Military Review

The solution to military conflicts is not in nuclear weapons

The solution to military conflicts is not in nuclear weapons

While all sorts of Daily Mail are discussing the telephone conversation between Putin and Macron, which fully gives the media an opportunity to play on the nerves of the population and dream up where and under what circumstances a nuclear charge will fly, I want to remind weapons much more profitable and therefore more effective than nuclear.

At first, you need to understand that mass destruction by the kinetic impact of enemy forces or people in general is a very time-consuming process that requires the required number of charges, launchers, guidance systems, reconnaissance and other things.

Secondly, radiation as a consequence of a nuclear weapon strike can be protected from, and areas with a lethal dose do not last too long. Rather, more damage will be done unintentionally due to precipitation, but there is a direct relationship between the length of the half-life and energy. The faster the splitting occurs, the more energy is released and the shorter the critical infection lasts.

Thirdly, there are indirect risks for the user himself, which are associated with climate, ecology, oncology of the population and banal trade. No one knows how much contaminated metal and household items were taken out of Pripyat, primarily because it is impossible to completely close access to such locations, and most of them settled in the post-Soviet space.

Yes, nuclear weapons give access to a very status club, and they are needed as part of the arsenal, but there should be something more terrible up our sleeve, for example, chemical weapons.

American binary charges for MLRS HIMARS

Benefits of chemical weapons:

1. Cheapness. Chemical weapons are "poor man's nuclear weapons" and don't require as many technological bells and whistles as uranium enrichment.

2. Closed production. In addition to the active use of phosgenes, cyanides, mustard gas and organophosphorus compounds in the national economy, there is the possibility of quickly switching the production of peaceful factories to military needs. In addition, combining several non-toxic products easily results in a chemical warfare agent.

3. Economic benefit in the form of preserving other people's material values, which can later be appropriated.

4. Area and volumeI. It is possible to predict and control not only the force of toxic effects, but also solve operational and strategic tasks.

5. Difficulty of detection impact and protection from it.

6. Flexibility. The tactical capabilities of various substances make it possible not only to quickly and painfully destroy manpower, but also to disable it for desired periods of time.

Defense against chemical weapons is not as straightforward as against nuclear weapons. Of course, a deep bunker with a closed life support cycle, like in feature films, will help, but for a strictly specified amount of time. Will it be enough for the toxic substances to break down? You won't know until you go out and take a sample.

From chemical warfare agents, first of all, it is required:

1. The ability to act on different organs and systems of the body.

2. The speed or, on the contrary, the "cunning" of the action. For example, the presence of a long latent period.

3. Lack of organoleptic characteristics.

4. Long duration of infecting action.

5. Difficulty in recognizing the cause of the lesion using various methods of analysis.

6. Convenience of combat use.

7. Storage stability.

In addition, the main problem of chemistry is that it is possible to minimize the consequences of it only by finding out what was used, and in our time, the range of chemical warfare agents and their methods of exposure, in my opinion, is too large.

Poisons can affect:

1) molecules of proteins, nucleic acids and other important things inside a person, causing structural and functional changes;

2) molecules of biologically active substances, causing qualitative or quantitative changes. Biologically active substances are enzymes, hormones, vitamins, neurotransmitters and other important things inside a person;

3) inorganic components of the human internal environment, thereby causing physical and chemical disorders. For example, changes in the composition of blood plasma;

4) cells of the body, causing their reaction with irritation, damage or violation of division.

All these changes entail a reaction of the internal organs and the body as a whole. In addition, poisons have a variety of mechanisms of action, which in turn makes it difficult to identify them and limits the ability to counteract them.

The advantages of chemical weapons do not end with all of the above. The ability to use binary systems, when the poisonous substance does not pose a danger until the mixing of two or more components, opens up great prospects in logistics.

In the United States, large-scale production of binary munitions began in 1980, despite the fact that President Nixon in 1960 abandoned the first use of chemical weapons and all methods of biological warfare by issuing an order to stop the production and transportation of chemical weapons, which remains in force to this day. . Indeed, it is very dangerous to store and transport ready-made chemical weapons; it is much better to produce and store safe “semi-finished products” for them. Since 1988, the United States has been actively destroying its declared ammunition, pledging to end it by December 31, 2023.

What is the advantage of binary ammunition?

Whether it is a rocket, a bomb or an artillery shell, the process of creating a poisonous substance occurs when the partitions of containers with components are destroyed, due to the dynamic loading at launch. The high cost of such shells is more than offset by the low cost of production of the original components, the absence of problems with storage, transportation and camouflage.


The first use of a chemical warfare agent for terrorist purposes occurred in long-suffering Japan. On the night of June 27-28, 1994, in the city of Matsumoto, as a result of the use of a composition based on sarin, about 200 people were injured, of which 7 died.

On March 20, 1995, a terrorist attack was carried out in the Tokyo subway using compositions also containing sarin. As a result, more than 5 people were injured, 000 of whom died and about 12 received severe and moderate poisoning.

In the same 1995, an attempt was made to use a suffocating poison, phosgene, known since the First World War, in the Yokohama metropolitan area.

Is there any chance, given the US doctrine, that there are binary charges for the HIMARS-type MLRS?

I think this chance is 100%.

Is there a risk that, amidst the chaos that is happening in Ukraine, even the simplest, but poisonous substance, can be collected and delivered, for example, with the help of drones?

I believe that if you wish, this is quite feasible, especially while everyone is busy discussing nuclear weapons, missile strikes and a gas pipeline.

Does it make strategic sense?

There is, given the well-fortified Kherson.

In the end, everything was as Sun Tzu bequeathed:

“War is a way of deception. Therefore, even if you are capable, show your opponent your inability. When you have to bring your forces into battle, pretend to be inactive. When the target is close, show that it is far away; when it is really far away, give the impression that it is close.”

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:

Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. Uncle lee
    Uncle lee 10 November 2022 06: 07
    Here you go ! It remains only to sprinkle us with "dust"! am
    1. SincerityX
      SincerityX 10 November 2022 15: 35
      It is not for nothing that the purity of thoughts borders on naivety ... This seems to be more than enough with us ...
  2. Lech from Android.
    Lech from Android. 10 November 2022 06: 09
    Valery, are you implying that the Ukronazis will hit Kherson with Haymars shells with toxic substances?
    what Unlikely... and dangerous, first of all, for the Ukronats themselves in political terms... after that, who wants to deal with crazy scumbags... here it will no longer be possible to convince the whole world that the Kyiv regime is fighting for a just cause... and the answer will already be directly at the top of this mode.
    1. SincerityX
      SincerityX 10 November 2022 15: 38
      Wake up already, they'll just point the finger at us and that's it. And yet, yes, they are worthy of the epithet you voiced, as well as the UWB power structures. And they will apply and pretend that it is not them. Simply, apparently UWB believe that the moment has not yet come. And if NATO troops invade the Russian Federation, then they will not be shy there, believe me.
    2. bandabas
      bandabas 10 November 2022 15: 45
      Unfortunately, the Lilliputians have already handed over Kherson to the campaign.
      EFIM LYUBIN 10 November 2022 19: 28
      Lech from Android, you are mistaken! There will be no answer, because all Western Russophobia will scream that this is the hand of Moscow! And moans about not good Western "partners" will fall from the Kremlin! I do not even believe that after a nuclear attack on the territory of Russia there will be an adequate reaction from the Kremlin!!!
  3. Vladimir_2U
    Vladimir_2U 10 November 2022 06: 13
    Chemical weapons are weapons of mass destruction, the use of weapons of mass destruction on the outskirts will allow them to be used in response, quite legitimately, another WMD is nuclear. The US-ans just need it.
    1. Yura
      Yura 10 November 2022 16: 30
      Quote: Vladimir_2U
      Chemical weapons are weapons of mass destruction

      Even worse, biological weapons for the period 2020-2021 in the world from covid died 14,9 million people since then, this figure, although on a smaller scale, has been growing. Almost three Finland or Norway in terms of population, no bombing, missile and nuclear strikes, and the scale of the murder is prohibitive, the economy is killed in the case of the targeted use of such weapons. Only one laboratory is capable of destroying all of humanity. Yeah.
  4. Amateur
    Amateur 10 November 2022 06: 19
    Why a photo of Saddam? Or is it a hint?
    1. yuriy55
      yuriy55 10 November 2022 07: 01
      Quote: Amateur
      Why a photo of Saddam? Or is it a hint?

      This is a hint that Saddam was executed for the test tube shown in the Security Council, and the United States has not yet destroyed its CW ... But Russia reported on its complete destruction.
      A strange feature: the West is fighting against Russia without fear of conventions, treaties, or consequences ... Russia looks back every time ...
      Apparently the horses are driven, it's time to change ...
    2. Lech from Android.
      Lech from Android. 10 November 2022 07: 02
      Quote: Amateur
      Why a photo of Saddam? Or is it a hint?

      Not a hint ... the Anglo-Saxons are already working on the legal aspects of the arrest of the GDP, following the example of Milosevic and Hussein.
      1. NG inform
        NG inform 11 November 2022 02: 57
        Papers are important, yes. Putin doesn't do the same with all sorts of Liz, Ursula and Borrel, purely because he is not a clown, unlike.
  5. yuriy55
    yuriy55 10 November 2022 06: 57
    “War is a way of deception. Therefore, even if you are capable, show your opponent your inability. When you have to bring your forces into battle, pretend to be inactive. When the target is close, show that it is far away; when it is really far away, give the impression that it is close.”

    Perhaps the Chinese was right. Only this is the way of deceiving the enemy (enemy), and not one's own people, who are told that they have not started yet, and when the time comes, they begin to weave that everything is over.
    The named goals of the SVO were real, although not close, especially - denazification. And the initial message was clear... What happened?
    Will by will, if there is too much strength - and I got carried away:
    I rushed ten thousand, like five hundred - and baked!
    You let me down - I warned you! - breather:
    Ran only two laps and fell. What a pity!
    1. madrobot
      madrobot 10 November 2022 09: 24
      The Chinese always say more than they do. And it's not even that they have accumulated an impressive strike potential. It's just... it's just that they never used it anywhere. And the experience of World War II, kakbe, hints to us that even the Japanese multiplied them by zero.
      There, of course, they have their own layouts, but the fact that they (the Chinese) have not been noted anywhere and in any way ... This gives food for thought. Not?
      1. yuriy55
        yuriy55 10 November 2022 10: 37
        Quote: madrobot
        The Chinese always say more than they do. And it's not even that they have accumulated an impressive strike potential.

        Let me disagree with you. I remember Mao’s claims, and jokes, and poor sparrows, and the ban on the birth of a second child, and about the astronaut “with sore hands” ... But on every dog ​​kennel in the USSR it was written: “Forward to the victory of communism” and “CPSU - the mind, honor and conscience of our era "...
        True, the mind was only enough to tear apart the people's property; and conscience to declare enemies of the USSR as partners and, after partners, enemies of Russia; and they didn’t have honor when they were born - in their youth they exchanged them for jeans and chewing gum ...
        As for "talkative" China, you can see how its industry is developing, what are the successes in military construction and the fight against corruption ... At least compare the personal income tax scale with the Russian one and the skill of combat training:
  6. Lech from Android.
    Lech from Android. 10 November 2022 07: 00
    Quote: yuriy55
    Perhaps the Chinese was right.

    Only the Istanbul agreements and the grain deal greatly spoiled this statement ... who is being deceived this time?
    1. yuriy55
      yuriy55 10 November 2022 10: 52
      Quote: Lech from Android.
      who is being fooled this time?

      Yes, it’s already clear since the XNUMXs that they will lie and dodge in any way in order to stay at the feeder ...
      According to, from 2010 to 2018, when Mikhail Mishustin headed the tax service, he and his wife earned almost a billion rubles. According to the Anti-Corruption Foundation, about 800 million of them were earned by Mishustin's wife. Mishustin's income during this period ranged from 19 to 30 million rubles a year, his wife - from 47 to 160 million rubles.

      Or here's another interesting feature:
      In 2003, Mishustin defended his dissertation for a Ph.D. "Strategy for the formation of property taxation in Russia"

      Isn't it a hot topic? Relates directly to:
      "The principle of most favored nation in international law" another official who, in case of unforeseen circumstances, Mishustin must replace (before the elections) ...
      But, our economist was preparing himself for another activity (did he prepare?)
      In 1989 he completed his studies in the specialty "computer-aided design systems" (CAD), having received the qualification of a systems engineer

      I got the impression that there - in the government, they compete with each other and with "effective managers" in the ability to accumulate budget funds ...
      1. NG inform
        NG inform 11 November 2022 02: 55
        Here you need to understand that on their scale a billion rubles is an inconspicuous penny. If the level of corruption is like this, then consider that it does not exist.
  7. Mavrikiy
    Mavrikiy 10 November 2022 08: 29
    The solution to military conflicts is not in nuclear weapons
    What fool said it?
    There is, given the well-fortified Kherson.
    My dear, I overslept everything ...
  8. acetophenone
    acetophenone 10 November 2022 09: 23
    Unfortunately, the author does not understand what "BATTLE POISONS" are.
    Why should they act on DIFFERENT organs and systems of the body? Why do they need a latency period?
    1. NG inform
      NG inform 11 November 2022 02: 54
      To mask the fact of use by slowing down the speed of response.
  9. voyaka uh
    voyaka uh 10 November 2022 11: 16
    "Is there a chance, given the US doctrine, that there are binary charges for the HIMARS-type MLRS?" ///
    Null. The States, like Russia, abandoned chemical weapons and destroyed their stocks.
    1. SincerityX
      SincerityX 10 November 2022 15: 45
      laughing Thank you for laughing at the end of the day.

      The text of your comment is too short and, in the opinion of the site administration, does not contain useful information.
    2. NG inform
      NG inform 11 November 2022 02: 53
      The US has not destroyed stockpiles of chemical weapons.
  10. Lt. Air Force stock
    Lt. Air Force stock 10 November 2022 12: 23
    It is necessary to develop warheads on antimatter, but seriously, for successful ground operations it is necessary:
    1. Have a large modern satellite constellation
    2. A large number of drones of various classes
    2. A large number of loitering ammunition of various classes (Lancet, Geranium-2, etc.)
    3. MLRS with corrective projectiles in large numbers, since single use of the effect will not work.
    5. Aircraft that can be used from medium and high altitudes without risk or with minimal risk of being shot down. There are either 5th generation aircraft or 4++ generation aircraft with AWACS aircraft, as well as front-line electronic warfare aircraft (again, we don’t have such, the USA has a Growler), and of course a large number of corrected bombs.
    6. An automated combat control system with automatic correction of self-propelled guns and MLRS when receiving coordinates, that is, the drone detects the target, gives coordinates to the self-propelled guns and it automatically makes adjustments
    1. NG inform
      NG inform 11 November 2022 02: 52
      And an unlimited budget. And he is tiny.
      And the birth rate is at least 3 per woman. How many children do you have?
  11. spirit
    spirit 10 November 2022 12: 26
    Note the US and China are betting on conventional weapons systems! Yes, they also make ballistic missiles, but on a residual basis, the United States generally launched its ground-based nuclear forces. But on the other hand, much attention is paid to conventional and massive ones. With us, it’s the other way around, a bunch of wunderwaffe (Poseidons, zircons, etc.) for which they bled / sawed a bunch of the budget, and how the war went, all this crap turned out to be useless. What is it? A failure of the strategy? you can amuse the Emperor's pride. They were not going to prepare for a real war, as it turned out hi
    1. SincerityX
      SincerityX 10 November 2022 15: 47
      Just zircons with poseidons, this is a weapon judgment war they are absolutely unsuitable for colonial wars and the plunder of peoples, to which UWB are accustomed.
    2. NG inform
      NG inform 11 November 2022 02: 52
      This is a strategic weapon. If it is not there, conventional weapons will not help us in any way, at least stamp yourself with some kind of armature.
  12. iouris
    iouris 10 November 2022 14: 29
    The Russian Federation is not able to ensure survival without nuclear weapons. Dot.
    1. SincerityX
      SincerityX 10 November 2022 15: 48
      Thank you, Captain obvious, but without you it was not clear, yeah. And moreover, for a long time, since UWB propaganda and influence began to cultivate poison in the form of grabbers, grabbers and Vlasovites in the 80s.
      I’m already silent about all sorts of trash like Khrushchev Yeltsik and labeled with associates.
      1. Alexey Z
        Alexey Z 12 November 2022 16: 59
        "I'm already silent about all sorts of trash like Khrushchev Yeltsik and labeled with associates."

        And don't forget about their receiver.
        1. SincerityX
          SincerityX 14 November 2022 08: 54
          Are you talking about Putin then? Well xs xs, unlike them, his "ballance" seems to be positive. It's just that there was so much pro-oh that it's hard to get out - the pit of shit is too deep.
    2. NG inform
      NG inform 11 November 2022 02: 50
      The US cannot survive without nuclear weapons. Dot.
  13. Aleksandr97
    Aleksandr97 10 November 2022 14: 42
    Bioweapons are cheaper, and bioweapons can kill 100 to 10000 times more people than chemical weapons of the same weight.
    The main feature of bioweapons is that a small amount of the agent can hit a large number of people. Calculations show that one aircraft (UAV) spraying a deadly microorganism can cause 50% mortality in an area of ​​at least 1000 km2 (this is, for example, larger than the area of ​​Moscow or New York). But chemical weapons affect an area 100 times smaller.
    But be that as it may, biological weapons are an unpredictable thing. The causative agents of diseases are practically uncontrollable and do not distinguish their own from others. Give them freedom, and they will destroy all life in their path. Moreover, they can mutate.
    1. SincerityX
      SincerityX 10 November 2022 15: 58
      They differ, and when mutated, they lose their properties. Namely, UWBs have been developing ethnically targeted bioweapons for a long time, incl. in laboratories coal. Covid initially attacked mostly the Mongoloid race and was extremely virulent. Then he began to lose his qualities. I don’t think that the covid was intended to kill, rather it was a “test of the pen”, a test of ethnically directed viruses and how its properties would weaken in society.
      But the whole world, instead of hanging the UWB by the balls, stuck its tongue in the ass and hypocritically pretended that no one knew what had happened and the bats were to blame for everything. Yeah, love, for thousands of years they ate all kinds of crap and then SUDDENLY a pandemic virus came out.
  14. Mustached Kok
    Mustached Kok 10 November 2022 15: 47
    Excuse me, but first of all:
    1. It is still considered a weapon of mass destruction. This means that when using such a weapon, the side used immediately becomes a criminal, even if it was used for defense.
    2. Not just because it was not used in WWII. It turned out to be extremely inefficient. Now, of course, the means of delivery have improved, but the general situation of chem. The weapons haven't changed much.

    So the article itself, which is directly saturated with the idea of ​​​​starting to use chem. weapons as a means of deterrence are insane.
    Do not attack the DPRK until now because they did not have time to attack until it had its own nuclear shield. As soon as it appeared then, NATO's fervor towards the DPRK subsided.
    1. NG inform
      NG inform 11 November 2022 02: 49
      The US used chemical weapons in Vietnam. They became criminals. AND?
      They also used nuclear weapons against civilians. They became criminals. AND?
      Criminals are a domestic concept, not an international one.
  15. ananias mudishev
    ananias mudishev 10 November 2022 19: 34
    In Ukraine, 17 million hectares of land is under the control of American companies like Monsant, they need ports to export grain from Ukraine. Now imagine: an American division enters Odessa and puts its flag there, well, how is it in Syria and what are we going to do? We have a thin gut as a conventional weapon against NATO, only nuclear weapons remain, but then this is the end of the world. In this case, there are only 2 options: either you have to fight nuclear weapons, or don’t go to Odessa, but then we will lose Odessa. Well, rest assured that the Merikos will not leave Ukraine without access to the Black Sea
  16. NG inform
    NG inform 11 November 2022 02: 47
    The author does not own the material.
    Chemical weapons have little effectiveness against the military. It tracks great. Binary ammunition was adopted in the form of just one saw model. Binary ammunition did not live up to expectations, as it does not work well.
    To contrast chemical and nuclear weapons? Oh well.
    1. Eule
      Eule 12 November 2022 18: 13
      Quote: NG inform
      Chemical weapons have little effectiveness against the military

      It's not even about low efficiency.
      Probability - the effectiveness of the defeat depends on the wind, temperature, the speed of putting on gas masks by the enemy. That is, unpredictable.
      Incomprehensibility - the inability to assess the damage done from the air and plan further actions.
      Selectivity - does not affect materiel, and even if you manage to poison someone, the replenishment will be able to use weapons further. And a simple HE is devoid of these problems - it equally damages everything - manpower, trucks, armored personnel carriers, trenches and buildings, causes some harm to tanks. The damage from HE is easy to see on an aerial photo, and to assess whether it was possible to inflict damage on the enemy.
  17. NG inform
    NG inform 11 November 2022 03: 52
    I wonder why they didn’t put the father of all bombs on a rocket engine and didn’t shoot such a canoe at fortified areas? It seems to me that they would quickly be demolished.
  18. Illanatol
    Illanatol 13 November 2022 09: 03
    Indeed, it is very dangerous to store and transport ready-made chemical weapons; it is much better to produce and store safe "semi-finished products" for them.

    Producing is possible. But the finished projectile / air bomb already contains both components, which can mix under mechanical action (strong impact, fall from a height, etc.).
    In general, chemical weapons are ineffective when used against military personnel. There are regular protective equipment (gas mask, OZK), there are analyzers and antidotes, there is equipment for degassing. It is almost as impossible to hide the fact of the use of BOVs as it is to hide the use of tactical nuclear weapons.
    So - hardly.
    In the conditions of Ukraine, the use of radiological weapons (that same "dirty bomb") would have the greatest effect. Actually, you can do without special devices at all. It's easy to use an unmanned AN-2 in an agricultural version, fill the tanks with a solution of radioactive isotopes and spray it over some city (Kherson, for example). To increase efficiency - combine with the subsequent flooding of the infected city. The Dnieper water will carry radioactive mud into the Black Sea. The consequences of such a thing would be enormous. Responsibility would be laid, of course, on the "Russian orcs".
    The scenario is similar - it could well be implemented by the Ukrainian side, there are no technical obstacles.
    However, the surrender of Kherson made this irrelevant.