, having received a “full-scale response”, will not die out to the last person at all. We will simply remain on the ashes of a once great country in the face of a Europe consolidated and untouched by nuclear fire."

                  Well, the opinion of S. Linnik: "Despite the fact that the number of warheads on strategic carriers in the world has significantly decreased, the massive use of nuclear (thermonuclear) weapons can lead to the loss of centralized power both in the United States and in Russia, and also, given the cold climate in a significant part of our country, to the depopulation of vast territories.Due to the destruction of life-supporting infrastructure, most of the population, even without being exposed to the damaging factors of nuclear weapons, in the absence of food, medical care and shelter will be doomed to extinction.Life will glimmer in remote megacities in rural areas, where at the moment unpretentious residents survive. But even for them, accustomed to minimal amenities, life will not be easy, with the loss of centralized power and lawlessness, a high level of violence and mortality will inevitably force them to unite in communes. https://topwar.ru/98808-yadernye-strahi-mnimye-i-nastoyaschie-chast-2-ya.html
                  1. 6erJIblu
                    6erJIblu 2 February 2022 16: 06
                    -1
                    I believe that Status-6 was developed for this case. To expose the maximum possible territories to radiation contamination.
                    1. Wildcat
                      Wildcat 2 February 2022 16: 33
                      +2
                      Status6 analogues were abandoned at one time because:
                      1. an explosion in water and at a distance from the target significantly weakens the damaging factors, including radiation contamination.
                      2. conditionally available for such a device are several (not all) targets on the coast.
                      3. This device is extremely vulnerable when moving.
                      4. this device is extremely slow, compared, for example, with ICBMs or KR.

                      Before the creation of reliable ICBMs, this idea (50s and 60s of the last century) had some meaning (small, for the reasons stated above), but now it does not exist from the word "absolutely"

                      Skyfall and Canyon do nothing that an ICBM can't, only do it less reliably, longer and with less result and more risk of interception ..

                      The reason why ideas from the last century are embodied - a nuclear cruise missile and a torpedo - IMHO, are purely personal. You can see for yourself who is the MOST in charge of these nuclear things and with WHOM he communicates. In this regard, I will refrain from further discussion and I advise you to do so.

                      The topic has been repeatedly discussed at VO, see the archive of articles.
                      1. 6erJIblu
                        6erJIblu 2 February 2022 16: 50
                        -2
                        Only our coasts are different and the number of cities on them. So this answer does not need to be written off.
                      2. Wildcat
                        Wildcat 2 February 2022 17: 11
                        +2
                        Of course you don't have to write! Dolphins and other American coastal marine life should understand that they are also under the gun.
                  2. Serg4545
                    Serg4545 3 February 2022 11: 22
                    +1
                    Quote: Wildcat
                    As for the USA, they have about 19 cities.

                    In the United States, any village with a population of 1 or more is called a city.
                    Quote: Wildcat
                    We will simply remain on the ashes of a once great country in the face of a Europe consolidated and untouched by nuclear fire."

                    Why is Europe left untouched!?
                    We have many times more tactical charges and their carriers. And all this is kept mainly just for Europe.
                    So Europe may well suffer much more than the United States.
                    1. Wildcat
                      Wildcat 3 February 2022 13: 31
                      0
                      1. "As of 2018, there are 19,495 incorporated cities, towns and villages in the United States. 14,768 of these have populations below 5,000" .

                      "As of April 26, 2019, there are 1117 cities in Russia.
                      The largest - with a population of over 1 million people.
                      Large - from 250 thousand people. up to 1 million people (including subcategories from 250 to 500 thousand and from 500 thousand to 1 million people)
                      Large - from 100 to 250 thousand people.
                      Medium - from 50 to 100 thousand people.
                      Small - up to 50 thousand people. (including subcategories up to 10 thousand, from 10 to 20 thousand and from 20 to 50 thousand people; this also includes urban settlements[2])."
                      In general, Andrei from Chelyabinsk, whom I quoted, gave correct and comparable numbers.

                      And these numbers mean that if the United States and the Russian Federation decide to "demolish cities with the help of nuclear weapons," then we won't even have urban settlements. And the US has about 17000 cities.

                      2. "Why is Europe left untouched!?
                      We have many times more tactical charges and their carriers. And all this is kept mainly just for Europe.
                      So Europe may well suffer much more than the States."
                      This is a good question, if there is a mess with the USA, is it necessary to deal with Europe? In addition to the arguments FOR, there are also serious AGAINST, for example, Europe may not get into the "nuclear batch" and remain our trading partner to some extent. And if we deal with Europe, then to the US nuclear weapons we need to add somewhere around 550 pieces of nuclear weapons or more from France and Great Britain, do we need it?
                      In Europe, too, everything is in order with the cities, and there are goals in it that are more priority than cities - such as Büchel and Folkel. And the chances of intercepting Iskanders / Iskanders-K / Caliber / Su 24 / Su34 / Tu 22 IMHO are higher than those of ICBM warheads.

                      And we still have fraternal China nearby. And no one will dump all the nuclear weapons, it is necessary to leave something in the "bins of the Motherland".

                      So, IMHO, Europe may not suffer (here, as in the old joke about a dinosaur and a blonde around the corner - 50% to 50% ... request )
                      1. Serg4545
                        Serg4545 3 February 2022 19: 03
                        0
                        Quote: Wildcat
                        "As of April 26, 2019, there are 1117 cities in Russia.
                        The largest - with a population of over 1 million people.
                        Large - from 250 thousand people. up to 1 million people (including subcategories from 250 to 500 thousand and from 500 thousand to 1 million people)
                        Large - from 100 to 250 thousand people.
                        Medium - from 50 to 100 thousand people.
                        Small - up to 50 thousand people. (including subcategories up to 10 thousand, from 10 to 20 thousand and from 20 to 50 thousand people; this also includes urban settlements[2])."
                        In general, Andrei from Chelyabinsk, whom I quoted, gave correct and comparable numbers.

                        And these numbers mean that if the United States and the Russian Federation decide to "demolish cities with the help of nuclear weapons," then we won't even have urban settlements. And the US has about 17000 cities.

                        And why do I need Andrei's estimates from Chelyabinsk?
                        When there is scientific modeling by American specialists about the consequences of launching 500 Russian warheads on US cities.
                        I'll try to attach a file with the report to the comment.

                        Briefly, the report says:


                        By subtracting the population living in the 100% firestorm fatality zone, the same census data was used to calculate injuries and deaths based on averaged probabilities for Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

                        The probabilities for overlapping zones were summed up according to the formula: (Total probability P1…PN) = 1-((1-P1)x(1-P2)x…x(1-PN)).

                        Fallout patterns were calculated using the K-Division Defense 3rd Edition Nuclear Fallout Code (KDFOC3) developed at Livermore National Laboratory. Lawrence.

                        The most probable wind speeds and directions for the continental United States, in cells of 2,5 degrees latitude by 2,5 degrees longitude, for 15 altitudes (surface to approximately 30 kilometers high) for each month of the year were used to calculate fallout.

                        Fallout depends (among other things) on the amount of warhead fissile materials that have reacted, and calculations have been made for fission fractions of 50% (the most commonly reported value) and 80%. Based on the assumption that the radioactive products from the explosions decay exponentially over a time of 1,2 hours, the dose rate two days after the explosion would be less than 1% of the initial dose rate, so the health impact was calculated as the cumulative exposure dose for 48 hours in the area. defeat. The factor of the presence of a protective shelter plays a significant role in the received integral radiation dose. For calculations, the "shelter coefficient" was used, which is divided by the instantaneous dose of radiation. Different types of buildings vary the coefficient between 1 (no shelter), 4 (standard one-story residential building), 7 (standard multi-story building) and 40 (basement). Fallout casualties were calculated using conservative parameters of 4,5 Sieverts (Si). A set of such a dose gives a 50% chance of death.
                        US targets for 500 Russian nuclear weapons are chosen to maximize the loss of life. If all 500 warheads were to explode over their targets, an estimated 132 million deaths and 8 million injuries would occur. Assuming that 25% of the warheads fail due to technical reasons, the attack would result in a total of 97 ± 3 million deaths in firestorm zones, where the standard deviation was determined by the random removal of 125 attacking warheads.
                        In this article, the authors did not attempt to calculate additional long-term and indirect losses. Previous studies have suggested that such deaths may exceed direct losses, but since they cannot be accurately calculated, they have not been considered further.
                      2. The comment was deleted.
                      3. Serg4545
                        Serg4545 3 February 2022 19: 45
                        0
                        And that's only 500 warheads!!
                        And if there are 1500 of them?
                        And add on long-term losses (which may exceed immediate losses)?
                        Then the number of victims in the United States could exceed 70 percent of today's population.
                      4. Wildcat
                        Wildcat 3 February 2022 21: 56
                        0
                        "And that's only 500 warheads!!
                        And if there are 1500 of them?
                        And add on long-term losses (which may exceed immediate losses)?
                        Then the number of victims in the United States may exceed 70 percent of today's population" - this option is not considered there. It considers 2000, but in the "counterforce" version: "As a result of the combined effects of nuclear explosions, burns and radiation, an attack of 2000 warheads would lead to 52 ± 2 million deaths and 9 ± 1 million injuries, even though the attack was directed primarily at military targets in sparsely populated areas."

                        Here is another version of the war against nuclear weapons, according to Princeton scientists, "output" is less than 100 million on both sides:


                        I hope that you understand the simple idea: there are fewer goals in the Russian Federation, and they are more compact than in the USA.
                        Accordingly, the losses of the Russian Federation will be higher as a percentage of the population than in the United States,
                  3. lazy
                    lazy 3 February 2022 15: 55
                    0
                    What is considered a city? in the summer there was news "the city of H burned down in California, 1100 people were left homeless", do they even have the concept of a village? then our cities must be counted together with villages and villages
                    1. Wildcat
                      Wildcat 3 February 2022 16: 00
                      0
                      The answer to your question is written above, in black Russian and English letters, on a white background.
                3. Spring fluff
                  Spring fluff 1 February 2022 10: 56
                  +3
                  the resistance of the houses to the result of the explosion is extremely weak. as long as the radius from the epicenter is sufficient to create excess pressure, both cardboard houses and monolithic skyscrapers will be formed. but the pressure decreases in proportion to the cube of the distance, i.e. very quickly, which is why they actually leave very powerful warheads - there is no point in them. and when there is no excess pressure, then the house stood as it stood - at least some kind of cardboard.
            3. 3danimal
              3danimal 1 February 2022 05: 29
              -11
              do their real rulers really need to preserve the urban population

              Theirs?
              Are you talking about a world conspiracy and Freemasons? Or reptilians? lol
              1. Essex62
                Essex62 1 February 2022 11: 09
                +2
                Reptilians are from unscience fiction, and the fact that neither the US official government, but other uncles control the platform of the "world money" printing press is an unusable fact.
                1. 3danimal
                  3danimal 1 February 2022 21: 02
                  +2
                  That's right, the fact is worthless smile
                  What grounds for saying so, apart from conspiracy theories?
                  1. The comment was deleted.
        2. voyaka uh
          voyaka uh 31 January 2022 23: 32
          +7
          "even for such a scenario there are some agreements - like not hitting big cities." ///
          ---
          Unfortunately, there are no such agreements.
          1. Charik
            Charik 1 February 2022 08: 17
            -5
            It seems that Voyaka Wow is well-versed in all aspects, well, not in all world problems, but in many, including in relations between the USA and the Russian Federation, you are not the alien who, according to one English politician-adviser to GDP, only he can know all this "kitchen". laughing
            1. zyablik.olga
              zyablik.olga 1 February 2022 14: 43
              +5
              Quote: Charik
              It seems that Warrior Uh is well aware of all the perspectives, well, not in all world problems

              Are you jealous?
              1. Charik
                Charik 1 February 2022 14: 50
                -7
                yeah, standing up, if he’s an alien, and if a person knows so much, there’s no need for me to have such awareness, you’ll break your head, there are enough other things to do, and who are you, I’m embarrassed to ask, wife or secretary.
                1. Bongo
                  1 February 2022 15: 12
                  +6
                  Quote: Charik
                  and who are you, I hesitate to ask, wife or secretary.

                  Feel shy, but ask anyway. Olya, if that is my wife. And the fact that you allow yourself boorish attacks in relation to Alexei, who has established himself as a cultured and very seasoned visitor to the site, does not color you. Let's be mutually polite and treat others as we would like to be treated.
                  1. Charik
                    Charik 1 February 2022 15: 17
                    -7
                    I apologize a thousand times, I would like to know what you consider rudeness in my comment: an alien or an all-aspect-aware.
                    1. Bongo
                      1 February 2022 15: 21
                      +4
                      Quote: Charik
                      I apologize a thousand times, I would like to know what you consider rudeness in my comment: an alien or an all-aspect-aware.

                      Would you like to be asked such a question about you?
                      My good advice to you is to stop fooling around. If you have to say that on the topic of publication - I will be glad. If not, then you should not flood.
                      1. Charik
                        Charik 1 February 2022 15: 31
                        -2
                        Nope, I'm an amateur in nuclear weapons, I only know the names, but I passed next to a peaceful atom.
                      2. Charik
                        Charik 1 February 2022 15: 45
                        -2
                        I’m more interested in the CD, will you make articles on them?
                      3. Bongo
                        1 February 2022 16: 16
                        +4
                        Quote: Charik
                        I’m more interested in the CD, will you make articles on them?

                        The AGM-86В ALCM airborne missile launchers and their nuclear warheads were discussed in the previous parts of the cycle. There are no other CDs carrying nuclear warheads in the US.
                      4. Charik
                        Charik 1 February 2022 16: 34
                        -2
                        For the X family, from the 22nd to the latest model, it would be entertaining and interesting, not necessarily vigorous.
                      5. Bongo
                        1 February 2022 16: 35
                        +6
                        Quote: Charik
                        For the X family, from the 22nd to the latest model, it would be entertaining and interesting, not necessarily vigorous.

                        This is not for me. You can sit down for such an article now.
                      6. Charik
                        Charik 1 February 2022 16: 40
                        -3
                        I mean? Is it possible to get a term for a story about our weapons? Is everything really so bad that you can’t discuss your toys?
                      7. Charik
                        Charik 1 February 2022 16: 37
                        -3
                        I didn’t ask him some nasty things
                2. Fan-fan
                  Fan-fan 1 February 2022 15: 50
                  +8
                  Warrior Wow, just an adequate person and has the right thoughts in his head, unlike some of ours.
                  1. Charik
                    Charik 1 February 2022 16: 21
                    -2
                    I understand, not the first day I read the site.
        3. Looking for
          Looking for 1 February 2022 17: 31
          -1
          One of the most important methods of any war is TERRING. It is not for nothing that the purpose of the only use of nuclear weapons so far was not the industrial centers of Japan, but residential civilian areas.
          1. 6erJIblu
            6erJIblu 2 February 2022 16: 09
            0
            Against the backdrop of a burned Tokyo, they were not particularly scared.
      2. Spring fluff
        Spring fluff 1 February 2022 10: 50
        -3
        deeply misunderstood. once again carefully look at the picture with the affected areas - even people living in the immediate vicinity (a few kilometers, well, take 10 km for example) will not be affected by the impact in any way. it is described in detail about targets in the United States, add here infrastructure facilities (energy, military-industrial complex, engineering, transport), foreign bases (the United States has 700-800 mine) and it becomes clear that the available 1500 warheads (and delivery vehicles, counting bombers and even less ) neither they nor we can completely destroy each other even close. not to mention the allies and the rest of the world. so the question of who is to blame and who how they behaved during the war will definitely be on the agenda.
    2. Barberry25
      Barberry25 31 January 2022 19: 13
      -5
      Well, I don’t know the plans, but it seems like the Gerasimov doctrine has not yet been canceled, so the attacks on infrastructure will be the second after the strikes on the Central Control Center and military facilities
    3. Bongo
      1 February 2022 01: 38
      +10
      Quote: paul3390
      is it necessary to iron megacities at all, with the current number of warheads? After all, if you process the infrastructure, for example, energy, the cities themselves will perish, but you will not look like an outright cannibal ..

      Within the framework of the concept of "nuclear deterrence", megacities are among the priority targets. They are important administrative, industrial and transport centers, and a significant part of the urban population is valuable as a mobilization resource.
  2. Wildcat
    Wildcat 31 January 2022 18: 19
    +8
    hi
    As always, great article and illustrations!
    To neutralize 400 silos, launch control infrastructure, missile bases and arsenals, according to the most conservative estimates, at least 600 warheads will be required. That is, the main task of the old "Minutemen" may be to divert enemy warheads, which can potentially be used against other important objects.
    Hence the nickname of intercontinental ballistic missiles - America's "nuclear sponge".

    By the way, it was precisely such a strange excuse for the Minutemen that the Americans came across in the form of "2 submarine bases with ballistic missiles, nuclear bomber bases - this is a few enemy warheads, but mine installations will require much more." Opponents of this position argue that the "enemy" has already moved away from the concept of a disarming strike and will still hit cities.

    However, there are still approximately two hundred more recent W87 warheads in nuclear storage, and if necessary, they can be put on missiles.
    it would be interesting to read about the "return potential" of the United States, for example, how many blocks can be returned to the Minutemen, how things are with the disarmed B1B or B52N (which not everyone can carry nuclear weapons, as the "cookie-bearing" State Department says).
    1. OgnennyiKotik
      OgnennyiKotik 31 January 2022 21: 06
      +8
      For some reason, in the reasoning, everyone believes that the exchange of nuclear strikes is end war. In fact - this just the beginning.
      The loss of 20-30 million people for the United States is extremely painful, but not fatal. If we succeed in inflicting a preventive nuclear strike on us, then the losses will be reduced to 2-3 million, which is approximately equal to a yearly death rate. For us, the loss of 20-30 million people is a catastrophe and the loss of the remnants of defense capability. Let me remind you that ~ 330 million live in the USA, we have ~ 140 million. This is without allies.
      Speaking of military infrastructure, the picture here is even worse. Their fleet will practically not suffer, the ILC will also be preserved almost completely. The Air Force and the Army as a whole will remain combat-ready and will be restored at the expense of the National Guard, conscription and allies. We will suffer catastrophic losses in the fleet and air force, the army can still be saved. You need to understand that they are dispersed around the world, we use a few naval bases and airfields. A huge fleet of air tankers will allow them to redeploy the Air Force to unaffected regions, the aircraft of the Navy and the Marine Corps will be completely preserved.
      Then there will be an invasion, with the obvious loss of Russia and the genocide of the surviving population. The Russian question will be finally resolved, the current government of the Russian Federation is leading us to this. The probability of a successful preventive disarming nuclear strike on their part is increasing every year, while the probability of a retaliatory strike on our part is declining.
      1. Wildcat
        Wildcat 31 January 2022 23: 54
        +5
        hi
        I do not quite agree, but the differences are not fundamental, but only in the assessment of damage.

        Their fleet will practically not suffer, the ILC will also be preserved almost completely. The Air Force and the Army as a whole will retain their combat effectiveness and will be restored ... A huge fleet of air tankers will allow them to redeploy the Air Force to unaffected regions, the aircraft of the Navy and the Marine Corps will be fully preserved.
        if the exchange of blows is sudden, then at least 1/3 of the fleet will be lost in the bases (ships are not constantly at sea, there are repairs and visits to the base); for the Air Force (in the sense of the Air Force Air Force, Navy, Army, National Guard and others), this share will be even higher.
        IMHO, it would be a great stupidity to engage in an impossible mission with limited potential "their cities will get no less than ours .. If not more" without touching the military and industrial potential.
        Of course, if there is at least some period of tension, obviously turning into a conflict with nuclear weapons, then ships in any condition that will allow them to stay on the surface will be pushed into the sea. And aviation will be dispersed over airfields, of which there are a lot.

        The loss of 20-30 million people for the United States is extremely painful, but not fatal. If we succeed in inflicting a preventive nuclear strike on us, then the losses will be reduced to 2-3 million, which is approximately equal to a yearly death rate. For us, the loss of 20-30 million people is a catastrophe and the loss of the remnants of defense capability. Let me remind you that ~ 330 million live in the USA, we have ~ 140 million. This is without allies.
        Undoubtedly. Especially considering the sad fact that a lot of people in the United States will be able to do the "Marshall Plan" on the contrary, and the Russian Federation, apart from the BR, especially has no allies (although "everything is complicated" here too).

        Then there will be an invasion, with the obvious loss of Russia and the genocide of the surviving population. The Russian question will be finally resolved, the current government of the Russian Federation is leading us to this. The probability of a successful preventive disarming nuclear strike on their part is increasing every year, while the probability of a retaliatory strike on our part is declining.
        intrusion in such a situation is possible only to finish off and seize some important things. It will be enough to do without even occupation, simply by taking control of the TV in the person of one long-haired - without false modesty - telegenius. And somewhere in six months, the population will finally understand where it is, really. And the amount of reparations and indemnities will be indicated.
        The scheme with a triple change of shoes in the air for a TV is not new, let's take the most radical fighter for a just cause:

        Or, finally, he will be able to achieve real freedom of speech, as he wanted:


        S. Linnik believes that "with the loss of centralized power and lawlessness, a high level of violence and mortality will inevitably force them to unite in communes." But this is because he not only has a gun on his profile picture, but also IMHO, several friends like him. Most do not only have guns, but also do not have self-organization skills at the level of neighbors or relatives, so - God forbid - it will turn out like in RI. As a result of the collapse of the Republic of Ingushetia, a small, but close-knit and armed group (Marxist-Leninists with their Capital) gained power, having read books by bearded men living together about "everything around should be common, including women."
        Later, the USSR, created by Marxist-Leninists, also collapsed, and a close-knit group of free-market privatizers who had read Economics gained power. By the way, at the first stage there was less blood than during the decay of RI.
        So in the terrible event of a military collapse - Gd forbid - power can again be taken by a small, but close-knit and armed group that has read any books. We can do without genocide, a civil war. God forbid, of course.
      2. Charik
        Charik 1 February 2022 08: 23
        -7
        hello Alibabaevich
      3. Spring fluff
        Spring fluff 1 February 2022 11: 06
        0
        generally agree except for "and the genocide of the surviving population." who needs genocide and why (is there a rational explanation)? are there examples in history?
      4. Looking for
        Looking for 1 February 2022 17: 39
        -1
        from whose palm do you "feed" a newcomer - from Ovsk or Kiev ?? and now about the losses, compare the population density and infrastructure of the United States and ours.
    2. Bongo
      1 February 2022 01: 54
      +9
      Hello! hi
      Quote: Wildcat
      As always, great article and illustrations!

      Thank you! drinks
      Quote: Wildcat
      By the way, it was precisely such a strange excuse for the Minutemen that the Americans came across in the form of "2 submarine bases with ballistic missiles, nuclear bomber bases - this is a few enemy warheads, but mine installations will require much more." Opponents of this position argue that the "enemy" has already moved away from the concept of a disarming strike and will still hit cities.

      It is worth recognizing that we no longer have the opportunity to destroy silos and "hit the cities." You have to choose one thing. request
      Quote: Wildcat
      it would be interesting to read about the "return potential" of the United States, for example, how many blocks can be returned to the Minutemen, how things are with the disarmed B1B or B52N (which not everyone can carry nuclear weapons, as the "cookie-bearing" State Department says).

      I myself would be interested in it. yes
      As for the Minetmen, the Americans, of course, will not return warheads to them. The United States is currently implementing a large-scale program of "reanimation" of nuclear warheads, and the primary task is to maintain the minimum required number of warheads for deployed launchers.
      As for the "non-nuclear" status of part of the B-52H and all B-1Bs, this, in my amateurish opinion, is cunning. It is clear that these aircraft cannot carry missile launchers with nuclear warheads, but free-falling thermonuclear bombs are easy.
      1. Alien From
        Alien From 1 February 2022 14: 44
        +4
        Dear Bongo! Wonderful series of articles hi
  3. pytar
    pytar 31 January 2022 18: 25
    +3
    Very interesting, sobering article! In short, there will be no global war. Mutual destruction is guaranteed.
    Respect to the author! hi
  4. rocket757
    rocket757 31 January 2022 18: 46
    +1
    The weapon of the end of the world ... alas, alas, it does not become, fundamentally less!
    1. Barberry25
      Barberry25 31 January 2022 19: 18
      0
      need to reshoot "the next day" 1983
      1. engineer74
        engineer74 31 January 2022 20: 03
        +4
        Quote: Barberry25
        need to reshoot "the next day" 1983

        You can re-show "Threads" (Threads, 1984), the most "exciting" film on the subject. Without American gloss and Russian gloomy philosophy... wink
    2. Bongo
      1 February 2022 01: 58
      +8
      Quote: rocket757
      The weapon of the end of the world ... alas, alas, it does not become, fundamentally less!

      In the 30 years that have passed since the collapse of the USSR, the number of nuclear warheads in the United States and in our country has decreased many times over. Another question is that the existing reserves are quite enough for our country to cease to exist. Unfortunately, due to a number of factors, the Americans are in a more advantageous situation.
      1. rocket757
        rocket757 1 February 2022 08: 25
        -4
        Quote: Bongo
        Another question is that the available reserves are quite enough,

        That's it, that's enough!
        What difference does it make, how many times you can bury someone, under a layer of radioactive dust ashes, one time is enough.
        1. Fan-fan
          Fan-fan 1 February 2022 16: 02
          +3
          And I thought that it was already clear to many that only with nuclear weapons we would not bury America under radioactive ashes. It turns out not, there are people who believe in the fantastic power of a nuclear bomb.
          1. rocket757
            rocket757 1 February 2022 16: 20
            0
            Well, you have a fantasy! Where did you find this for me???
            1. Fan-fan
              Fan-fan 1 February 2022 16: 22
              +3
              That is:
              What difference does it make how many times you can bury someone, under a layer of radioactive dust ashes,

              I answer - and once we will not bury.
              1. rocket757
                rocket757 1 February 2022 16: 37
                0
                The question was rhetorical ... I, in general, am for world peace, which I have always written about and will continue to write about.
                By the way, the arguments that they can do it for us, but we can’t do anything anymore ... there are a lot of them.
                But no one will dare to check ... so be it.
              2. 6erJIblu
                6erJIblu 2 February 2022 16: 17
                0
                And the theoretical vigorous winter is not taken into account?
  5. Knell wardenheart
    Knell wardenheart 31 January 2022 18: 49
    +7
    Thanks for the informative article, Sergey!
    Although the separation of missile launches in time up to 24 hours is, of course, not a cake in terms of the potential for overloading the missile defense system of the attacked side. Still, it's a big naivety to believe that the US "fell below the plinth". The first defense budget of the planet, after all ..
    1. Barberry25
      Barberry25 31 January 2022 19: 16
      -3
      in reality, it’s more like a “reserve in case of negotiations”
    2. Bongo
      1 February 2022 02: 04
      +6
      Quote: Knell Wardenheart
      Thanks for the informative article, Sergey!
      Although the separation of missile launches in time up to 24 hours is, of course, not a cake in terms of the potential for overloading the missile defense system of the attacked side. Still, it's a big naivety to believe that the US "fell below the plinth". The first defense budget of the planet, after all ..

      Do you think that we will be able to launch all ICBMs in a retaliatory strike? No. It is also known who will have a higher percentage of launches in the first half hour.
      The Americans do not need to overload our missile defense system, since only one city, Moscow, is covered by missile defense in Russia. But the Moscow missile defense system is rather designed to protect against accidental launches. With a massive blow, it will be easily "pushed through".
      1. Barberry25
        Barberry25 1 February 2022 10: 42
        -7
        does the American have the most luxurious missile defense system?
        1. Bongo
          1 February 2022 12: 33
          +8
          Quote: Barberry25
          does the American have the most luxurious missile defense system?

          In terms of the territory covered and the possible number of intercepted warheads, the American missile defense system has significantly greater capabilities than Moscow's missile defense system.
          1. Barberry25
            Barberry25 1 February 2022 12: 38
            -10
            but do the Americans know that they have the most chic? But how did the Americans themselves say it is not very big for them and that they really lack the analogue of the S-400 and that the Patriot is not a fountain
            1. Bongo
              1 February 2022 12: 53
              +7
              Quote: Barberry25
              And then, as the Americans themselves said, it is not very big for them and that they really lack the analogue of the S-400 and that the Patriot is not a fountain

              Since when is the Patriot and S-400 capable of fighting ICBM warheads? fool
              1. Barberry25
                Barberry25 1 February 2022 14: 09
                -10
                since their inception, although their range is less due to the peculiarities of the use of ICBMs)
                1. zyablik.olga
                  zyablik.olga 1 February 2022 14: 42
                  +7
                  Quote: Barberry25
                  since their inception, although their range is less due to the peculiarities of the use of ICBMs)
                  wassat
                  Yes, your knowledge is clearly zero, but you are not shy about it.
                2. Bongo
                  1 February 2022 15: 04
                  +7
                  Quote: Barberry25
                  since its inception, although their range is less due to the peculiarities of the use of ICBMs

                  It’s even strange to read this on VO. fool
                  The Patriot and S-400 air defense systems are at most "too tough" by the OTP. You should at least google before writing such outright nonsense.
                  1. Barberry25
                    Barberry25 1 February 2022 15: 43
                    -7
                    It’s even strange to read this on VO
                    at VO in serious cabbage soup they discussed using the Tu-160 as anti-submarine aircraft)
      2. Knell wardenheart
        Knell wardenheart 1 February 2022 11: 19
        0
        "It seems like" they declared the S-500 a suitable means for interception. If this is true, then our potential is somewhat beyond the boundaries of Moscow and the Moscow Region (and at least increases the chances of interception in the calculations, affecting the total number of missiles allocated to the object). This does mean to me that we are "in the house", just in the case of a smeared launch, our chances are somewhat higher.
        1. Bongo
          1 February 2022 12: 35
          +6
          Quote: Knell Wardenheart
          It seems like they declared the S-500 a suitable means for interception.

          Is the S-500 system on combat duty? There is no reliable information about the capabilities of the S-500
        2. OgnennyiKotik
          OgnennyiKotik 1 February 2022 12: 49
          +3
          Quote: Knell Wardenheart
          "It seems like" they declared the S-500 a suitable means for interception.

          According to what is available, this is our analogue of THAAD, which has been in service since 2008.
          1. Bongo
            1 February 2022 12: 56
            +7
            Quote: OgnennyiKotik
            According to what is available, this is our analogue of THAAD, which has been in service since 2008.

            If you believe the advertising, then the S-500, due to the use of elements of the S-400, can also deal with aerodynamic targets, and has limited anti-satellite capabilities. But it is not exactly.
            1. OgnennyiKotik
              OgnennyiKotik 1 February 2022 13: 00
              +3
              THAAD and Patriot are also united in a single network and can use each other's data. The direct analogue of THAAD is the S-550, to be more precise and believe the information that is.
              1. Barberry25
                Barberry25 1 February 2022 15: 45
                -5
                only on Thaad they offer to pray. and "s-500 does not exist" according to Bongo)
                1. Bongo
                  1 February 2022 16: 19
                  +6
                  Quote: Barberry25
                  "s-500 does not exist" according to Bongo

                  Where did I say that?
                  Judging by your statements, you are completely inadequate fool
                  1. Barberry25
                    Barberry25 1 February 2022 16: 24
                    -4
                    Is the S-500 system on combat duty? There is no reliable information about the capabilities of the S-500
                    and what's that? Moreover, they wrote about interceding for an experimental duty even on a topvarchik last year .. or "you give me all the performance characteristics and 50 divisions and then I will believe that it is?"
                    1. Bongo
                      1 February 2022 16: 28
                      +5
                      Those. do you want to say that the S-500 carries a database in the combat unit?
                      What is "trial operation" you know?
                      Apparently not. No.
                      Have you ever served in the armed forces? wink
                      1. Barberry25
                        Barberry25 1 February 2022 16: 30
                        -6
                        and I served and I know) so I will hear the answer to the question that I asked a couple of hours ago - what percentage of reliability distinguishes missiles from a warehouse from missiles on alert?
                      2. Bongo
                        1 February 2022 16: 34
                        +5
                        If they really served and knew, then such frank nonsense would not be flogged. No.
                      3. Barberry25
                        Barberry25 1 February 2022 16: 41
                        -7
                        yes yes yes, "I'm smart, you, I know better", I have already heard this several times from the "star admirals" of the topvar, though then they pretended that they did not write anything when their prophecies and statements turned out to be incorrect. By the way, it turns out that the article of the topvar about the "New S-550 air defense system took up combat duty" apparently a lie?)
                  2. Barberry25
                    Barberry25 1 February 2022 16: 29
                    -6
                    and yes, as an adequate specialist, can you tell me the difference in percentage of reliability between missiles from a warehouse and missiles from combat duty?
                    1. Bongo
                      1 February 2022 16: 31
                      +5
                      Quote: Barberry25
                      and yes, as an adequate specialist, can you tell me the difference in percentage of reliability between missiles from a warehouse and missiles from combat duty?

                      For American missiles, contact the US Department of Defense. As for ours, this is classified information. wink
                      1. Barberry25
                        Barberry25 1 February 2022 16: 35
                        -5
                        those. "there is a difference, but I have no idea, but since the article is about the fact that American missiles are powerful, I had to justify the number of failures with a special US approach to missile testing," this is if deployed)
  6. tralflot1832
    tralflot1832 31 January 2022 18: 53
    -2
    Sergey, I'm sorry, you don't know what kind of American "long-range" know-how is on the cover of the ICBM shaft.
    What is connected with.
    1. The comment was deleted.
      1. The comment was deleted.
      2. tralflot1832
        tralflot1832 31 January 2022 19: 34
        0
        Print it out and show it on the site.
        1. The comment was deleted.
    2. Bongo
      1 February 2022 02: 13
      +10
      Quote: tralflot1832
      Sergey, I'm sorry, you don't know what kind of American "long-range" know-how is on the cover of the ICBM shaft.

      Hello!
      This is not a "long-range", but a maintenance vehicle. In the publication there is a photo where she also got into the frame.
  7. Barberry25
    Barberry25 31 January 2022 19: 18
    -7
    the only thing I disagree with about "unsuccessful tests are old missiles from warehouses after re-equipment", logically, such missiles, on the contrary, should show a higher percentage of successful launches. missiles are carefully prepared during the conversion phase
    1. Toucan
      Toucan 1 February 2022 03: 14
      +5
      And you really don't agree! No.
      The Americans, like us, first of all shoot off old missiles that have no further prospects for use. More recent missiles are on alert.
      1. Barberry25
        Barberry25 1 February 2022 09: 36
        -6
        those. Americans don't check the missiles they shoot?
        1. Toucan
          Toucan 1 February 2022 10: 23
          +4
          Quote: Barberry25
          those. Americans don't check the missiles they shoot?

          Why did you decide this? After all, it is obvious that the old rocket is less reliable, and the missiles carrying the database are better monitored.
          1. Barberry25
            Barberry25 1 February 2022 10: 39
            -7
            so you decide whether the rocket is old and is not being monitored, or the rocket is old and it goes through all the stages of testing during assembly before launch, otherwise the question arises about the professionalism of the department responsible for collecting and preparing the rocket for launch, not to mention the fact that the rockets from conservation do not lie on the street in the rain, but are stored under special conditions, which does not greatly affect their reliability
            1. Toucan
              Toucan 1 February 2022 11: 13
              +5
              You are engaged in demagogy. negative
              All missiles are checked and diagnosed before control and test firing. But the older the product, the higher the risk of failure of individual elements directly in flight. Is it clear now?
              1. Barberry25
                Barberry25 1 February 2022 11: 28
                -9
                Well, the author spread the demagogy by stating that old missiles in tests show poor results because the old ones, if the work schedule is observed, then it’s not about age, but in the systems themselves, not to mention the fact that the rocket on the database can have more wear and tear in case of violation of the conditions operation during checks, and during storage, checks are already being carried out before launch .. So if you can nod at the "old age" of missiles, then the difference would be a few percent, and not "launch problems in 3 out of 5 cases"
                1. Toucan
                  Toucan 1 February 2022 12: 28
                  +4
                  The author is absolutely right, but you are just flooding, and you undertake to judge what you absolutely do not understand. negative
                  1. Barberry25
                    Barberry25 1 February 2022 12: 30
                    -9
                    well, accusing the opponent of not understanding anything is a classic). But I still haven’t heard a clear answer why a missile from storage after all tests is several times worse in reliability than a missile standing on the database ..
                    1. Bongo
                      1 February 2022 12: 51
                      +5
                      I'm not surprised that you have a "negative" balance, I'm surprised that the "minus" is not so deep. You really don't understand basic things.
                      What's your education? Have you studied such disciplines as materials science, or strength of materials? Apparently they haven't studied...
                      Prelaunch tests allow you to check the performance of certain nodes and systems. But they are not able to identify a part (valve or servo) that will fail after the start due to age degradation of the material. Missiles on duty are certainly more reliable. They are "hot", their electronics and electrical engineering are powered. The probability of failure of a missile taken from storage is much higher.
                      Any rocket scientist will tell you that.
                      1. Barberry25
                        Barberry25 1 February 2022 13: 02
                        -8
                        lol, it remains only to nod at the "balance on the topware" .. are you serious now? On the topware, in principle, in order to get a positive balance, you need to write beautiful populist comments about "Ice cream was tastier in the USSR" or "the evil government, we are gone", but here if you write your opinion, then it will just be a minus) so the balance on the topvar is just NOT an indicator .. About "the probability of a missile failure from storage is much higher" .. Can you voice this indicator? how much higher? by 5, by 10 , 50% higher? Just following your article, if the Americans launched combat missiles, they would take off 5 out of 5, but for some reason they are fools for some reason using old prescribed missiles and constantly getting unsuccessful launches. So closer to the numbers, I certainly understand that on topvar, in principle, it is not customary to write in a good way about us and in a bad way about the West, the signer will not understand, but one would like to see the next article about "rusty missiles of Russia", which will talk about "well, there were fewer unsuccessful launches in Russia, but no rockets anyway reliable" laughing
                      2. zyablik.olga
                        zyablik.olga 1 February 2022 14: 39
                        +8
                        Quote: Barberry25
                        On topvar, in principle, in order to get a positive balance, you need to write beautiful populist comments about "In the USSR, ice cream was tastier" or "evil government, we are gone" ...

                        No, it is quite enough to write competent comments on articles in the "Armament" section. But for this you need to have common sense and a stock of knowledge. wink
                      3. Barberry25
                        Barberry25 1 February 2022 15: 40
                        -3
                        oh yes, for the sake of interest, I was looking through an old article .. about the S-400, and so the comment "for some reason they will not be accepted and will not be purchased as they promise by 2020 and I do not believe" - ​​scored pluses, and a comment about what they bought by 2018, this number of divisions received minuses, because "well, you can't admit the fact that something went positively"
  8. Boratsagdiev
    Boratsagdiev 31 January 2022 19: 25
    -16
    "To neutralize 400 silos, launch control infrastructure, missile bases and arsenals, according to the most conservative estimates, at least 600 warheads will be required" - but is it necessary ?!
    For this, there is enough infrastructure (civilian and military) and you won’t need much.
    "and part of the warheads can be intercepted by missile defense systems." - in the days of the USSR, everything was done much easier, an interceptor with a thermonuclear warhead and all warheads within the radius of the radiation turned into a "zilch".
    And what did the author want to say? ... all weapons have a danger (by definition).
    And no one will scatter nuclear iron just like that. Other times.
    Someone else's good is not profitable to spoil, it can then be used.
    1. Bongo
      1 February 2022 02: 21
      +6
      Quote: BoratSagdiev
      "To neutralize 400 silos, launch control infrastructure, missile bases and arsenals, according to the most conservative estimates, at least 600 warheads will be required" - but is it necessary ?!
      For this, there is enough infrastructure (civilian and military) and you won’t need much.
      "and part of the warheads can be intercepted by missile defense systems." - in the days of the USSR, everything was done much easier, an interceptor with a thermonuclear warhead and all warheads within the radius of the radiation turned into a "zilch".
      And what did the author want to say? ... all weapons have a danger (by definition).
      And no one will scatter nuclear iron just like that. Other times.
      Someone else's good is not profitable to spoil, it can then be used.

      Do you seem to have problems with the perception of information, even if it is presented as accessible and chewed as possible? wassat
      And it would be nice if you wrote about what you know at least a little. fool
      Thermonuclear warheads with an increased neutron yield on interceptors of the Moscow missile defense system are still in use. Please tell us at what distance they turn enemy warheads "into a zilch", and what then happens after they are detonated, and for how long do ionized zones form in space that are not visible to radars?
      1. Boratsagdiev
        Boratsagdiev 1 February 2022 21: 22
        -3
        I don't need to chew, I have my own teeth.
        you seem to have written the same thing (which they later rewrote in the answer).
        and the full performance characteristics were laid out for you (what is for the public is already freely available).
        And in general, what kind of manner went boorish communication and twisting?!
        Specialists and decent people do not behave like that. Only perhaps from the first channel and Ren TV.
        1. zyablik.olga
          zyablik.olga 2 February 2022 12: 49
          +4
          Quote: BoratSagdiev
          Specialists and decent people do not behave like that. Only perhaps from the first channel and Ren TV.

          Specialists, and even reasonable people, at least try to understand the meaning of what is written. If you watch Channel 1 and Ren TV, this says a lot.
          1. Boratsagdiev
            Boratsagdiev 8 February 2022 22: 00
            -2
            Quote: zyablik.olga
            Specialists, and even reasonable people, at least try to understand the meaning of what is written. If you watch Channel 1 and Ren TV, this says a lot.

            your imagination goes wild, and what you write concerns you and the author.
  9. Aviator_
    Aviator_ 31 January 2022 19: 25
    +16
    But after a series of severe accidents that occurred in the late 1970s and early 1980s, President Ronald Reagan in October 1981 decided to decommission all Titan-2 ICBMs.

    This is not after the case when the hard worker dropped the wrench into the mine, he dinged on the bottom and pierced the tank. Everyone quickly hit the road and began to wait for specially trained people who appeared an hour later, measured the concentration of fuel in the mine and announced - "Right now it will explode!" And it exploded. The warhead flew off into the forest for a couple of kilometers. I read it in 1981 or 1982.
  10. Soldatov V.
    Soldatov V. 31 January 2022 19: 37
    -4
    I would like to note from memory that in the seventies America went to sign START-1,2 not out of peacefulness, but because 80% of solid-fueled ballistic missiles were not combat-ready. When missiles are stored and placed on combat duty for more than 5-10 years, voids or cavities form in the fuel. And the rockets exploded at launch. They could not immediately replace 600-700 missiles, and in order to solve the problem and buy time, they went to START.
    At that time, we had about 1600 liquid-fuel rockets reaching the United States. In general, the United States then made big concessions, because we could destroy them without a retaliatory strike. Brezhnev was very glad that he pushed back the threat of nuclear war.
    When America rearmed, they gradually withdrew from all treaties, having played enough with Gorbachev and Yeltsin.
    The conclusion is this - if we want to exist on earth, our weapons should be one step ahead of US weapons. soldier
    Happy Chinese New Year! drinks love drinks
    1. voyaka uh
      voyaka uh 31 January 2022 23: 36
      +9
      "When storing and putting missiles on combat duty for more than 5-10 years, voids or cavities form in the fuel" ///
      ---
      In this case, do Poplars and Yars have big problems?
      Why, if caverns form, Russia has replaced all of its liquid-propellant ICBMs
      on rockets with solid fuel?
      1. Soldatov V.
        Soldatov V. 1 February 2022 02: 50
        +1
        I guess, yes. For a long time we could not make solid fuel for ballistic missiles.
        When the problems were solved, then they began to make solid-propellant rockets. But we have not abandoned liquid rockets. In terms of the efficiency of the thrown weight, they are better.
        Each type of rocket has its pros and cons.
      2. B-15
        B-15 1 February 2022 08: 16
        +8
        Therefore, the oldest missiles are fired.
        For example, during training firing of the S300 in Kapustin Yar, the sidewalls of rockets from the 70s and 80s of production periodically burned out.
        It's definitely better now. :-)
  11. bk0010
    bk0010 31 January 2022 20: 09
    -3
    Such warheads had a CEP of 100–120 m.
    Oh how! It seems that the maximum accuracy when using an inertial guidance system is 111 m. Do they still somehow correct the trajectory? What about the stars?
    1. voyaka uh
      voyaka uh 1 February 2022 11: 03
      +4
      The only way, it seems, is a correction in the last kilometers using an active radar in the seeker.
      The warhead is strongly inhibited by the atmosphere before detonation. And for a few seconds the radar turns on. And with the help of side gas rudders, a correction is made to the target.
      This is how the tactical missiles of Iskander, Laura work.

      If there is another way for the IBR warhead, correct it. hi
      1. Bongo
        1 February 2022 12: 39
        +5
        Quote: voyaka uh
        The only way, it seems, is a correction in the last kilometers using an active radar in the seeker.

        This is for OTR. ICBMs and SLBMs use astro correction. Americans have recently been using satellite navigation as a backup. But we must understand that with a high degree of probability it will not work in a global conflict.
        1. voyaka uh
          voyaka uh 1 February 2022 13: 05
          +7
          Satellite navigation is constantly improving...
          Some kind of GPS Block III is on the way.
          The satellites began to communicate using laser signals.
          Maybe they will bring warheads?
  12. Maikcg
    Maikcg 1 February 2022 00: 08
    -8
    By 2006, the Americans unilaterally reduced the number of warheads on all Minuteman-3 missiles to one.

    For these people with low social responsibility to voluntarily film something, it must be filmed. Plutonium doesn’t care, only we can use it for peaceful purposes, but uranium from ammunition could have been decontaminated at nuclear power plants laughing
  13. Osipov9391
    Osipov9391 1 February 2022 00: 22
    +4
    Here, no one even mentioned the number of US bases and military facilities outside their territory.
    And inevitably, on our part, it will be necessary to hit them with strategic nuclear weapons, because today Russia has no other means.
    What does it mean ? This means that, let's assume, out of 50-70% of the surviving nuclear arsenal of the Russian Federation, more than half will have to be spent on the destruction of European and Asian US bases simply to avoid an invasion of our territory.
    With the remaining 30-35% of strategic nuclear forces, we will not cause critical damage to American territory, or the blow will be largely parried by their missile defense system.

    Despite the fact that the nuclear arsenal of the United States / Britain / France will be almost completely preserved.
    1. tiger19
      tiger19 April 9 2022 03: 11
      0
      For them, critical damage is 100 thousand killed on their land. After what happens, members of the Government and the Pentagon will be hung by the balls. It is our cheburashkas that can be driven to slaughter and no one will rock the boat. America has a different attitude towards its losses. We're talking about millions here. Yes, they will strangle their crazy idiots for 100 thousand.
  14. Max PV
    Max PV 1 February 2022 00: 40
    +3
    Usually, when they count the losses from the hypothetical use of nuclear weapons, they "hollow" the cities and count millions of corpses, but there is also such a thing as critical infrastructure facilities and facilities whose destruction by nuclear weapons is catastrophic and can cause harm many times greater than that which could inflict the warheads used against them, even if they hit the centers of megacities. The first can be attributed, first of all, to ports. As you know, 90% of international cargo turnover is provided by sea transport, and a modern cargo ship cannot be unloaded anywhere. There should be a quay wall with a fairway of sufficient depth, unloading and loading infrastructure, road and railway lines, pipeline transport, storage areas, etc. etc. In the event of a ground-based nuclear explosion, any port will be partially or completely destroyed, and it will be impossible to work on its territory for months, and near the epicenter for years. The second most important of the infrastructure facilities, I would call large backbone substations. The entire economy is now tied to electricity - if it is not there, nothing works. At the same time, it is not as easy to restore a substation as it seems, since I am not talking about a "walking booth", but about really powerful substations occupying tens of hectares, clogged with very expensive non-serial and small-scale equipment, which, at best, can be found to be replaced in a single quantity throughout the world, but usually must be made to order. The third, in my opinion, extremely important infrastructure node is the junction railway stations, as well as road and railway bridges that provide the main cargo, goods, transport and passenger traffic of industrial centers and large urban agglomerations. And the fourth goal - oil storage facilities, oil pipelines and refineries - without delivery from outside, with difficulties with internal logistics, and with destroyed fuel reserves, it is absolutely impossible to deliver anything. For example, in the USA, even if only these targets are correctly selected and bombed, without delivering targeted strikes on cities, with the exception of those where these targets are located, the losses will, as it were, no more than with targeted bombing of only cities.
    The targets that can cause more damage than the nuclear weapons that destroyed them include nuclear power plants and hydroelectric dams. In the same Chernobyl, for example, less than a percent of radioactive materials entered the atmosphere, and of what was 90% remained within the fourth power unit, and nevertheless, this is the worst non-military nuclear disaster in history. Now imagine, for example, two successive nuclear strikes of 100kt, with a ground explosion, inflicted on a nuclear power plant - the infection will be several orders of magnitude worse. This also includes "decision-making centers" and "financial centers", but only in case of defeat and those located in the territories of third countries. And besides, even single strikes on megacities can be extremely destructive, without their complete destruction, but, again, with a ground explosion of a warhead to create a strong long-term contamination of the territory. The task of such strikes, first of all, is to force the population to leave large cities en masse, creating a situation of simultaneous appearance of tens of millions of refugees, a significant part of whom require medical care, and all without exception water and food, which no one can provide in a nuclear war.
    I wrote so many letters to make it clear that even if someone succeeds in a "disarming" preventive strike with 90% incapacitation of the opponent's strategic forces, then it will not seem enough to him. For the United States, for the destruction of most of the primary targets described above, a hundred or two warheads will suffice. Even just a strike on megacities and ports with 1-2 warheads, combined with the destruction of several nuclear power plants, will mean tens of millions of corpses and the collapse of the economy. Although, of course, all our ball will get it, and no one can feel safe anywhere. And now divorced those who believe that they can emerge victorious from a nuclear war.
    1. Dmitry Ivanov_8
      Dmitry Ivanov_8 1 February 2022 08: 48
      -6
      Let me tell you about metropolitan areas. In 2019 he lived in Moscow. There, from Rechnoy Vokzal to Shabalovskaya by metro with a transfer - 1 hour. The scale of the city, I am a provincial, amaze me. So, even warheads that have broken through to the capital will do little damage to it. The same will be true for New York.
      1. Toucan
        Toucan 1 February 2022 10: 19
        +3
        Quote: Dmitry Ivanov_8
        Let me tell you about metropolitan areas. In 2019 he lived in Moscow. There, from Rechnoy Vokzal to Shabalovskaya by metro with a transfer - 1 hour. The scale of the city, I am a provincial, amaze me. So, even warheads that have broken through to the capital will do little damage to it. The same will be true for New York.

        You want to say one missile is aimed at Moscow? Plus, only the Minutemen now carry one warhead. The basis of the US nuclear forces now are the naval Trident D5, they are equipped with several warheads.
      2. Spring fluff
        Spring fluff 1 February 2022 11: 24
        +5
        I live in Moscow time and I have a different opinion about the damage. if there was some kind of power failure and - ass to the whole city. if cars with food do not arrive at my five from a warehouse near Moscow due to disabled traffic lights (or because the driver on a non-working train / metro could not come to work), if it will not be possible to pay with a card at the checkout, if the saleswoman does not come to work, if the heating pumps systems will cease to provide warm water, if the water disappears in the tap, the elevators in high-rise buildings turn off, then what?
        1. Aag
          Aag 1 February 2022 19: 10
          +3
          Quote: Spring Fluff
          I live in Moscow time and I have a different opinion about the damage. if there was some kind of power failure and - ass to the whole city. if cars with food do not arrive at my five from a warehouse near Moscow due to disabled traffic lights (or because the driver on a non-working train / metro could not come to work), if it will not be possible to pay with a card at the checkout, if the saleswoman does not come to work, if the heating pumps systems will cease to provide warm water, if the water disappears in the tap, the elevators in high-rise buildings turn off, then what?

          Your problems would be for the residents of Yakutia, Siberia, remote from regional centers!
          No, really, - I didn’t want to offend you, - and I understand the list of problems you voiced. But, you see, this is far from the worst thing that will happen if it happens.
          1. Spring fluff
            Spring fluff 2 February 2022 11: 35
            +2
            I also understand what you are talking about and I have good friends in Yakutia. Well, here everyone is looking at their own problems. and it must be borne in mind that a city in Yakutia, for example, abstract Olekminsk, can only learn about the war on radio / TV, and Moscow can really become a target for WMD, because. There are a lot of military facilities here. And I don’t even want to think about how I will gather my family in which case if my wife and I are at work in different places, children are in different schools, parents are also who where ... if there are problems with heating in winter, then it will be very difficult to survive in an apartment . well, I have the Moscow River nearby
            1. Aag
              Aag 3 February 2022 15: 50
              +1
              Quote: Spring Fluff
              I also understand what you are talking about and I have good friends in Yakutia. Well, here everyone is looking at their own problems. and it must be borne in mind that a city in Yakutia, for example, abstract Olekminsk, can only learn about the war on radio / TV, and Moscow can really become a target for WMD, because. There are a lot of military facilities here. And I don’t even want to think about how I will gather my family in which case if my wife and I are at work in different places, children are in different schools, parents are also who where ... if there are problems with heating in winter, then it will be very difficult to survive in an apartment . well, I have the Moscow River nearby

              It seems that I will be relieved of such "problems", in the case of a "big hipish", in the shortest possible time ...)) ... (((, - from the window you can see the headquarters of the missile division, from the entrance, - RTB (missile - technical base, - place for temporary storage of nuclear warheads / nuclear weapons /), TRB (technical missile base, - place for maintenance, repair of PPU, (mobile launchers), PGRK units) ... hi
  15. Charik
    Charik 1 February 2022 07: 56
    -5
    The author, why didn’t he draw his city under nuclear attack, why are they constantly trying to bomb Voronezh here
    1. Wildcat
      Wildcat 1 February 2022 13: 15
      +4
      Everyone is bombing Voronezh (conditionally, yeah winked ), even the C300 does not help soldier
      Example: Su-34 conditionally bombed Voronezh despite the S-300
      https://military.pravda.ru/news/1406944-voronezh/
      1. Charik
        Charik 1 February 2022 14: 40
        -2
        now these Su34s are guarding my area, I hope the C300 has already been changed to a more advanced complex, they also installed a large radar there, so that's it. who in the district has radars with such characteristics (albeit old ones)
        1. Wildcat
          Wildcat 1 February 2022 15: 08
          +6
          ... but you can’t help Voronezh after the bombing .... crying

          ...they say that even the Terminator came to Voronezh a few years ago... and is still looking for clothes and a motorcycle there..

          In general, stop bombing Voronezh, the city has already suffered so much! am
          1. Charik
            Charik 1 February 2022 15: 23
            -6
            And where did you get this picture of Luna-Voronezh, were you in Voronezh? I traveled around the region last summer, they make roads in such outback places that not every Europe has


            1. Wildcat
              Wildcat 1 February 2022 15: 29
              +2
              And where did you get this picture of Luna-Voronezh, were you in Voronezh? I traveled around the region last summer, they make roads in such outback places that not every Europe has

              1. On the Internet, where all the memes about "bomb Voronezh". It is alleged that this is a Voronezh joke.
              2. I was in Voronezh (I was also in Berlin, suddenly this information is important for communication).
              3. Good.
              1. Charik
                Charik 1 February 2022 15: 33
                0
                What about that Germany, probably from the Voronezh region.
  16. Dmitry Ivanov_8
    Dmitry Ivanov_8 1 February 2022 08: 39
    -6
    They have an interesting scheme with old rockets. They will like it when 650 kiloton warheads explode in their positions. And in the ground version. Bad bait. Moreover, the center of the United States, from which so much infection will be carried by the wind throughout their territory.
    1. voyaka uh
      voyaka uh 1 February 2022 10: 57
      +6
      The main damaging factor of hydrogen bombs is the shock wave.
      When deuterium is fused with tritium, harmless helium is obtained. And a powerful energy that causes a shock wave. And plutonium fuses-sandwiches decay with almost 100% efficiency.
      No radioactive dust.
      1. Max PV
        Max PV 1 February 2022 12: 17
        +1
        The fuse of a modern thermonuclear warhead is 5-6 kg of fissile material (and not only plutonium, but also uranium, since it is almost impossible to remove the heat of self-decay along the suspensions of the levitating core, but this is so, by the way), while the energy release of the fuse is no more than 10 -15 kT, in fact less, of which a part is also accounted for by tritium or lithium deuterate in them. In other words, out of 5-6 kg of plutonium, no more than 0,5 kg will react, with the formation of 0,5 kg of radioactive isotopes. That is, there is no talk of any 100%. Yes, and the thermonuclear charge itself is only called thermonuclear, it is now the same puff from a ball of uranium 235, a layer of lithium deuterate, in a shell of uranium 238. When the charge-fuel explodes, X-rays turn the plastic surrounding the thermonuclear fuse into plasma, this plasma compresses the thermonuclear assembly under crazy pressure, and the inner ball of uranium 235, due to compression and the neutron flux from the fuse, reaches a critical mass, and begins to react, compressing and heating lithium deuterate even more, which, under the action of neutrons, partially turns into a mixture of deuterium and tritium, the reaction which also generates neutrons, and high energies, under the influence of which the uranium-238 shell begins to divide. In general, the share of thermonuclear fusion in the energy of a thermonuclear charge is somewhere around 15-25%, and the rest is fission energy. The more powerful the thermonuclear bomb, the higher the proportion of fusion in it. For the "Tsar Bomba" it should have been 50%, but this is for regular 100Mt, and in the one that was blown up, the outer layer of uranium-238 was replaced with lead, so they received only 57Mt. So there are no clean bombs and are not expected. Another thing is that during an air explosion, fission products remain within the luminous sphere, which is “thrown into the stratosphere” by ascending flows, from where they fall to the ground for several days or even months, “smearing” over a huge area, and with a low-altitude explosion (when the luminous the sphere touched the ground), or during a ground explosion, a significant part of them remain in the area of ​​​​the explosion, creating a zone of the strongest radiation contamination, and the rest mixes with the evaporated soil, and falls as radioactive fallout over a much smaller area, with a proportionally higher contamination.
        1. voyaka uh
          voyaka uh 1 February 2022 12: 25
          +6
          "In other words, from 5-6 kg of plutonium, no more than 0,5 kg will react" ///
          ---
          The fuse is made like an orange, cut into small slices.
          Many surfaces react at the same time.
          And the efficiency is very high.
          Just like the neutron bomb.
        2. Aag
          Aag 1 February 2022 19: 02
          +2
          Quote: Max PV
          The fuse of a modern thermonuclear warhead is 5-6 kg of fissile material (and not only plutonium, but also uranium, since it is almost impossible to remove the heat of self-decay along the suspensions of the levitating core, but this is so, by the way), while the energy release of the fuse is no more than 10 -15 kT, in fact less, of which a part is also accounted for by tritium or lithium deuterate in them. In other words, out of 5-6 kg of plutonium, no more than 0,5 kg will react, with the formation of 0,5 kg of radioactive isotopes. That is, there is no talk of any 100%. Yes, and the thermonuclear charge itself is only called thermonuclear, it is now the same puff from a ball of uranium 235, a layer of lithium deuterate, in a shell of uranium 238. When the charge-fuel explodes, X-rays turn the plastic surrounding the thermonuclear fuse into plasma, this plasma compresses the thermonuclear assembly under crazy pressure, and the inner ball of uranium 235, due to compression and the neutron flux from the fuse, reaches a critical mass, and begins to react, compressing and heating lithium deuterate even more, which, under the action of neutrons, partially turns into a mixture of deuterium and tritium, the reaction which also generates neutrons, and high energies, under the influence of which the uranium-238 shell begins to divide. In general, the share of thermonuclear fusion in the energy of a thermonuclear charge is somewhere around 15-25%, and the rest is fission energy. The more powerful the thermonuclear bomb, the higher the proportion of fusion in it. For the "Tsar Bomba" it should have been 50%, but this is for regular 100Mt, and in the one that was blown up, the outer layer of uranium-238 was replaced with lead, so they received only 57Mt. So there are no clean bombs and are not expected. Another thing is that during an air explosion, fission products remain within the luminous sphere, which is “thrown into the stratosphere” by ascending flows, from where they fall to the ground for several days or even months, “smearing” over a huge area, and with a low-altitude explosion (when the luminous the sphere touched the ground), or during a ground explosion, a significant part of them remain in the area of ​​​​the explosion, creating a zone of the strongest radiation contamination, and the rest mixes with the evaporated soil, and falls as radioactive fallout over a much smaller area, with a proportionally higher contamination.

          With this, you are in the 12th Directorate ... In the context under discussion, even only the last sentence of your comment, and then, not entirely, makes sense.))) hi
    2. Wildcat
      Wildcat 1 February 2022 13: 23
      +4
      There, the inhabitants live mainly along the coasts, east and west. Wyoming, Colorado, Montana, North Dakota and Nebraska are fairly "deserted" states.

      But IMHO, when the ICBM bases were built, they didn’t really think about the “nuclear sponge”, the task was to put the missiles in a safe place where bombers, missiles from submarines and other wonderful things would fly for a long time.
      And where can the mines be dispersed over a large area in order to stand "under more than one warhead".
      1. tiger19
        tiger19 April 9 2022 03: 15
        -2
        So they will beat the New Ybander bastard, Florida, California, Illinois.
  17. Fission power
    Fission power 1 February 2022 11: 18
    -5
    I read several times about sniper agents in the United States who were located near missile launchers, if they were launched, they would try to damage them with sniper rifles.
  18. Aag
    Aag 1 February 2022 16: 57
    +5
    Many thanks to the author - the article is in the best traditions of a good site, at the best of times!
    As a result, the overwhelming majority of comments are (I won’t say that they are pleasant), adequate, balanced, (if necessary, reasoned).
    Thank you. Good luck. New interesting articles! hi
    1. Wildcat
      Wildcat 1 February 2022 21: 31
      +6
      hi
      Even surprisingly, there was not a single proposal to bomb Yellowstone or the San Andreas Fault. And the article is on the site for the second day! That is, absolutely clinical cases are not included in Bongo's articles, comments are not written on them, which is nice in itself. winked
  19. Victor Tsenin
    Victor Tsenin 1 February 2022 17: 52
    +3
    >only very naive citizens or people with an inadequate psyche.
    Or purposefully propagating misinformation for a variety of reasons.
  20. Kostadinov
    Kostadinov 1 February 2022 18: 32
    -5
    If we succeed in inflicting a preventive nuclear strike on us, then the losses will be reduced to 2-3 million, which is approximately equal to a yearly death rate.

    Several strikes against the United States and the threat of their continuation may lead to mass self-evacuation of the population to Canada and Mexico and the collapse of the state. Nu Orleans clearly demonstrated what would happen.
  21. Diverter
    Diverter 2 February 2022 11: 23
    -5
    my deep couch opinion.
    the destruction of infrastructure, primarily energy, will lead America into the stone age.
    we know many cases when they did not put a stake in the trenches and the soldiers refused to follow orders. We see a huge number of films about disasters made by Americans about themselves. And in every film there is general panic and devastation.

    Comfort
    The population of that country is corrupted by comfort. And any problem, the first thing that causes them is to look into the smartphone and say OK Google.
    Also, in almost every major city there are areas where the police, firefighters and doctors do not bother. In fact, these are ready-made armed gangs that, in a crisis situation, will engage in robberies and so on. The tragedy of N. Orleans is proof of this.

    I am sure that our leadership knows and understands this, and the maximum that will be destroyed is the white house, and then only as a symbol. There is no point in bombing their cities. Destroy the CPR, infrastructure, nuclear forces. And the local armed population itself will complete the rest.
    1. Spring fluff
      Spring fluff 2 February 2022 14: 07
      +2
      your opinion is definitely valuable. if you try a little and
      1) write a list of what you consider infrastructure
      2) google how much for each infrastructure position the US has (and preferably through a dash - the Russian Federation)
      3) post here for discussion
      then your opinion will not even be couch, but quite useful

      let's start
      1) the number of cities with a million inhabitants and the population living in them
      USA - 10 units, home to 25 million (8% of the population) / RF - 15 units, home to 33 million (20% of the population)
      2) number of nuclear power plants
      USA - 60 / RF - 11
      3) number of airfields
      USA - 13 thousand / Russian Federation - 1,2 thousand.
      ...
      x) the number of military bases abroad (what will definitely not be affected if only one country is attacked)
      USA - 700+ pcs / RF - 13 pcs
      1. Diverter
        Diverter 2 February 2022 16: 46
        -4
        I'll start from the end. The military base, left without a central command and supply, the first thing to do is its self-sufficiency in food. Those. start robbing the locals. What will come of it and what will result is not ready to answer, but even the African natives have the limits of their patience, which means armed skirmishes will begin.
        The base commander is unlikely to have any thoughts about the Russian Federation.
        Regarding cities with a population of over a million in terms of the number of inhabitants. Your data is not correct. Or taken from the website. Everything is different in life. There are hundreds of small towns around each millionaire. The inhabitants of these towns work, buy food and clothes, and so on in millionaires. Because there are usually no shops in their towns. And if there is something (I forgot what it is called), they look like our pavilions or, at best, like a rural store, where there is a little bit of everything. Basically it's all sorts of bars.
        In terms of infrastructure, I think that it is necessary to destroy, first of all, generating facilities - thermal power plants, hydroelectric power stations, nuclear power plants. There will be no electricity, nothing will work.
        1. Spring fluff
          Spring fluff 3 February 2022 12: 42
          +1
          "Regarding cities with a population of over a million in terms of the number of inhabitants. Your data is not correct. Or taken from the site. In life, everything is different." - maybe we will be lucky to see the numbers from you? an example of a specific city, data on area, population density. or analysis of the number of thermal power plants in the Russian Federation and the USA
          1. Diverter
            Diverter 4 February 2022 00: 42
            0
            I suggest you take a look at the map.
    2. Wildcat
      Wildcat 2 February 2022 17: 22
      +3
      winked
      About the goals in the USA compared to the Russian Federation, Spring Pooh began to explain to you, but please explain to me:
      we know many cases when they did not put a stake in the trenches and the soldiers refused to follow orders.

      1. "We know" - who is this?
      2. "many cases when they didn't put cola in the trenches" - can I have the locations and dates of these events?
      3. "they didn't put a stake in the trenches and the soldiers refused to follow orders" - can I have the locations and dates of these events too?

      In fact, these are ready-made armed gangs that, in a crisis situation, will engage in robberies and so on. The tragedy of N. Orleans is proof of this. ... There is no point in bombing their cities. Destroy the CPR, infrastructure, nuclear forces. And the local armed population itself will complete the rest
      - this is a moot point, there were opinions "from there" that one of the reasons for the outbreak of violence was the actions of the authorities, who began to disarm the legitimate owners of weapons (otherwise: "what if something happens? Call the police") and engaged in ineffective street patrols.

      Due to history and current politics - everyone is elected, from the President of the United States to a schoolchild who is an analogue of our "School Councils", and most importantly, they decide for themselves what taxes to collect and how to spend them - American society is very prone to self-organization.
      And society looks disapprovingly towards "la enforcement", believing that it - society - used to cope better with crime, hanging bandits on a tree higher, so that it could be seen better.
      There are still songs about it:
      "...
      Grandpa told my dad it was my day, son.
      The man had to answer for the evil he did.
      Take all the rope in Texas
      Find a tall oak tree, and circle all the bad guys...
      hang them outside for all the people to see!

      Chorus:
      'Cause justice is the only thing you always have to find.
      Saddle up your horses guys!
      You must draw the line.
      When the gun smoke calms down, we will sing the melody of victory.
      We'll all meet at the local saloon.
      We will raise our glasses against evil forces.
      Let's sing whiskey for my people, beer for my horses!

      We have too many gangsters doing dirty things.
      We have too much corruption, too much crime on the streets.
      It's time for the long arm of the law to put some more in the ground!"
      Something like this, intolerant, but with understanding to the demands of society for a fair trial by jury:
  22. Ducksar
    Ducksar 11 February 2022 20: 50
    0
    Thank you, a very interesting article!
  23. Electrical
    Electrical 29 March 2022 08: 30
    -1
    Russia will suffer very heavy losses in the event of a sudden strike on megacities.

    Is it for this that the villages and villages of Russia are being destroyed?
  24. Vasilyevich Pensioner
    Vasilyevich Pensioner April 23 2022 11: 59
    0
    /// A number of Russian media are actively promoting the idea that the ground component of the American strategic nuclear forces has long "rotted", and the "rusty" and "small" silo-based Minuteman-3 ballistic missiles do not pose a particular threat to us.///
    And I read about this idea from the author of the article. The author comes out and there is such an engine.
    ///Based on the statistics of control and test launches published in the United States, we are making statements about the inability of the "rusty" Minuteman-3 ICBMs to perform a combat mission.///
    And again I learn about it from the author of the article.
    /// That is, only very naive citizens or people with an inadequate psyche can claim that American ICBMs do not pose a danger to us.///
    And only the author, on the basis of such messages, it seems that someone makes such statements, has material built. Without specific references, this is just a way to refute invented, own fantasies.