Reopen arsenals of tactical nuclear weapons

Article "The Reality of Nuclear War: NATO Allies Raise the Stakes" we looked at how the United States and NATO countries can start a nuclear conflict by carrying out a sabotage using a tactical nuclear weapon in Kyiv and blaming Russia for this. It doesn't fit in my head - impossible, impossible, impossible...

But let's try to imagine that at the end of the First World War, someone will tell that in 21 years the Second World War will begin, that Germany will seize the whole of Europe, while France will last only a month and a half, and only the Soviet Union will be able to stop Germany. He will tell that mighty battleships will turn into "whipping boys" for aircraft carriers and submarines, that nuclear weapons will be created and used. weapon (What is it anyway?)...

Would anyone believe it? It is unlikely, most likely, the narrator would have been sent to a home for the mentally ill. If a story teaches something, it is only that everything is possible - the most unexpected alliances and the most treacherous betrayals, the passive, initiativeless expectation of the death of individuals and entire states, and the most daring and harsh measures that can change the course of history.

There is no doubt that the United States and NATO countries will decide on a provocation with nuclear weapons, but there is no doubt that such a scenario was considered and worked out somewhere in the depths of the headquarters of the Western countries, under the heading "top secret, of special importance."

How can you prevent or at least minimize the likelihood that the United States will decide on a provocation with nuclear weapons? And if this does happen, then what should a country that has been declared a "rogue" do? Let's consider these questions in order.

prevent the unthinkable

It can be assumed that the likelihood of the United States committing sabotage with nuclear weapons, as well as imitation of the use by Russia of any other weapons of mass destruction (WMD) - chemical, bacteriological, on the territory of Ukraine directly depends on how events will develop at the front.

If Russia's actions are successful, if it moves forward, the United States is unlikely to risk exposing Russia to the use of WMD. A fool understands that a country that wins does not make sense to expose itself to the use of WMD. The risks will be too great, the opposite situation may well arise, when Russia, China and other countries openly accuse the United States of provocation, and even some of the US allies may well move away from them, realizing that the US leaders have already lost touch with reality.

Another option for the United States to refuse provocation with WMD on the territory of Ukraine is the withdrawal of troops by Russia to positions until March 24.03.2022, XNUMX, or even withdrawal from Luhansk, Donbass, Crimea ... Yes, there will be no provocation with WMD, but this will not solve the problem, but only delay and aggravate. On the basis of a united Ukraine, the United States will create such a springboard for war and hatred that the next full-scale war in Europe with the use of at least tactical nuclear weapons will become inevitable. This is not to mention the fact that such actions would be political suicide for the Russian authorities.

If the fighting on the territory of Ukraine drags on, then a situation of uncertainty will arise, Transnistria, Moldova, and possibly Romania and Poland will be drawn into it. If Russia not only starts to lose ground, but it looks like this, then the United States may well decide that it’s time for the bear to cut its claws “to the very shoulders.”

Based on the foregoing, the main task of the armed forces of the Russian Federation is to put pressure on the enemy so hard that no one has any doubts or illusions about the possibility of "overcoming".

It can be assumed that the deterrent in this matter is often not military obstacles, but political decisions. We want to sit on two chairs - "and eat a fish, and climb a Christmas tree"? Will not work. War is not politics, here stepping back means only defeat. How long did they wait with the destruction of the Ukrainian transport network? How much advantage did this give our adversaries?

It is necessary to destroy as severely as possible the transport infrastructure, communication networks, power supply of critical facilities, primarily in Western Ukraine. This issue was previously discussed in the material "Decomposition of Ukraine as a way to radically reduce the capabilities of the Armed Forces of Ukraine to resist the Russian special operation".

It is vital to ensure the destruction of the railway infrastructure, bridges and electricity networks of Ukraine

But this is not enough - it is necessary to completely abandon any negotiations with the Kyiv regime, recognize it as criminal (support for Nazism, torture and murder, uncontrolled distribution of weapons to the population and the use of civilians as human shields) and make every effort to destroy all representatives of the current regime, the most odious politicians and heads of power structures of Ukraine. This issue was also discussed earlier in the article. "Confrontation with the West on the territory of Ukraine: to press without stopping".

In addition to the psychological effect, the entire governance structure of Ukraine will be disrupted, a squabble for power and a division of resources will begin. It can be assumed that the theft of funds and weapons supplied to Ukraine will increase many times over - who wants to die when it becomes clear that this is almost inevitable - it is better to grab more and dump them away.

Western countries will have to rebuild all supply chains, negotiate with the new government, consider options for the fact that the new government will not last long. And the new government will also consider this option. And she will be “hungry”, and she will grab three times more than the existing one in order to be in time, until the very end ...

In general, the unprecedented pressure on the transport and energy infrastructure, broadcasting and communications systems, the destruction of the military and political leadership of Ukraine, will not only deal a shocking, sobering blow to all those who, in a state of euphoria, expect a “overcome”, but will also radically reduce the capabilities of the armed forces of Ukraine (AFU) for resistance to the armed forces of the Russian Federation (RF Armed Forces).

If the operation drags on, the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation have problems, the Armed Forces of Ukraine manage to inflict several daring strikes on objects on the territory of the Russian Federation, then the nuclear nightmare may well become a reality, and then something will have to be done about it. At the same time, you will have to act much more decisively, and with much worse consequences. For all.

Uncertainty and indecision are the main causes and risks of escalation of the conflict up to the use of tactical and even strategic nuclear weapons.

Beyond the Unthinkable

Nuclear weapon. For many, any use of nuclear weapons means taboo - it's the end of the world, nuclear winter, radioactive fallout. If we talk about a full-fledged exchange of nuclear strikes between Russia and the United States, then in many ways the above will be close to the truth - hundreds of millions of people will die, vast territories will be polluted, it is not completely clear how this will affect the environment. However, if we talk about tactical nuclear weapons (TNW), then everything is somewhat different.

The possibility of using tactical nuclear weapons in local conflicts has been repeatedly discussed, including in the "stronghold of democracy" - in the United States. There is no doubt that if the United States had an objective need, they would use tactical nuclear weapons without hesitation. Would that make the US a pariah country? It is highly doubtful.

Will the use of tactical nuclear weapons trigger the retaliatory use of tactical or strategic nuclear weapons? If the attacked side has it, then yes, and if the attacked side does not have nuclear weapons, then it will have nothing to answer with. Will others join? Why, in order to risk getting hit by nuclear weapons already on their territory? If the United States used tactical nuclear weapons in Iraq, or, for example, in Venezuela, would we launch nuclear strikes against the United States in response? The answer will be - definitely not.

Yes, but Iraq and Venezuela are not in a military alliance with us, and the countries of Eastern Europe, which may become the first targets for Russian tactical nuclear weapons, are included in NATO? So what? As Henry Kissinger said there, “great powers do not sacrifice themselves for the sake of their allies”? Did Poland's European allies help Poland during World War II? And now it will be the same. If Russia strikes at the Polish Armed Forces using tactical nuclear weapons, neither the United States, nor Great Britain, nor France will use their nuclear weapons against Russia in response to this - they will impose some other ban on the supply of candy or gummy bears.

It is a little more difficult with the American armed forces, which can be deployed on the territory of the same Poland, but this issue can also be “bypassed”. Firstly, the United States will not physically be able to deploy its troops at every Polish military facility. Secondly, after the very first strikes of tactical nuclear weapons on those facilities in Poland where there are no American military personnel, they quickly “fade” from the rest. Thirdly, if there are too many American Armed Forces on the territory of Poland, then they themselves become a legitimate target for Russian tactical nuclear weapons, and why did you want us to wait for a repeat of June 1941?

The main thing in the use of tactical nuclear weapons is that there must be one immutable principle:

Russia will respond to any strike with a nuclear weapon on its territory with a nuclear strike on the territory of the country that fired the nuclear charge. If Russia uses tactical nuclear weapons on the territory of third countries, then this is not yet a reason for the rest to intervene, rather, on the contrary, a reason to stop, step aside.

No, of course, if Russia, after delivering TNW strikes against Poland, decides to send troops to its territory, then they already become a completely legitimate target for American TNW. Please strike, but... on the territory of Poland, and not on the territory of Russia, because in response to this, the United States will receive strikes already on its own territory. But we're not going to invade Poland, are we?

Thus, the only response to the US-British nuclear provocation on the territory of Ukraine, if any, can only be a massive strike with tactical nuclear weapons on military bases in Eastern Europe, as well as on warehouses with American nuclear weapons on the territory of Western European countries.

This should be implemented within not only hours, but rather - several tens of minutes from the moment when (if) a nuclear terrorist attack on the territory of Ukraine is carried out. If the unthinkable has already happened, then we still won’t be able to justify ourselves, we will already be a country that has used nuclear weapons against the civilian population, which means that there will be no point in limiting ourselves.

If, after the first strike, the European NATO countries do not stop their military activity, then TNW strikes against the military infrastructure of Western European countries, of course, those that do not have their own nuclear weapons, should follow.

Conclusions

How absurd is all of the above? And how absurd is a nuclear terrorist attack in a major European city?

Is the scenario of nuclear terrorism by the US and the UK realistic? According to the author, it is quite real. Neither the US nor the UK should under any circumstances be allowed to establish normal peaceful relations between Russia and the countries of Europe, which, in fact, will mean the end of the Anglo-Saxon hegemony.

In turn, the countries of Europe, with a suicidal tenacity worthy of a better use, are indulging the United States and Great Britain in their endeavors with might and main, pushing the world to the beginning of the end, sticking their noses where they don’t belong and entering into conflicts with Russia, China and other countries that in no way they are not threatened, but on the contrary, they seek every opportunity for peaceful cooperation. If we continue to follow this path, then sooner or later the United States and Great Britain may well take extreme measures, which now seem unrealistic to many, and draw us into a nuclear conflict, while also making it the initiator.

It will be possible to reverse the situation only by taking measures so harsh that an American nuclear terrorist attack on the territory of Ukraine will either be prevented, or its consequences will no longer matter.

Is it possible to prevent all this at all? With absolute probability it is unlikely, but it is possible to minimize the probability of the worst outcome.

NATO countries must clearly understand that at the moment when they cross invisible borders, one of which is a terrorist attack using weapons of mass destruction on the territory of Ukraine, Russian tactical nuclear charges will hit their targets in the countries of Eastern and Western Europe.

And in order to minimize the likelihood of such an outcome, it is necessary to make sure that these borders are visible and clearly tangible for NATO countries, as well as the consequences of crossing them.

In the meantime, only one thing can be said for sure - the world will never be the same again.

Comments

[Vladimir_2U]

it is necessary to completely abandon any negotiations with the Kyiv regime, recognize it as criminal (support for Nazism, torture and murder, uncontrolled distribution of weapons to the population and the use of civilians as a "human shield")

But this is already a girl with reduced social responsibility (Putin's words, if anything), a utopia!

[Dilettante grandfather]

“If the unthinkable has already happened, then we still won’t be able to justify ourselves,”© - experts in samples in the contaminated area can determine at which plant, and from which uranium, mined at which point on the planet, a nuclear device was made. And even now we cannot justify ourselves, for what we did not do: who does not want to hear, he does not hear.
In general, I agree with the author in many respects.

[Taimen]

The author’s article implies a strong political will. But we don’t have it. Neither the will nor the idea, nothing but the dough.

[Il'nur]

strong political will

I would not agree with your statement, before the return of the Crimea, participation in Syria, and also before the start of the NWO, they also spoke, but these events happened and are happening. So, if put before a fact, then there will be a strong will, the President keeps his words! (except for the retirement age, which our liberals in power pushed him to do, my opinion).

[Nikolay Malyugin]

This is not the first time I hear words about a local nuclear war. In any war there are bottlenecks that strategists did not think about. We directed all our thoughts to military operations. But we need to think about the rear. destructive war, will not play any role. There are all prerequisites to avoid war. But if you talk about it all the time, then it will certainly begin. Rebuild consciousness, strengthen our country in all respects.

[odometer]

Gee...Nuclear strikes are already seen as a boon, well. Is everything that bad? Provocations? Possible... Moreover, the media of the Russian Federation themselves facilitate the task by releasing pseudo-patriots from among journalists and political scientists and other riffraff who want to "hit" into the arena. By the way, you still need to think about it, why are these individuals so excited, on whose mill are you pouring water, are they mishandled Cossacks? And then the West will say - you yourself threatened

[Zack levy]

Do you think Solovyov is a US agent?

[odometer]

In no case. One of the states in the Middle East ... Definitely

[Piramidon]

Quote: curvimeter

The media of the Russian Federation themselves facilitate the task by releasing pseudo-patriots from among journalists and political scientists and other riffraff who want to "hit" into the arena

In the age of the Internet, let it out, don’t let it out, they will still come out somewhere. I haven’t watched TV for 7-8 years, I don’t read newspapers, I get everything only from the Internet, but I constantly see and hear this riffraff.

[FoBoss_V]

IMHO, the use of tiao means signing one's own impotence, which means that they could not resolve the issue differently. And it was possible to solve it, even having failed in the first phase of your own. How and with what to do this, a lot has been written here, but 5 percent of what is necessary is done. It has already come to the point that in the cart they beg the General Staff to strike at stationary functioning military facilities indicating the exact coordinates. Well, how is it, in general, a war at the request of viewers? What kind of nonsense is beyond the inexplicable .. In general, recently, looking at the cards, events and movements, I am convinced that this whole performance is a bridge game long painted between the players. And we, who are the statists who are the spectators ... Otherwise, the stupidity and illogicality of some decisions and actions, or vice versa, inactions that simply lie on the surface cannot be rationalized. Sur is just...
P.s. I am not a urapatriot and not an all-rounder. I am an ordinary Russian person and a patriot of my country, I want her wealth, growth and prosperity, but what I see somehow every time further and further separates my dreams and aspirations

[Aleksandr21]

Quote: FoBoss_V

... Otherwise, the stupidity and illogicality of some decisions and actions, or vice versa, inactions that simply lie on the surface cannot be reasonably justified.

In fact, there is an explanation ... it's just very unpleasant. Our generals were preparing for past wars, and NATO generals for wars of the 21st century (drones, communications, intelligence, etc.) + there was a very serious underestimation of the enemy, who had been preparing for 8 years according to NATO standards, and what ours have been doing all this time .. .. unclear. There are only a few novelties of military equipment in the army, it remains only to watch them at parades, well, or in single copies in the army.

And in general, I imagined this SVO differently, taking into account the colossal military and technical advantages of Russia (as I thought), the picture was different .... if they told me that the third month of the RF Armed Forces would be messing with the Armed Forces of Ukraine in the Donbass, I would I didn’t believe it, but as reality shows, it unfortunately is so.

A very serious underestimation of the enemy and big miscalculations in intelligence ....

[Taimen]

Yes, comrade, it’s not harmful to dream in our country. But it’s better not to, so as not to be disappointed.

[Ablet]

I mostly agree, except for "signing your own impotence." On the contrary, I believe that under the given circumstances, the use of tactical nuclear weapons is perhaps the best option for ending the war. The Russian Federation does not have reconnaissance assets similar to NATO, effective coherence in the information support of combat units, there is not a sufficient number of high-precision weapons for a wide range of purposes, extremely weak equipment with drones for various purposes, and, in addition, a lack of trained qualified specialists of complex types of weapons and other well-known problems. This means that we can win only as we are trying to do it now - exhaustingly and self-sacrificingly. The competent use of tactical nuclear weapons can make this victory not so painful and bloody, and on both sides. Naturally, for this it is necessary to change the doctrine of the possible use of tactical nuclear weapons. Further, you can pre-notify the enemy that in the event that supplies of ANY types of weapons from other countries continue, the RF Armed Forces intend to use tactical nuclear weapons on the transport infrastructure near the border of Ukraine, say, after May 15, 2022, without additional notifications. Therefore, it is recommended that all civilians leave the territory for 50 km adjacent to the border. To admonish the dull, it is possible to detonate a special munition with a capacity of 1 kt with or without prior notification, for example, on the island of snakes. And then use special ammunition if necessary ... Or we continue to fight as we are now fighting - exhaustingly and self-sacrificingly, blowing up houses, bridges, then power plants, and our citizens will continue to bury their sons, husbands, brothers and sisters ...

[voyaka uh]

The Americans have already officially warned Russia
what will happen if it uses tactical nuclear weapons on the territory of Ukraine.
American troops will enter the territory of Ukraine.
That is, Ukraine does not capitulate.
And the meaning of the use of tactical nuclear weapons will be reduced to zero.

[soul]

Oddly enough, in the implementation of the described scenario, China benefits the most. I also remembered one wisdom: "If the conflict between the two sides does not end in any way, then the reason is in the third (hidden) side"
That is my opinion.

[parusnik]

It's time, it's time to return to the Stone Age, we sat in progress

[Wildcat]

Thus, the only response to the US-British nuclear provocation on the territory of Ukraine, if any, can only be a massive strike with tactical nuclear weapons on military bases in Eastern Europe, as well as on warehouses with American nuclear weapons on the territory of Western European countries.

The problem with such articles is that they deduce some things from the list of axioms, for example, "nuclear war is unacceptable."
In society, there is an assumption of the possibility of the impossible.
But we must understand that our "partners" also have such a reaction.

After Kiselev, Johnson starts talking about "nuclear ashes", Kiselev answers him:
"In general, they seem to be talking in the British Isles. Why threaten endless Russia with nuclear weapons while sitting on a small island? The island is so small that only one Sarmat missile is enough to sink it once and for all. Everything has already been calculated. Moreover, it has been calculated Lest anyone be offended by "radioactive ash", I will quote British Daily Mail journalist Will Stewart about the Russian Sarmat missile, the most powerful in the world: "The new deadly hypersonic weapon is capable of bypassing US missile defenses and destroying an area the size of Texas or England ". This is just one launch, Boris. And England is gone. Once and for all. Why flirt?
Another option is to plunge Britain into the depths of the sea. "

Well, our Mitrofanov, the one that "At the same time, the microturbine with an electric drive installed in the butt will blow through the outer finned surface of the heat pipes," also "gives heat."

It would be nice to unite all these characters with the Valdai and Izborsk clubs and place them in a safe place.
But while this is not possible, can you at least not print articles on the topic "how and why to destroy the population of Europe" on a respected VO resource?

[Kesha1980]

can you at least not print articles on the topic "how and why to destroy the population of Europe" on a respected VO resource?

You're overreacting a bit, it's worth noting. Such articles are not published - moreover, such an article would even be criminally punishable.
Recall that you are interested in certain topics, accept that others (because of their HSG or interests) may be interested in other topics.
The relevance of this topic is quite obvious. A little analysis won't hurt. Although the analysis is not enough.
I will say more, it would be interesting to read exactly the analytics on tactical nuclear weapons.
But, it is worth recognizing that commentators who write a little about nuclear strikes are harmful, because they spread their stupidity to the masses.

[Wildcat]

You're overreacting a bit, it's worth noting.

- A little bit! I'll fix it!

[Kesha1980]

Respectfully)

[Wildcat]

Mutually)))!

[Stils]

Quote: Wildcat

Thus, the only response to the US-British nuclear provocation on the territory of Ukraine, if any, can only be a massive strike with tactical nuclear weapons on military bases in Eastern Europe, as well as on warehouses with American nuclear weapons on the territory of Western European countries.

The problem with such articles is that they deduce some things from the list of axioms, for example, "nuclear war is unacceptable."
In society, there is an assumption of the possibility of the impossible.
But we must understand that our "partners" also have such a reaction.

After Kiselev, Johnson starts talking about "nuclear ashes", Kiselev answers him:
"In general, they seem to be talking in the British Isles. Why threaten endless Russia with nuclear weapons while sitting on a small island? The island is so small that only one Sarmat missile is enough to sink it once and for all. Everything has already been calculated. Moreover, it has been calculated Lest anyone be offended by "radioactive ash", I will quote British Daily Mail journalist Will Stewart about the Russian Sarmat missile, the most powerful in the world: "The new deadly hypersonic weapon is capable of bypassing US missile defenses and destroying an area the size of Texas or England ". This is just one launch, Boris. And England is gone. Once and for all. Why flirt?
Another option is to plunge Britain into the depths of the sea. "

Well, our Mitrofanov, the one that "At the same time, the microturbine with an electric drive installed in the butt will blow through the outer finned surface of the heat pipes," also "gives heat."

It would be nice to unite all these characters with the Valdai and Izborsk clubs and place them in a safe place.
But while this is not possible, can you at least not print articles on the topic "how and why to destroy the population of Europe" on a respected VO resource?

You, as well as Kiselyov, seem to greatly overestimate the capabilities of Sarmat. It is less powerful than the R-36 Satan, and it has a maximum of 20 Mt, but rather 1x10. In order to guarantee the destruction of Britain and trample it into the Stone Age, such missiles need from 10 to 20 units, a total of at least 200 megatons.

[Wildcat]

You, as well as Kiselyov, seem to greatly overestimate the capabilities of Sarmat.

there is a quote from Kiselyov, in quotation marks. Sarmat IMHO, even Kiselev does not overestimate, he simply sells his "radioactive ashes" at retail, and Sarmat - as a "makeweight".

[Piramidon]

Quote: Wildcat

can you at least not print articles on the topic "how and why to destroy the population of Europe" on a respected VO resource?

On VO, the world did not converge like a wedge. He is the only one, right? There are a great many other resources where this can be printed.

[Murat]

If an atomic war happens, 10% of the population will remain from the Russians and from the Americans. But 10% of Americans will die out in a matter of weeks due to the lack of Coca-Cola and Big Macs. And 10% of Russians - 14 million - are the times of Peter the Great. When Russia became a great European power. And the United States - for a moment - did not exist at all then.
Of course, I can’t see this, but the thought itself warms the soul.

[SovAr238A]

Quote: Murat

If an atomic war happens, 10% of the population will remain from the Russians and from the Americans. But 10% of Americans will die out in a matter of weeks due to the lack of Coca-Cola and Big Macs. And 10% of Russians - 14 million - are the times of Peter the Great. When Russia became a great European power. And the United States - for a moment - did not exist at all then.
Of course, I can’t see this, but the thought itself warms the soul.

It is not a thought that warms your soul, but complete illiteracy and seven caps on your head.

Well, stop repeating stupid mantras ...
America is a rural country.
There is a colossal number of small towns where almost the entire production potential is located.
There, in the event of a nuclear war, approximately 220-260 million people and 70% of the real sector of the real economy will actually survive. And not stock indicators.
Yes, they have large urban agglomerations.
But look at the same Los Angeles or San Francisco or Chicago, Philadelphia, Dallas, Atlanta - there only downtown is built from high-rise buildings, and 80% of the area of ​​cities and agglomerations is two- and one-story buildings ...
More than 80 million will not die there, which is about 23% of the population.

But we have a colossal concentration of residents in high-rise cities, with a minimum of private development.
We have just the share of the rural population - in recent years, in fact, is about 20%.
Or maybe even less, because there are too many rural residents who work and live in cities, remaining according to their rural registration.
And we have practically no enterprises in rural areas and small towns.
Accordingly, we are guaranteed to die 80% of the population and the entire economy.
Total:
about 25% of us will survive and it will be 35 million people and zero economy.
they will survive approximately 75% and it will be 255 million people and 70% of the economy.
Learn reality.

McDonald's in America is a rogue eater.
In any Russian MakeDak, there were always much more people than in the American one. And almost all, except for the shopping center, work around the clock.
In the American one, it can be such that for 30-40 minutes there is not a single visitor. Finding a XNUMX-hour McDuck from them is a rare rarity.

You need to know the realities, walk the streets, notice the sides.
Talk to people, not with 60-70 year old pence, but with young people.
Miscellaneous.
If she lives on Insta, then you and I need to watch all sorts of Instas, even if it’s not interesting, but in order to understand how our society really lives now.

[Osipov9391]

And the British SSBNs (they are now writing 3 of them on patrol) are also a very serious threat if you evaluate and look at it well?
Nobody notices this with us.
Their patrol is the Norwegian and North Seas,
The French (also 4 SSBNs) have the Mediterranean Sea.
And what do we have here as a result?

In addition to your article. Europe and the USA have a large population living in rural areas and urban areas. And there, up to 80% are private houses with concrete basements, autonomous wells, and so on.
In Russia, on the contrary, the volume of the urban population is very large, mainly about 5-6 megacities. The rest live in cities and mainly in multi-storey buildings, often of old Soviet construction, which can hardly hold on for a long time.
The proportion of the rural population and those who live in the private sector is very small. Probably a maximum of 25%. And that's a lot.
And what do we have as a result?

[Pilat2009]

Quote: Osipov9391

And what do we have as a result?

As a result, we have a climate catastrophe, destroyed cities and secondary pollution of vast territories with products of destroyed chemical plants and nuclear power plants. Neither the United States, nor Russia, nor the whole world will find it small.

[Osipov9391]

In the southern hemisphere, no one even sneezes - the air currents from the northern hemisphere of the planet do not intersect and do not mix there.

[Stils]

Absolutely agree
To destroy the States, you need to ship at least 1,5 Giga tons guaranteed. This amount will provoke huge fires, and radioactive dust from powerful explosions will spread throughout the United States and will settle, infecting the soil and the environment. With such an amount of explosive, a nuclear winter will come, there will be no harvest, epidemics will begin, everything around will be infected. The highest mortality occurs 3 months after the attack.
In this case, America will be trampled into the Stone Age, no more than 50 million will survive and the population will continue to decline. Huge mutations and diseases are guaranteed in the next generation.
Unfortunately, Russia will not be able to deliver 1,5 Gt to the American continent, the USSR could.

Quote: SovAr238A

Quote: Murat

If an atomic war happens, 10% of the population will remain from the Russians and from the Americans. But 10% of Americans will die out in a matter of weeks due to the lack of Coca-Cola and Big Macs. And 10% of Russians - 14 million - are the times of Peter the Great. When Russia became a great European power. And the United States - for a moment - did not exist at all then.
Of course, I can’t see this, but the thought itself warms the soul.

It is not a thought that warms your soul, but complete illiteracy and seven caps on your head.

Well, stop repeating stupid mantras ...
America is a rural country.
There is a colossal number of small towns where almost the entire production potential is located.
There, in the event of a nuclear war, approximately 220-260 million people and 70% of the real sector of the real economy will actually survive. And not stock indicators.
Yes, they have large urban agglomerations.
But look at the same Los Angeles or San Francisco or Chicago, Philadelphia, Dallas, Atlanta - there only downtown is built from high-rise buildings, and 80% of the area of ​​cities and agglomerations is two- and one-story buildings ...
More than 80 million will not die there, which is about 23% of the population.

But we have a colossal concentration of residents in high-rise cities, with a minimum of private development.
We have just the share of the rural population - in recent years, in fact, is about 20%.
Or maybe even less, because there are too many rural residents who work and live in cities, remaining according to their rural registration.
And we have practically no enterprises in rural areas and small towns.
Accordingly, we are guaranteed to die 80% of the population and the entire economy.
Total:
about 25% of us will survive and it will be 35 million people and zero economy.
they will survive approximately 75% and it will be 255 million people and 70% of the economy.
Learn reality.

McDonald's in America is a rogue eater.
In any Russian MakeDak, there were always much more people than in the American one. And almost all, except for the shopping center, work around the clock.
In the American one, it can be such that for 30-40 minutes there is not a single visitor. Finding a XNUMX-hour McDuck from them is a rare rarity.

You need to know the realities, walk the streets, notice the sides.
Talk to people, not with 60-70 year old pence, but with young people.
Miscellaneous.
If she lives on Insta, then you and I need to watch all sorts of Instas, even if it’s not interesting, but in order to understand how our society really lives now.

[Essex62]

Quote: SovAr238A

they will survive approximately 75% and it will be 255 million people and 70% of the economy.
Learn reality.

Dreaming is not bad. It will carry away both high-rise and low-rise buildings, together with this rural population.

Quote: SovAr238A

If she lives on Insta, then you and I need to watch all sorts of Instas, even if it’s not interesting, but in order to understand how our society really lives now.

It is better not to know how your society lives. The last hairs stand on end from such knowledge and it becomes scary for the grandchildren.

[SovAr238A]

Quote: Essex62

Quote: SovAr238A

they will survive approximately 75% and it will be 255 million people and 70% of the economy.
Learn reality.

Dreaming is not bad. It will carry away both high-rise and low-rise buildings, together with this rural population.

Quote: SovAr238A

If she lives on Insta, then you and I need to watch all sorts of Instas, even if it’s not interesting, but in order to understand how our society really lives now.

It is better not to know how your society lives. The last hairs stand on end from such knowledge and it becomes scary for the grandchildren.

Teach the reality of nuclear explosions. A lot of them were written in Soviet times.
Who is your society about? About Russian youth?
So I write about her.
Read news VK, Insta, youth cart channels. watch tik-tok, ask your children and grandchildren to send you what they find interesting.
And believe that in a couple of months you will come to much more interesting conclusions.

[Essex62]

No . Thank you, I made my conclusions long and forever. Your world looks disgusting to me.

[Murat]

Ah, it’s clear))) missiles won’t take off, bombs won’t explode, the Chinese will seize Siberia, and the Americans are generally invulnerable supermen))) what else can you have fun with?
I will tell you an open secret: 90% of American "hen houses" will flare up like torches from the light radiation of air nuclear explosions. Together with their internal animate and inanimate contents. And most Russian houses are concrete and brick, and only the shock wave is dangerous for them. Which quickly goes out as you move away from the epicenter.
And yes, American "cities" with a population of less than 10-20 thousand, in principle, have no industrial significance: simply because of their TOTAL dependence of their industry on larger cities. For the destruction of which 1200 warheads on our ICBMs are quite enough. And after the impact, due to the collapse of a single logistics, they will also quickly die out. It's just a transition from quantity to quality. If you destroy one city, the resources of all the others will help to restore it. If all large cities are destroyed at once, small cities will die out, because without symbiosis with large ones they are not viable.
Although, of course, it would be even better if we had less powerful warheads, but in larger numbers.

[SovAr238A]

Quote: Murat

Ah, it’s clear))) missiles won’t take off, bombs won’t explode, the Chinese will seize Siberia, and the Americans are generally invulnerable supermen))) what else can you have fun with?
I will tell you an open secret: 90% of American "hen houses" will flare up like torches from the light radiation of air nuclear explosions. Together with their internal animate and inanimate contents. And most Russian houses are concrete and brick, and only the shock wave is dangerous for them. Which quickly goes out as you move away from the epicenter.
And yes, American "cities" with a population of less than 10-20 thousand, in principle, have no industrial significance: simply because of their TOTAL dependence of their industry on larger cities. For the destruction of which 1200 warheads on our ICBMs are quite enough. And after the impact, due to the collapse of a single logistics, they will also quickly die out. It's just a transition from quantity to quality. If you destroy one city, the resources of all the others will help to restore it. If all large cities are destroyed at once, small cities will die out, because without symbiosis with large ones they are not viable.
Although, of course, it would be even better if we had less powerful warheads, but in larger numbers.

Learn in your secret the Half Overcoat - the real ranges of the factors of a nuclear explosion.
Especially how the factors of range, relief, blast height, "shading by large buildings" affect - read the secondary relief.

[Spring fluff]

you are offered the physics of the process to study a little, and you are in response to anti-scientific nonsense. find a textbook on life safety, read about the radii of damage depending on power. and it is necessary to measure, as you guessed, not the total impact power, but the number of warheads. because the difference between a 100 kiloton warhead and an unrealistic 10 megaton warhead (which is formally 100 times more powerful) - in fact, gives an increase in the radius of destruction by only 4 times.
and the problem is that our warheads are in the mines on the ground and in the submarine near the pier, and they are right next to us in the same submarines. only ours, without cover, how will they get out of the bases? therefore, if it starts (for example, with tiao), then there is a great chance that we will not have a chance to launch anything.

[Osipov9391]

So I wrote about it above. Always a pair of British strategic submarines (sometimes 3) patrol the waters of the North and Norwegian Seas. Under the cover of their forces.
And from there, with a flat strike of 30-35 rockets and hundreds of charges, the entire European part of Russia is covered in a maximum of 15 minutes.

[Murat]

Well, strictly speaking, our nuclear submarines are safer at the pier than at sea. Because both them, and mine ICBMs, and the places of permanent deployment of PGRKs in 2-3 years will be covered by S-500 air defense systems. And by 2030 there will be dozens of these air defense systems.
Well, the issue of deploying American nuclear weapons in Europe and Asia should be resolved diplomatically: it is necessary to deploy our own nuclear weapons to strike at US vassals. And politely warn them about it. Politely... And also about the fact that we are not a scoop and we will not make a difference between military facilities and cities with a civilian population.

[Spring fluff]

"Well, strictly speaking, our nuclear submarines are safer at the pier than at sea." - I agree. but the goal is not their safety, but their effectiveness. they would be effective on enemy coasts, from where the approach time is minimal, under the cover of multi-purpose nuclear submarines. and in absolute safety - in the form of unfinished blanks in shipyards.

[Murat]

The mace can successfully shoot at the States and from the pier. The problem is only in the false setting of tasks: shoot from anywhere, but it will not work to establish an enemy strike. But the retaliatory and counter strike with the total cleansing of the New World from the people there - completely!

[Spring fluff]

Have you asked yourself why we didn't just make launchers on the pier? or ten barges with a launcher? you can shoot as well. but no. this is not the point of the rpksn. and when we move on to a ground (coastal) launcher, it turns out that the mines distributed on the territory (including those remote from the border, I'm not talking about the sea! Border) are cheaper and more protected than n-twenty missiles assembled in one fragile package.

[Pilat2009]

Quote: Spring Fluff

only ours, without cover, how will they get out of the bases?

And they get from the bases to the USA, by the way

[Spring fluff]

you can't read? we are discussing this topic above. theoretically yes they can. answer yourself the question - why instead of ten cheap and simple launchers right on the shore of this base, for some reason everyone is building a submarine around these launchers? money nowhere to go or nothing else to do?

[Pilat2009]

Quote: Spring Fluff

you can't read? we are discussing this topic above. theoretically yes they can. answer yourself the question - why instead of ten cheap and simple launchers right on the shore of this base, for some reason everyone is building a submarine around these launchers? money nowhere to go or nothing else to do?

And what, our submarines don’t go to sea on duty? They tell you about boats that are on the regulations. Nobody will build a boat so that it stands at the pier.

[rocket757]

Reopen arsenals of tactical nuclear weapons

. What can I say ... conservation, for such weapons as vigorous, is a relative concept !!! You can't just push it into a corner and forget ... it's not done that way, IMPOSSIBLE.

[Stils]

The fact that something similar, similar, in any case, will happen. There is only one question on the agenda, whether we will close the issue now or if we want to suffer more.

[Dilettante grandfather]

Quote: Aleksandr21

Our generals were preparing for past wars, and NATO generals for wars of the 21st century

Disagree. Firstly, it was our generals who were preparing for war in modern realities. Moreover, in combat conditions, in Syria. For comparison: we have not left Syria. The Yankees - fled from Afghanistan. The fact that NATO has a lot of UAVs does not mean that they are ready for modern warfare. The analogy is obvious: in 1940 France had a whole bunch of tanks, so what? How could this bunch of tanks help the French, despite the fact that the Germans could only knock out the B1 with 88 mm flasks and large-caliber field artillery? For comparison, German tanks, for the most part, had bulletproof protection at that time, and all French B1, Somua, and others, not counting light tanks, had an average of 40 mm of armor. Against 15-10 mm for the Germans. Who won, we know. For how long - too.

[Pilat2009]

Quote: Grandfather is an amateur

Moreover, in combat conditions, in Syria. For comparison: we did not leave Syria

In Syria, we are opposed by no means regular units. And the NATO members themselves left Afghanistan, having considered expenses and incomes.

[Dilettante grandfather]

They did not leave Afghanistan, but fled. So fast that already the heels sparkled, remember what was going on there at that time. And in Syria, we are confronted by people trained by American and British instructors. Why are they worse than regular units?

[Pilat2009]

Quote: Grandfather is an amateur

So fast that even the heels sparkled

You can count however you like.

Quote: Grandfather is an amateur

Why are they worse than regular units?

The fact that they do not have aviation, air defense, and heavy weapons

[Aist_M]

The author of the article does not have reliable information either about the state of the Russian armed forces, or about the state of the NATO armed forces, or about the American missile defense system, which they have been developing very successfully for 40 years.
Even if all the bridges and roads in Ukraine are destroyed, weapons will be delivered by air, American howitzers are made of titanium so that they can be transported by air.
You won’t believe me anyway, but here are the results of laser weapon tests that took place 20 years ago. https://www.drive2.ru/c/2660097/
According to the Pentagon, now they are able to protect not only the United States but also allies. Because they curtailed their nuclear missile program. They just don't need her. All missiles will fall back to the territory from which they were launched. And that's it, there will be a nuclear repository, not a country.

[Mikhail Alekseev_2]

about the successful development of American weapons especially amused)))
Of course, you shouldn’t underestimate them - but you don’t need to put them on a pedestal for a long time

[Aist_M]

Did you even look at the photo in the link?

[Mikhail Alekseev_2]

watched what? another SOI)))

[Pilat2009]

Quote from Aist_M

American howitzers are made of titanium so that they can be transported by plane

I don’t quite understand why ordinary guns cannot be transported by plane? But where will you land the planes if the airfields are targeted? If a rocket arrives at them once a day?

[Jarilo]

All nuclear weapons are accounted for and under control. So you can't blame.

[composite]

This is not true:
https://eadaily.com/ru/news/2018/03/12/problema-takticheskogo-yadernogo-oruzhiya-dogovorov-net-i-poka-ne-budet

[bandabas]

As in the old joke - "It's for people like you, Marya Ivanovna (Mitrofanov) that there are sex therapists."

[Conjurer]

Author, why justify the use of double standards against us

If Russia strikes at the Polish Armed Forces using tactical nuclear weapons, neither the United States, nor Great Britain, nor France will use their nuclear weapons against Russia in response. It is a little more difficult with the American armed forces, which can be deployed on the territory of the same Poland, but this issue can also be "bypassed".......
No, of course, if Russia, after delivering TNW strikes against Poland, decides to send troops to its territory, then they already become a completely legitimate target for American TNW.

That is, we can’t hit the Americans, but can the Americans hit us? Rave. Either the Americans get involved in defending Poland (which the author denies) and the war automatically turns into a world war, or they are not there and they cannot make claims to us - that's how it is in Mariupol.

[depressant]

Hey colleagues!
There is this - clausula rebus sic stantibus. The contract remains valid for the parties as long as the circumstances that led to its conclusion persist (legal clause clause).
And there was a Russia-NATO political act of 1997 on the non-proliferation of nuclear weapons. As it expands into Eastern Europe, NATO must not drag nuclear weapons with it. Now NATO is saying: "clause, let's do it."
And what - be silent?
Sad.

[mojohed2012]

TNW will definitely be used sooner or later.
Probably:
1. If the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation will very slowly push through the defense of the Armed Forces of Ukraine in the East and once again "out of good will" Putin will declare a local retreat for the sake of negotiations! This will show our weakness, even if we do not consider it such. The West, as if on cue, perceived the withdrawal from Kyiv and Chernigov as a weakness. Their brains are wired like this...
2. If, after the defeat of the advanced Polish units that invaded/into Ukraine, we endure artillery or missile attacks on NATO bases in Europe or the same Poland. Or we will invade Poland with one or another tactical goal.
3. If such a situation has developed in political and tactical terms, that it will be extremely beneficial for them to undermine a nuclear device in the center of Kyiv, for example. So far, this situation has not developed.
4. If the militants and mercenaries do not give up from Azov and stay there for another month or two (they do not use the hint of some telegram channels - about the escape under water of the most important commanders and mercenaries using diving equipment). If we continue to keep this object in a state of siege, without a final sweep. Politically and strategically, it would be time to destroy it, albeit with the loss of civilians held there. It is necessary to close the issue with fakes that "Mariupol is being held by the Armed Forces of Ukraine."

[Wanderer_GO]

Suppose the United States and England have achieved their goal, and the troops of the NATO countries have come into combat contact with Russia. What should Russia do in this case - yes, our military doctrine involves the use of nuclear weapons in such a situation, but the use of tactical weapons will not bring the desired effect, due to limited defeat, and the use of heavy ballistic weapons in Europe (with their crowding and deployment density) will certainly lead to very large losses or even complete destruction of Western Europe ...
But ... in the event of a powerful blow to the territory of an island state separated from the European enclave by the sea, but at the same time being a nuclear state, it will certainly sober up the "hot heads", which is called "little blood". (Here, as it were, the conduct itself provides, you can even say "sets up", just such a development of the plot.)
And I also wanted to say about the recent publication of the Americans and the so-called "Plan B" - mutually nuclear destruction of the United States and Russia - and so there (computer-simulated) launch of ballistic missiles that go on a collision course and destroy Russia and a little later America.
Question ? - why do the Americans impose such a development of application that the computer did not calculate other options?
Here is one of the options: the launch is as shown in the YouTube video, but only the first minutes - then events develop like this - part of the launched missiles (let's call them "fast missiles"), separating from the total mass, come into contact with the attacking side and detonate (creating in space "nuclear fortress"), the missiles that break through are met by the remaining missile group at the boundary of the earth's atmosphere, and after the "thinning" the "short arm" of the missile defense system is turned on. Yes, of course, it is necessary to simultaneously suppress both the enemy’s naval and air groupings, and by and large, it is necessary to suppress the “control centers”, but still this is also one of the scenarios, and not so pessimistic ....
PS The hidden enemy always wakes you up to assure you that it is impossible to use, that we will all die, and will also give a thousand examples to set public opinion against the use. The Russians should know that the "golden billion" will "strangle itself" for its hegemony and will go to the end, therefore, despite everything, we are obliged to go to the end ....

[futurohunter]

For Wanderer_GO: You wrote garbage. Read about the damaging factors of nuclear explosions in space. Also, what are fast rockets? Are you suggesting just wasting 70% of missiles? And what does the PRO not like? Why fireworks in the sky to arrange? Moreover, with the creation of new radiation belts, the burning of their own space grouping and electromagnetic pulses along their own infrastructure?

[Wanderer_GO]

Katz offers to surrender...!!!

[Senior seaman]

But let's try to imagine that at the end of the First World War, someone will tell that in 21 years the Second World War will begin.

This man's name was Ferdinand Foch and he was a marshal of France.
It was he who said about Versailles that this is not peace, but a truce for 20 years.

[Maks1995]

IMHO, the author simply provokes interest in the topic of horror.

The Simonyans have already been promoted, and the Solovyovs, and other propagandists ... and deputies.

So: someone blew up nuclear weapons on the territory of Ukraine. There is no war. Our territory is safe, because there is no war, so, excesses ...
The author immediately suggests hitting NATO with nuclear weapons. Become a nuclear Aggressor. Like, we are great, but everyone is scared ...
..... Why not now, right away?
They're scared!

And if not, then...

In general, provocateurs on the payroll - the Simonyans and K - got their way. What was previously considered horror and unthinkable, and even performed by US, and not Amer in Hiroshima, Hitler, and other "authorities", is suggested as quite ordinary, forced, they say, life is like that ....

[Boa kaa]

Quote: Max1995

In general, provocateurs on the payroll - the Simonyans and K - got their way. What used to be considered horror and unthinkable ... is inspired as quite ordinary, forced, they say, such is life.

You either inattentively watched Solovyov, where Margarita Simonyan said that they are trying to put us before a choice - either defeat or nuclear war - Because the united West went on a crusade against Russia ... Therefore, we must be afraid and give up, refusing to our values ​​for the sake of survival and further "life on your knees."
Either you are a conscious provocateur-bulk from the pool of Leshenka-Iudushka - a liar and a traitor to the interests of the country.
Nobody wants to die. Everyone wants to live. But no one is allowed to blackmail a nuclear superpower! And every Russian, brought up in the traditions of Alexander Nevsky and his vigilantes, will choose the TRUTH, instead of a shameful vegetative existence under the rule of the World Government.
That is why our people from time immemorial have been brought up on the proverb - "It is better to die standing than to live on your knees!" - in contrast to the servile West, where it was always in vogue: - "It's better to be a coward for 5 minutes than to be a dead man all your life!"
As they say, "feel the difference!"
This is what Margarita Simonyan was talking about, and not about the nonsense that you attribute to her.

[Maks1995]

No defeat, what kind of "decadence"
And no war. Gas, oil, nickel, etc. we sell ourselves, just take it, West ....

And the rest of the labels and statements are from impotence and a zombie.
Like - who does not nod at the TV - Navalny's agent.

Here you are, even "in the tradition of Alexander Nevsky" they never told which of the Russian oligarchs financed the nationalists there ... but they mentioned it many times ...

They didn’t deserve it, since the oligarchs for power are their own, and the rest .... remotely voting for the core ... that is. terpils who are milked, showing eternal "concern"

[Spring fluff]

what are you writing?
"every Russian, brought up in the traditions of Alexander Nevsky and his warriors, will choose the TRUTH, instead of shamefully vegetating under the rule of the World Government. ... It is better to die standing than to live on your knees"
let's look at the facts on the example of the second world
- According to the data of the Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation, published in 2005, during the Great Patriotic War, a total of 4,559 million Soviet servicemen were taken prisoner.
- By the end of the Great Patriotic War in 1945, the Armed Forces of the USSR numbered more than 11 people.
Simple arithmetic operations show that in the presence of a powerful communist ideology in the country, the number of soldiers (people under oath, obliged to defend the country from the enemy) who were captured (who did not die with the last grenade) was more than 30% of the total number of military personnel. yes, of course, there were those who were taken prisoner unconscious, but the general situation is clear. this despite the fact that on the other side there was a cannibalistic regime with concentration camps.
it's not worth talking about civilians.
and now we have no ideology, when, on the other hand, McDonald's, human rights and instagram ...
what can I say - we ourselves sell gas / oil with pleasure.
don't be delusional

[Boa kaa]

Quote: Spring Fluff

and now we have no ideology, when, on the other hand, McDonald's, human rights and instagram ...

Sir, no need to be zealous! As I understand it, you have already surrendered to them. Only when it starts for real, don't shoot ours in the back! Otherwise, they will be caught and hanged, like Bandera in 1946 in Kyiv.
Your paradigm (KATZ OFFERS TO SURRENDER!!!) is very clear to me. Therefore, I do not need to tell that 30% of the Red Army surrendered. And the war was won by the militias with a three-ruler in their hands! You also need to be able to slander, and not as clumsily as you.
Adieu!

[Spring fluff]

you are a strange person. I give you official figures and understandable mathematics, and you give me an accusation of slander and a urapatriotic set of words. all this has already happened. and before the Second World War, they also sang songs about little bloodshed in foreign territory, if Stalin gives the order ... all as one ...
first, out of thoughtlessness or hypocrisy, out of their own petty gain, they sing such songs, shout slogans, and then millions of normal people wash their faces with blood for these other people's mistakes.

[svp67]

Quote: Spring Fluff

- According to the data of the Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation, published in 2005, during the Great Patriotic War, a total of 4,559 million Soviet servicemen were taken prisoner.

Can you find out where this data was provided and by whom?
But I can say that there is other data, from the same Ministry of Defense. According to the staff historian of the Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation G.F. Krivosheev, during the Great Patriotic War, 3 military personnel were missing and taken prisoner.

[sash-sash]

What if we offer to raise money for VO for treatment by a psychiatrist of some authors?

[voyaka uh]

Not enough money...
There are such obvious patients here: "the whole world is in ruins. They will die,
and we - to paradise" - at least a hundred on the forum.
Influenced by social conditions: depression from constant poverty,
poor health, no future for children.
These factors have a bad effect on the psyche and cause
suicidal moods.

[yehat2]

Quote: voyaka uh

These factors have a bad effect on the psyche and cause
suicidal moods.

The main factor is that people feel that life does not belong to them. The oligarchs will gobble up everything and everyone. In the USSR, many lived poorer than now, but they owned the whole country, they knew that neither they nor their children would be lost, food and communal services cost a penny, housing and much more often got free, and the citizens themselves, if they wanted, could actively participate in the life of society and change it. And people were full of optimism.

[Whisper]

We will stomp and so .... and further and further and further, without the use of OPM. We do not need WMD, we need will!

[dementor873]

I don't like this Overton Window at all. Does it convince you that the use of tactical nuclear weapons is justified? There is no evidence for this.

[yehat2]

what the author wrote in the article, the United States can go and there will even be those who want to do it, but there is one "but"
a well-informed person will not go for it, because he understands how it will end. One example is enough - the pollution from Fukushima was felt even in the Gulf of Mexico for many thousands of kilometers. A larger use of WMD is guaranteed to seriously affect the territory of the United States, in addition, the United States lives off the sale of the dollar. If buyers disappear - how to live on? They will simultaneously face ecological and economic catastrophe. But China will be affected much weaker. Those. any sane politician in the United States understands that such a thing would inflict the gravest damage on the United States itself, without even going into the long-term consequences.
And there is still a possibility that the Russian Federation will respond to the address.

[smart fellow]

Viacheslav Volodin: Russia can use nuclear weapons only as a response to a nuclear strike
http://duma.gov.ru/news/54237/

[acetophenone]

Quote: Nikolay Malyugin

. But if you talk about it all the time, then it will certainly begin.

And if you DO NOT SPEAK, then it ... Then it will begin anyway, only we will not be ready for it, like ostriches.

[pafegosoff]

It was in the early 1970s. They taught, for example, tactical aircraft navigation, Air Force tactics, bombing and other interesting subjects. Well, now, boys of 18 years old, learned how to throw bombs on the same America. They flew on the Tu-16 dropped. "Lucky" - rush with a parachute and a boat into the Pacific Ocean, survive among sharks and killer whales...
And somehow - nothing: "it is necessary, then - it is necessary!" Tokmo it will be a pity if you do not leave offspring. So some got married - at the school, some already in the second year of aviation service ... Not s and not Europeans. Responsibly worked with 20 years!
So "Vigorous bonbs" will not intimidate us. Our nuclear physicists lived quietly until 90!

[Dilettante grandfather]

Quote: Pilat2009

You can count however you like.

Just like you, in fact.