Military Review

Moscow insists on making the further reduction of nuclear weapons multilateral - Russian Foreign Ministry

48
Moscow insists on making the further reduction of nuclear weapons multilateral - Russian Foreign Ministry

Moscow insists on making the further reduction of nuclear weapons multilateral. This was stated today by Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov, speaking at the conference "Nuclear weapon and international security in the twenty-first century. "

“We proceed from the fact that further steps in the field of reducing and limiting nuclear weapons should be multilateral,” Ryabkov emphasized. “This will enable them to be carried out in such a way that international stability is strengthened, peace, equal and indivisible security is guaranteed, and verifiability is guaranteed and the irreversibility of the measures taken. "

Moscow views the strengthening of strategic stability between the Russian Federation and the United States as the "necessary basis for achieving these objectives." "We are interested in promoting an intensive international and multilateral dialogue on the whole range of issues related to strengthening international security and strategic stability," the diplomat said.
Originator:
http://www.arms-tass.su
48 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. alexng
    alexng 8 November 2012 16: 27
    +31
    We must take into account not only the potential of the United States, but also the potential of all of NATO in the issue of nuclear disarmament. That will be right.
    1. MG42
      MG42 8 November 2012 17: 09
      +8
      In NATO, apart from the United States, only France and Great Britain have nuclear weapons, one must also not forget about the other members of the "nuclear club" China, India, Israel winked Reduce only obsolete designs.
      1. donchepano
        donchepano 8 November 2012 17: 18
        +12
        NOT TIRED TO REDUCE?
        REACHED ALREADY CAN'T.
        1. MG42
          MG42 8 November 2012 17: 25
          +5
          Everything has its own expiration date, including nuclear weapons, this is what needs to be "cut" smile
        2. GSH-18
          GSH-18 8 November 2012 19: 58
          +2
          Quote: donchepano
          NOT TIRED TO REDUCE?
          REACHED ALREADY CAN'T.

          You can reduce something if the replacement is even more powerful and reliable! hi
        3. Cavas
          Cavas 8 November 2012 20: 47
          +1
          Quote: donchepano

          NOT TIRED TO REDUCE?
          REACHED ALREADY CAN'T.

          It is not always possible to believe rhetoric. Here they say one thing, but what they really want to make movements.

          Refusal to extend the Nunn-Lugar Treaty

          The Cooperative Threat Reduction Program agreement, which is better known as the Nunn-Lugar agreement (after the names of the two American senators who proposed it), was signed in 1991. His goal was the destruction of nuclear and chemical weapons with the support of American funding and experts in the context of the economic collapse that followed the collapse of the USSR.

          In addition, the program was aimed at reorienting certain military industry enterprises and protecting "sensitive" technologies, while the number of (real or fictional) cases of nuclear material smuggling was growing. Another goal of the treaty was control over nuclear arsenals and their destruction in the countries of the former USSR.

          According to Russia, the program has fulfilled its objectives. In addition, the country wants to get rid of the image of a seeker of aid that emerged in the 1990s. Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov directly reflected this in his statement: "This agreement does not suit us, especially taking into account the new realities when the situation in Russia has changed, including our financial capabilities have expanded significantly."

          Thus, Russia made it clear that it does not intend to extend the validity of the agreement, which expires in May 2013..
          1. Ascetic
            Ascetic 9 November 2012 00: 19
            +2
            Cavas,

            With this program, the Americans wanted, in the guise of reducing the WMD threat, to find out objective information about the state of Russian nuclear weapons complex facilities, missile bases, strategic aviation bases and strategic missile submarines. And such information could be obtained during inspections of such facilities as part of "Joint Threat Reduction Programs."
            In 1992-2012, the United States spent $ 8,8 billion under the Joint Threat Reduction Program (according to Russian estimates, this amount was about $ 5 billion, since 40% of the allocated amount went to American contractors and consultants). This made it possible to dispose of 7610 nuclear warheads, 902 intercontinental ballistic missiles, 684 submarine ballistic missiles, 33 nuclear submarines, dismantle 498 silo launchers, and eliminate 191 land-based mobile launchers (launchers) and 492 naval launchers based, 155 strategic (long-range) bombers, 906 air-to-ground missiles designed to use nuclear warheads, as well as 3,2 thousand tons of Soviet and Albanian chemical weapons.
            The indicated The program has largely contributed to the fact that Ukraine, Kazakhstan and Belarus have become nuclear-free states.

            So the Moor did his job ..

            The "Joint Threat Reduction Program" in its current form does not suit the Russian military leadership. First, the The Pentagon has the right to check military and nuclear facilities important for the country's defense, if the equipment they paid for is installed there. Second, the US contractors are exempted from legal and financial liability in the event that their actions or their installed equipment will cause any incident.

            So it's time to cover the bench
        4. Nick
          Nick 8 November 2012 22: 54
          +1
          Quote: donchepano
          REACHED ALREADY CAN'T.

          We can’t afford to reduce nuclear weapons now. Unfortunately, today Russia is not able to ensure its security only with conventional weapons.
        5. 755962
          755962 9 November 2012 00: 11
          +1
          Quote: donchepano
          NOT TIRED TO REDUCE?
          REACHED ALREADY CAN'T.

          Putin and Obama agree on nuclear disarmament.
          All warheads were blown up in space. A week later, a call to the Kremlin:
          -Allo Vova, I still have 7 missiles left, so Russia is now a US colony ...
          Well, Putin is thinking, scratching his turnips. Suddenly the Minister of Defense runs into the office "Vladimir Vladimirovich, trouble! Near Saratov, a drunken lieutenant forgot to disarm an entire base, about 40 Topol! What to do ?!
          Putin:
          Well, firstly, not a lieutenant, but a lieutenant general, and secondly, when Russia drinks, it is invincible!
    2. Gorchakov
      Gorchakov 8 November 2012 17: 14
      +2
      And not only NATO, but all the countries democratized by them where their proteges are at the helm ... This is especially true for strategic partners around Russia ... I think that given this, it is better not to touch the disarmament issue ...
    3. Bronis
      Bronis 8 November 2012 17: 21
      0
      Especially the UK question. They now have about 4 Tridents for 50 Vanguards. With the current British MIRV, there are about 150 warheads. On combat duty per unit of time - only 1 boat (to extend the resource). But! And the "head" can be changed (up to 12-14 BB), and missiles can be "bought". And the flight time for European territory is minuscule. Tactical nuclear weapons are another matter. The Kingdom's delivery vehicles are not so well developed, but there are also Tomahawks. They can also be used if desired ... the range will be enough + the same flight time and the complexity of launch detection.
      France is more independent in the nuclear field, and has 150-300 warheads (and maybe more). But NATO returned to the military organization under Sarkozy.
      China is generally unclear: what, in what quantity and quality.
      India and Pakistan are not so relevant for Russia, but if they start between themselves a local nuclear race and war, it will not seem to everyone. Plus, the long-standing confrontation between India and China also takes place.
      There is no longer a confrontation between the two blocks, but a much more complicated situation.
      But a multilateral treaty, most likely, will not be in the foreseeable future. The United States will not abandon missile defense, because of this, we also will not begin to reduce the strategic nuclear forces. China and India are gaining strength and they need strategic nuclear forces to assert their status, France with its "white paper" will not remain indifferent either, and Great Britain will wait for signals from the other side of the Atlantic. And then there is Israel, Pakistan, Iran, North Korea (at the regional level). Everyone will not agree with everyone. Nobody is seriously considering this option. Diplomacy...
      1. Windbreak
        Windbreak 10 November 2012 12: 59
        0
        And for a long time at subsonic tomahawks the flying time became like at ballistic missiles?
    4. Lord of the Sith
      Lord of the Sith 8 November 2012 17: 26
      +2
      Here is a map
      1. WW3
        WW3 8 November 2012 19: 15
        +4
        Almost all nuclear weapons are concentrated in the Northern Hemisphere, taking into account the "flight time" ... you have to keep your finger on the button ...
        I agree, it is unknown what will happen tomorrow, too much uncertainty ...
      2. denn
        denn 8 November 2012 19: 54
        +3
        Britain is so small, and has done so many dirty tricks in its entire history. Recently it jumped - "Britain invaded 90% of the countries." We ought to remind them of this at the UN session, then again they rolled the barrel to Syria.
        1. v53993
          v53993 8 November 2012 21: 38
          0
          They have such a job, crap around the world.
    5. 53-Sciborskiy
      53-Sciborskiy 8 November 2012 18: 14
      +7
      you need to take into account only the interests of your country, there are no friends in the world, there are only business partners who want to make Russia a banana republic, that is, a raw materials appendage that can dictate its conditions. Do we need this? Better to be afraid, and therefore respected. The world recognizes only the strong. Such is the essence of humanity and, unfortunately, there is no escape from this.
    6. studentmati
      studentmati 8 November 2012 22: 32
      +1
      I think that Moscow's address at the conference has a deeper meaning. It is imperative that not only the "main players" (Moscow, Washington, Beijing ...) sit down at the negotiating table, but it is necessary to attract "young nuclear powers" (Pakistan, North Korea, Israel ...). Moscow and Washington have long understood the murderous nature of the use of nuclear weapons. But the "youth" will just be "bullish", and one cannot but take into account their, albeit modest, but quite effective potential.
  2. Anxious
    Anxious 8 November 2012 16: 28
    +10
    That's right, because nefig. The reduction in the form in which it is now beneficial primarily to the Americans, and not to us.
    1. Alexander Romanov
      Alexander Romanov 8 November 2012 17: 36
      +3
      Quote: Anxious
      The reduction in the form in which it is now beneficial primarily to the Americans,

      and my opinion is about reducing arms, it will be possible when the situation in the world settles down. Now it is not clear what will happen tomorrow, too much chaos and uncertainty.
      1. GSH-18
        GSH-18 8 November 2012 20: 10
        +2
        Quote: Alexander Romanov
        and my opinion is about reducing arms, it will be possible when the situation in the world settles down. Now it is not clear what will happen tomorrow, too much chaos and uncertainty.

        The situation in the world will not "settle down", do not hope. The states are interested in preserving the current situation and such a world order. In my opinion, it is necessary to conduct research on the creation of weapons based on new physical principles, since such has a number of advantages over the existing ones: Not limited by any conventions, there is no protection, it will have a number of valuable combat qualities. The States are already actively working in this direction, since they understand that such weapons can dramatically change the world alignment in their favor. We ought to scratch our turnips too, otherwise it would not be too late .. belay
    2. Trofimov174
      Trofimov174 8 November 2012 17: 59
      +1
      Irony, and in the United States Obama is vehemently criticized for having signed a reduction treaty, which, they believe, is wildly unfair because he cuts their nuclear weapons alive, or rather, strategic aviation.
      1. IPSC-2008
        IPSC-2008 9 November 2012 08: 31
        0
        They signed the agreement, but do not destroy it and pass it on to their allies. As was the case with the transfer of several British nuclear submarines and their further modernization. And we don’t have anyone to transmit, only destroy
  3. homosum20
    homosum20 8 November 2012 16: 32
    +16
    It seems to me that in conditions of large-scale deployment of missile defense, a reduction in nuclear potential is at least suicidal. But actually smacks of treason. And bilateral or multilateral - it does not change anything.
    1. Pharao7766
      Pharao7766 8 November 2012 16: 51
      +12
      And given the fact that NATO is sitting in the former republics of the USSR and the countries of the airborne forces, it is vitally necessary to withdraw from the Gorbachev treaties and return short- and medium-range nuclear missiles to combat duty. Then missile defense will not help them.
      1. donchepano
        donchepano 8 November 2012 17: 19
        -1
        AND LONG RANGE
      2. Kaa
        Kaa 8 November 2012 18: 02
        +2
        Quote: Pharao7766
        to return to combat duty nuclear missiles of short and medium range.

        .... declaring at the same time that they are a missile defense system, since they are exclusively aimed at launch missile systems of third, fourth and fifth countries, and will not be used for civilian targets. This is finally a step forward compared to SM-3 - they will attack immediately after the launch of the rocket, and ours will attack - before the start ... wassat
      3. GSH-18
        GSH-18 8 November 2012 20: 15
        +1
        Quote: Pharao7766
        And given the fact that NATO is sitting in the former republics of the USSR and the countries of the airborne forces, it is vitally necessary to withdraw from the Gorbachev treaties and return short- and medium-range nuclear missiles to combat duty. Then missile defense will not help them.

        Absolutely sensible thought, I support 100%! + from the heart! smile
        1. old rocket man
          old rocket man 8 November 2012 21: 21
          0
          Quote: GSH-18
          Absolutely sensible thought, I support 100%!

          It may be a sensible idea, but it should be borne in mind that our RSDs cover almost the whole of Europe, this is of course a plus, and the US counterparts placed in response all of the European part of Russia, and when placed in Pakistan, and a part (not small) of western Siberia, is a huge minus, despite the fact that the US territory remains unattainable for these missiles.
          That's where the dog rummaged. stop
          1. Gemar
            Gemar 9 November 2012 07: 10
            +1
            Quote: Old Rocketman
            That's where the dog rummaged.

            Do not forget about the Chinese dog, Dear!
            The country does not provide information on its nuclear weapons, does not sign any reduction agreements, has territorial claims against the Russian Federation with growing military and economic potential. It seems to me that this is enough to return short- and medium-range missiles to the border with China.
            If we inflict a blow (even if not a retaliatory one, but a preventive one) against the United States, we will be practically unarmed in front of China. And vice versa, we’ll hit China - there will be nothing to balance nuclear parity with the United States.
            In general, we must at least not reduce nuclear weapons. Yes, urgently to develop operational-tactical missile systems, to increase their range (at least up to the range of the R-500). Look, the same Iskanders are in service only with the Western Military District and the Southern Military District. And in Komsomolsk-on-Amur, where the PAK-FA will be produced, near the border with the PRC, why not place our "Kuzkina's mother"? How many kilometers have we undertaken to withdraw weapons from the border with the PRC? The range of Iskander-K more than eliminates this misunderstanding.
            GLORY TO RUSSIA!
    2. avdkrd
      avdkrd 8 November 2012 17: 23
      +9
      Experts comment on the European missile defense segment as a strike system that has nothing to do with missile defense. First of all, the complexes should be considered as a first strike weapon, with a very low flight time. Its orientation against Russia, even she should be questioned. Even if the so-called missile defense system is used directly, the announced purpose of intercepting mythical Iranian and Korean missiles can only over the territory of the Russian Federation. Considering that the interceptor missile warhead has a nuclear warhead, such an "interception" can only be viewed as a nuclear strike against Russia. It turns out that the amers and their European pugs officially declare that they are preparing to strike at the Russian Federation.
      Russia's position on the European missile defense system should be at least tougher, the ABM elements are much more dangerous than the legendary Pershing. The leadership and, most importantly, the public of Europe must be informed and in fact accepted that ANY use of "missile defense elements" will serve as a pretext for a MASSIVE retaliatory nuclear strike, since any use of missile defense strikes at Russia. Otherwise, Russia simply will not be able to defend itself, the deployment of Iskander is a horror story for the illiterate, they simply will not have time to turn around for a retaliatory strike. Moreover, the decision to use missile defense is made by Washington, and the Iskanders fly only 300 km. The retaliatory strike algorithm should be initiated simply by the fact of the missile defense launch.
      Regarding disarmament, it is already doubtful that we can guarantee the destruction of ASP and their allies in the event of a full-scale conflict. To cause unacceptable damage, yes, but to destroy is doubtful. The most protected component of the missile submarines is almost destroyed, and new ones are being built (but still toothless), God forbid that we have time and most importantly the will of the leadership to restore the lost potential.
      1. Windbreak
        Windbreak 10 November 2012 12: 50
        0
        kinetic warheads on today's American missile defense, not nuclear warheads (which were on the ancient Sprint and Spartan). 300 km export Iskander-E
  4. strannik595
    strannik595 8 November 2012 16: 41
    +7
    as Nobel said, in response to accusations that he created a barbaric weapon, it may not literally say that "peace will come when people have a guarantee of mutual destruction" ............ and that was to the point ......... which is confirmed by 65 years of peace on our land from external lovers of freebies ......... let it be, nuclear weapons, it is more pleasant to sleep under its protection, Russia deserves a quiet life
    1. Starksa
      Starksa 8 November 2012 16: 46
      +2
      Yes, but you need to have a good army, since no one has canceled local wars. Nuclear weapons is only an opportunity to restore our army, in terms of conventional weapons
  5. Roomata
    Roomata 8 November 2012 16: 48
    +2
    http://militariorg.ucoz.ru/publ/novosti_mo_i_mvd_rf/pro_bednuju_armiju_i_bogatog

    o_ministra_oborony / 12-1-0-11646
  6. fatalist
    fatalist 8 November 2012 16: 49
    +4
    He said it well about the "multilateral nature" - it is clear that reaching a general consensus on the reduction of nuclear weapons with many countries is almost impossible.

    Therefore, we can confidently say that there will be no reduction.

    And at the same time, we will not be "extreme" that we slow down the reduction.
  7. Gorchakov
    Gorchakov 8 November 2012 16: 49
    +7
    In the current geopolitical situation, I think it’s not advisable to raise this issue ... I think that we should forget about it for a hundred more years .... nuclear weapons, this is the only and undeniable argument of deterring from the world war and the death of Russia at the hands of strategic partners ... ..As soon as all the nuclear weapons on the planet disappear, on the same day all the countries surrounding us will begin the annexation of Russia .... I think it is too early to destroy what the Great Stalin bequeathed to us and our fathers and grandfathers brought to life ....
    1. Starksa
      Starksa 8 November 2012 16: 54
      +1
      Another option is dangerous, this is a change of power through revolution. And then already declined at one time with mediocre people in power.
      1. Cavas
        Cavas 8 November 2012 17: 02
        +1
        Quote: StarkSA
        Another option is dangerous, this is a change of power through revolution.

        There will be no revolution ...... rEvolutionEra were blown away.
        For a conversation with dissent is given below.

        1. strannik595
          strannik595 8 November 2012 17: 07
          +1
          Sorry, I wanted to press the plus, but I pressed the minus, later I will return the shortage to you drinks
      2. serg1978
        serg1978 8 November 2012 17: 45
        +1
        Yes, in the event of a revolution, we will be devoured with giblets - with nuclear weapons, without it ...
  8. TekhnarMAF
    TekhnarMAF 8 November 2012 16: 55
    +1
    Excuse me vile, but I don’t quite understand the essence of this problem? Is there a relative parity, nuclear weapons are enough to destroy living things on Earth, has everything settled down, that there are no more important problems?
    1. serg1978
      serg1978 8 November 2012 17: 51
      +1
      This is not taking into account missile defense, which is rapidly improving and expanding.
  9. Goldy
    Goldy 8 November 2012 16: 56
    +4
    we will shorten
  10. understudy
    understudy 8 November 2012 17: 01
    +2
    Quote: StarkSA
    Another option is dangerous, this is a change of power through revolution.


    We have no prerequisites for a revolution, it is growing numb! And the palace coup is from another opera. request
    1. serg1978
      serg1978 8 November 2012 17: 55
      +2
      Yes, the last time with the premises was also tight. They were for the bourgeois revolution, which happened successfully in February 17th. But for October
      (Bolsheviks and sympathizers were only 3,5% of the population) was the only prerequisite - German grandmother.
      Well, now the American grandmothers have liberals and shit-bucks. Why are they worse than German ones?
      1. fern
        fern 8 November 2012 19: 25
        +1
        Well, now we have the glory of God in power is not Nikolayushka (who had everything .....). Now we are not waging a world war and the country is not exhausted. And those liberals and swamps that exist in the country are just a miserable parody of revolutionaries
        1. old rocket man
          old rocket man 8 November 2012 21: 27
          0
          Quote: Farn
          Now we are not waging a world war

          Well, for a world war, in which case, things will not arise, so this option should be considered very seriously.
      2. geo1286
        geo1286 8 November 2012 23: 24
        0
        Quote: serg1978
        But for October
        (Bolsheviks and sympathizers were only 3,5% of the population) was the only prerequisite - German grandmother.

        I wanted to answer, but a lot of letters. Look better yourself ....
        Sobolev G.L. The mystery of German gold
        http://www.twirpx.com/file/868733/
  11. Slevinst
    Slevinst 8 November 2012 17: 13
    +1
    It will be possible to reduce then when the pro systems will provide one hundred percent impermeability to enemy missiles, I do not believe that the Americans will reduce even if they agree to this
    1. Cavas
      Cavas 8 November 2012 17: 46
      +3
      Quote: Slevinst
      I do not believe that the Americans will reduce even if they agree to this

      Then you need to reduce your direct shooting for the given goals, at the same time we will reduce the American ones! laughing
  12. andrei332809
    andrei332809 8 November 2012 17: 46
    0
    I think Israel (emphasis on the third syllable) will not agree to reduce. as well as china. there are too many disagreements with the amers at the Zhovtinki
    1. nerd.su
      nerd.su 8 November 2012 23: 16
      0
      Yes, Israel remains deeply silent about its nuclear weapons. Like they signed a non-proliferation agreement, that means we have a nuclear bomb, probably there is ... What kind of agreement with them, if it is not known how many ent weapons in Israel? Or maybe it doesn’t exist at all? :)
  13. to4kavserdce
    to4kavserdce 8 November 2012 18: 06
    +1
    For me this is correct, but for example, the USA put X on a disarmament treaty ... !!!
    So think about how best to do! angry
  14. Slevinst
    Slevinst 8 November 2012 18: 14
    +3
    Quote: to4kavserdce
    For me this is correct, but for example, the USA put X on a disarmament treaty ... !!!
    So think about how best to do!

    x put on usa laughing
  15. KRAVEN333
    KRAVEN333 8 November 2012 18: 25
    0
    Tell me, as a newcomer. What is the "nuclear club"? There, as I understand it, not all the countries that possess nuclear weapons.
    1. Rumata
      Rumata 8 November 2012 20: 35
      +1
      Quote: KRAVEN333
      Tell me, as a newcomer. What is the "nuclear club"? There, as I understand it, not all the countries that possess nuclear weapons.

      All who have nuclear weapons are members of the nuclear club. But the Nuclear Triad (aviation, ballistic intercontinental missiles and submarines, consecrated nuclear weapons) possesses only three countries, the USA, Russia and China, some call Israel the fourth country with a triad (Suspected triad nuclear power), but there is no known TTX Jericho- 3, neither the possibility of aviation and whether it can be called strategic.
      1. KRAVEN333
        KRAVEN333 9 November 2012 17: 38
        0
        Thank you! hi .............
  16. 1st_user
    1st_user 8 November 2012 20: 35
    0
    “Multilateralism” is a very vague and ambiguous formulation, especially in the context of the widespread practice of “double standards” in many countries of the world.
  17. Samsebenaum
    Samsebenaum 8 November 2012 21: 15
    +3
    What could be a reduction in our troubled times?
    To shorten the only "club" is a rash decision. As long as NATO exists, gunpowder must be kept dry and in large quantities.
    I am against insisting on reducing nuclear weapons .. It's too early.
    1. v53993
      v53993 8 November 2012 21: 52
      0
      Most of all I am surprised by England and Israel. In such a territory, it would be foolish to create such nuclear arsenals like suicide. A few accurate non-nuclear attacks on these arsenals and they will be provided with work to eliminate the consequences of 100 years. One positive thing is that they will not have unemployment.
      1. Rumata
        Rumata 8 November 2012 23: 00
        +1
        Quote: v53993
        Most of all I am surprised by England and Israel. In such a territory, it would be foolish to create such nuclear arsenals like suicide. Several accurate non-nuclear attacks on these arsenals and they will be provided with work to eliminate the consequences of 100 years

        Damage to the shell of an uncocked charge will not lead to such dire consequences.
        Regarding Israel, I think the presence of nuclear weapons contributes to calmness in the region, paradoxically. Large countries neighbors understand that even if Israel loses the war, they can get destroyed Cairo, Damascus or Beirut, and instead of open big wars, they are engaged in guerrilla warfare. I am sure that if it were not for the rumors around Israel's nuclear weapons, there would have been 3-4 big wars in the region after the "Judgment Day", with the participation of all neighbors near and far, and nothing good for Israel or the countries of the region would come of it ...
  18. Hedgehog
    Hedgehog 8 November 2012 22: 00
    +2
    You can minus as much as you like - I don’t care, but!
    Bombs, missiles, advanced weapons ... Why are we all this ?! The army and everything connected with it should protect the PEOPLE! Us with you! To hell with teratonic nuclear weapons, if there is no one to defend ?! What is the use of adopting advanced technologies if there is no one to use them ?! You look back! Our people perish in peacetime at the speed of an identical large-scale war! We do not need to bother about nuclear potential, but ordinary people! Because as soon as the people inhabiting the country can make it truly great! And we have all the scum quietly multiplies under the hooting of human rights defenders, pedophiles and other dishonesty!
    Human people, stop believing in the power of glands and nuclear reaction, and understand the simple thing: no power is more powerful than - people! But only this people should be really powerful .... And we are decrepit every year. You can say that all this is open, but open it !!! Who will go to war, in which case ??? Well, who? Metromexuals? Majors? Homosexual, pah not night will be said! Normal men less and less!
    It is clear that the peasants have not yet been transferred to Russia, but there are too few of them, and then what ....
    We need to protect our children, not warheads! Look at WHAT they are doing with them! They become alien to (thank God, not everyone!) The concept of Motherland and Fatherland! "Cosmopolitanism rules"! Under the hooting of human rights activists, the country was swept by pedophilia and not only! Children are the future, not only ours, but also the country as a whole ...
    Take care of our children, then someone will make new warheads, and launch them if necessary, and who the hell will defeat us!
    1. Starksa
      Starksa 8 November 2012 22: 30
      +1
      do you want to live in this world? adapt! not you so you ... such is humanity
    2. Rumata
      Rumata 8 November 2012 23: 03
      0
      Quote: Hedgehog
      not a powerful force than - the people!

      The people, by the strength of their Russian spirit, will shoot down China’s missiles, and respond by throwing Orthodox boots. You live in a fairy tale ...
      1. WW3
        WW3 9 November 2012 00: 05
        +1
        Quote: Rumata

        The people, by the strength of their Russian spirit, will shoot down China’s missiles, and respond by throwing Orthodox boots.

        We still have to try to spit in the soul with one sentence am
        "Boots" are "Bulava", "Satan" and "Blue"! The Russian spirit is invincible!
        Bulava, Topol, Sineva: successful launches
        1. Rumata
          Rumata 9 November 2012 01: 41
          -2
          Quote: WW3
          We also need to try to spit in the soul with one sentence am
          "Boots" are "Bulava", "Satan" and "Blue"! The Russian spirit is invincible!
          Bulava, Topol, Sineva: successful launches

          What do we smoke? The man above writes that nuclear weapons do not need and most importantly the Spirit and the People
          Quote: Hedgehog
          Human people, stop believing in the power of glands and nuclear reaction, and understand the simple thing: no power is more powerful than - people!

          Quote: Hedgehog
          We need to take care of our children, not warheads

          Quote: Hedgehog
          Bombs, missiles, advanced weapons ... Why are we all this ?!

          Quote: Hedgehog
          To hell with teratonic nuclear weapons, if there is no one to defend ?!

          And in the same vein
          1. MG42
            MG42 9 November 2012 02: 26
            +3
            Sorry, that got in, but where in the post "thorn hedgehog" even a word about Orthodoxy? He's just apparently a pacifist. winked
  19. mazdie
    mazdie 8 November 2012 23: 42
    0
    It seems to me that it is necessary to take into account not the potential of the United States, not the potential of the NATO countries, but the world potential of nuclear weapons, with the exception of their own, since the weak crowd is usually kicked. IMHO
  20. KRAVEN333
    KRAVEN333 9 November 2012 16: 55
    0
    Some rats are sitting in the government, and there is almost nothing left, and they are going to cut back. Given today's time, without a nuclear shield, a country like us is nowhere.