The US expert center RAND Corporation analyzed the likelihood of Russia using nuclear weapons in Ukraine

The conflict in Ukraine may have several options for continuation, including escalating into an international one with the use of nuclear weapons. weapons. The likelihood of this option was analyzed by the American expert center RAND Corporation, which traditionally lays claim to the shadow General Staff of the Pentagon.

According to the center's analysts, the fighting could lead to further escalation of the conflict either within Ukraine or with the involvement of other countries and expansion. In this case, it is possible that Russia could use nuclear weapons; the Biden administration considers such a scenario likely and does not want such a development. At the same time, in Kyiv they are confident that Moscow will not dare to use nuclear weapons and urge them not to pay attention to this, but to supply more prohibited weapons.

RAND experts believe that Russia is still holding back on the potential use of nuclear weapons for three reasons: NATO's military potential, the loss of Chinese support and the ability to achieve the goals of a special operation without its use. In addition, Moscow did not initially plan to use nuclear weapons in a special operation and did not study scenarios for war with the entire West.

At the same time, if the use of nuclear weapons becomes inevitable, it will be “extensive and unlimited,” since the costs and risks will be the same when using tactical or strategic nuclear weapons. In general, “the whole world is in ruins.”

Meanwhile, RAND Corporation experts consider another continuation of the conflict with a “limited attack” by Russia on NATO due to military support for Ukraine to be the most likely option. At the same time, it is believed that Russia will make do with conventional weapons. In total, analysts are considering four scenarios, ranging from the most “hard” to the “demonstrative”. Moscow will explain its actions as “retaliatory steps” to support Ukrainian attacks on Russian territories.

The most “hard” scenario involves missile attacks on six key air and sea ports of the alliance, including the Ramstein base and the port of Rotterdam. A softer one is a strike on three military bases with the threat of even more strikes. Even softer: Russian aerospace forces will shoot down a US satellite. And in a “demonstration”, a Russian missile will hit an empty warehouse in Poland as a warning.

Further, the decision on how to react to this will have to be made by the United States and NATO, and this will be “very difficult” to do, since the option of further escalation and the use of nuclear weapons may work.

Comments

[Normal]

And what does NATO’s military potential have to do with it if Russia decides to use nuclear weapons? If it flies in your direction, then you won’t care what NATO’s potential is. The same goes for Chinese support. And what does China have to do with it? If Europe simply does not remain in its original form, the British and Gringos will get the worst of it. Then why even consider supporting China? From whom will support be needed then?) From radioactive ash?

[Mikhail Ivanov]

And I’ll say this, even the propagandist Solovyov considers this the main scenario!
And I’ll say more, although the majority will minus me, it definitely won’t do without tactical nuclear weapons... The whole question is whose territory will be the first - the Romanians, the Poles or someone further away...

[Alexander Kochurkov]

You don’t need any tactical nuclear weapons, you need a powerful thermonuclear weapon in the stratosphere in order to burn satellites in low orbit and all electrical power on earth. Somewhere closer to the western border of Ukraine, so that more Europe is affected. Such tests have shown that of all the damaging factors, only the electromagnetic pulse works, so that civilians will not be harmed.

[Andrei from Chelyabinsk]

Hmmm... It looks like it’s time to form some kind of fund to help victims of the Unified State Examination.

[Azzzwer]

Quote: Mikhail-Ivanov

definitely can’t do without tactical nuclear weapons

This only confirms the weakness of the position

[Petr_Koldunov]

Quote: Azzzwer

This only confirms the weakness of the position

What nonsense? The one who has the stronger weapons fights more successfully. TNW are stronger than any other type of weapon.
This is simply a dangerous precedent... but not a weakness of the position...
Yes.. and for information: a country fighting alone against a coalition of 50 countries - not only legally, but even from a moral point of view, is in NO way bound by restrictions and conventions in the choice of weapons and methods of waging war!

[Alexey Lantukh]

I am also a supporter of the use of tactical nuclear weapons, but only in Ukraine. They also constantly downvote me for this. Thank you to the Americans for not ruling out this situation and for having the opportunity to discuss this option. NATO will definitely not get involved in a nuclear war for the sake of Ukraine. As a warning, a thermonuclear explosion in the stratosphere over Kiev would be suitable, which would destroy the main part of the electronics of the Armed Forces of Ukraine with an electromagnetic pulse, and then a subsequent bomber raid with the destruction of bridges, important military infrastructure and Bankovskaya Street along with the Verkhovna Rada. Such an action would show that the red lines are no longer in effect, but that a serious nuclear warning is in effect.

[Lev_Russia]

In my opinion, the escalation of the conflict does not come from the Russian Federation, but precisely from the Anglo-Saxons... We play number two and simply respond adequately... The more powerful weapons they give Ukraine, the more powerful weapons we have... If Ukraine uses tactical nuclear weapons, which they also promise to give her, we will have every right to use our tactical nuclear weapons, of which we have an order of magnitude more, but there is one step before using strategic ones... And it’s unlikely in Ukraine... There are other decision-making centers ... Moreover, the most Russophobic island states - Japan and Britain - will be the first to become uninhabitable... The goals are too good... Europe will disappear next... Moreover, Makron’s France, densely dotted with its nuclear power plants, will be the first... But at least the chances somehow (albeit partially) survival is much higher in the Russian Federation and the States due to the vast territories... Moreover, they are higher in our country, since the population density is lower... And there are much fewer megacities where the population density is huge...

[guest]

Quote: Lev_Russia

We play number two and simply respond adequately...

Well, actually we don’t really answer at all.

[Myths]

RAND Corporation experts consider the most likely option to be another continuation of the conflict with a “limited attack” by Russia on NATO due to military support for Ukraine. At the same time, it is believed that Russia will make do with conventional weapons. In total, analysts are considering four scenarios, ranging from the most “hard” to the “demonstrative”. Moscow will explain its actions as “retaliatory steps” to support Ukrainian attacks on Russian territories.

So it seems more like they are trying to justify the suicide attempt, the radiation will be no matter who you are.
Rand from the word random, randomness (chaos).

[spektr9]

If Ukraine uses tactical nuclear weapons, which they also promise to give it, we will have every right

Then the people will have every right to catch uratics and, at gunpoint, drive them into nuclear destruction zones for elimination...

[dmi.pris1]

There will be no use of nuclear weapons on air, or even more so a “limited attack” on NATO, or something like that. If used, we will actually become a rogue country with the corresponding result. Refusal to supply everything necessary from Asia. About NATO members.. .No sufficient strength, means, desire, Faberge and the list goes on

[Revan Rick]

It’s Nato who doesn’t have the strength, desire and Faberge; in the case of Yao, Nato will stand aside and there will be no Ukraine. Those who say that nuclear weapons will not help Bebebe, this is all a pro-Ukrainian and pro-Western agenda, they say ninini, let’s use conventional weapons there, nuclear weapons will not help, hahaah

[Mordvin 3]

Quote: Revan Rik

It’s Nato who doesn’t have the strength, desire and Faberge,

Vladimir Putin, President of the Russian Federation: “Now a few very important words to those who may be tempted from the outside to intervene in the events taking place. Whoever tries to interfere with us, and even more so, create threats to our country and people, should know that Russia’s response will be immediate and will lead you to consequences that you have never encountered in your history.

They intervened almost to the very top. So who doesn’t have Faberge there?

[parabyd]

The country will not become an outcast. For several reasons:
1. It's not profitable. Too many transport routes go through or over Russia. Northern Sea Route, air, etc. To use this, you need to maintain some contacts and trade. This is not North Korea, which you can fly around in half an hour. Plus resources that can be traded up to dumping, plus important technologies: space, missiles, nuclear technology, energy
2. Having stepped over the use of nuclear weapons once, why not step over the second? By introducing new sanctions, you can get a missile, but what do you have to lose? That is, the most common blackmail on the part of Russia. The method is effective and efficient, let's leave morality to philosophers.
3. A country that still has the largest nuclear arsenal, which it is ready to use at any moment, cannot be ignored, so as not to receive an unexpected blow or so that it does not join an enemy alliance. If China isolates Russia for its part, the United States can take advantage of this and vice versa, so contacts will be maintained.
4. Fear of leakage of nuclear weapons and/or technologies for their production.

[spirit]

By introducing new sanctions, you can get a missile, but what do you have to lose? That is, the most common blackmail.

You have nothing to lose. And in Rublyovka people love to live in style. And in order to preserve this well-being, they will sell everyone and everything. I’m not even talking about property and wives/mistresses who will be slapped right in expensive restaurants in Paris the very next day after the blow, even 1 warhead. They have no principles, no honor. If they had an option, they would win it all back. And no NATO near the borders would bother them

[parabyd]

This is not the answer to the question: will we hit or not? Will we become a rogue country or not? The Parisian mistresses had already disappeared at that point

[spirit]

This is not the answer to the question: will we hit or not? Will we become a rogue country or not?

they won’t hit us, as a result of which we won’t become an outcast. And no one is seriously planning to flee anywhere from the West. It’s not in vain that Romka Abramovich is fussing over their capital. They hope to wait out the storm and return. Such people do not go to extreme measures. Personally, my opinion, maybe I'm wrong

[Al manah]

The country that remains with the largest nuclear arsenal, which she's ready to apply at any time

More precisely ready balabolit about application.

[Mordvin 3]

Quote from: parabyd

It is not profitable. Too many transport routes go through or over Russia. Northern Sea Route

It's not funny about the SMP.

Quote from: parabyd

important technologies: space

Even the Indians refused to build a new space station with us, saying that they would build it themselves.

Quote from: parabyd

That is, the most common blackmail on the part of Russia. The method is effective and efficient, let's leave morality to philosophers.

Oh well. Blackmailers usually hide so as not to get paid, but here you are openly offering to blackmail the whole world with nuclear weapons.

[parabyd]

The NSR is not funny now, but there is warming, the Arctic is melting...

Space. The Hindus will refuse, but the Pakistanis will not. There are many countries in the world, but only a few fly and launch satellites of any kind.

I don’t know where the usual blackmailers are hiding, but those who scare everyone around with primary and secondary sanctions don’t even try to hide. Blackmail works, and moral issues are very flexible. Peaceful time is one morality, a time of confrontation for life and death is another.

[Mordvin 3]

Quote from: parabyd

The NSR is not funny now, but there is warming, the Arctic is melting...

Yeah, and with warming, the coastal zone will turn into a swamp. And guess where the waters of the melting Arctic will go.

Quote from: parabyd

I don’t know where the usual blackmailers are hiding, but those who scare everyone around with primary and secondary sanctions don’t even try to hide.

More than one country is imposing sanctions, but you are proposing to scare the whole world with a nuclear club, like whoever is not friends with me will get a teapot.

[Andrei from Chelyabinsk]

Quote from: parabyd

It is not profitable. Too many transport routes go through or over Russia. Northern Sea Route, air, etc.

In general, there is not a single significant transport artery. Neither for China nor for Europe.

Quote from: parabyd

Having stepped over the use of nuclear weapons once, why not step over the second?

Yes you can, just the answer will be the same. If you hit Ukraine, it will not respond, because there is nothing. If for a country with nuclear weapons...

Quote from: parabyd

A country that still has the largest nuclear arsenal, which it is ready to use at any moment, cannot be ignored.

It’s not just possible, but necessary. Such a country really needs to be destroyed - like a mad dog.
Nuclear weapons are taboo. It will be possible to use it first only in the event of such aggression, which is impossible to cope with by conventional means, and which threatens the existence of the country and nation. The world will understand this. But nuclear terrorism, which you propose, is the path to real and unconditional isolation from the rest of the world.

[Victor Leningradets]

To be honest, I didn’t think that propaganda cliches could so obscure the true state of affairs.

If you hit Ukraine, it will not respond, because there is nothing. If for a country with nuclear weapons...

Andrey, forgive me, but this is nonsense. If you competently hit nuclear weapons on a country that has weapons, then it will no longer be able to respond, or almost not be able to. And the use of nuclear weapons against megacities does not lead to a decrease in military-technical and mobilization potential. At the end of WWII, Germany bombarded London with its Vergeltungswaffe (V-1 and V-2), and what did it give?
But the US response to the attack on Ukraine will be determined by military-strategic expediency, and not by moral standards.

Nuclear weapons are taboo. It will be possible to use it first only in the event of such aggression, which is impossible to cope with by conventional means, and which threatens the existence of the country and nation.

How is that? You have already been defeated and with your last effort you are using some mythical weapon of universal destruction? (well, Vergeltungswaffe again!) Yes, by this time you will not have ANY strategic potential, and relics of tactical nuclear weapons will not stop anyone. A defeat is the destruction of strategic potential by a PREVENTIVE strike with the development of success by mobile units. So nuclear weapons, especially strategic ones, are weapons of the FIRST, disarming strike, which determine the defeat of the enemy.

But nuclear terrorism, which you propose, is the path to real and unconditional isolation from the rest of the world.

Well, you know, there is naivety, and there is super-naivety. It is with Bucha, Boeing, Skripals, White Helmets, Iraq before your eyes that you believe in the tired cliche about world public opinion, which will be formed on the basis of the objective conclusions of some impartial commission! Yes, they will arrange ANY provocation for you and throw substance at you in the media controlled by the hegemon, if the operation at the exit ensures victory.
War is the quintessence of politics, and politics, as the most humane person used to say, is a dirty business.

[Andrei from Chelyabinsk]

Quote: Victor Leningradets

Andrey, I'm sorry, but this is nonsense.

Will not forgive.

Quote: Victor Leningradets

If you competently hit nuclear weapons on a country that has weapons, then it will no longer be able to respond, or almost not be able to.

To ensure the destruction of nuclear weapons from “another country,” say, England or France, a massive nuclear missile strike will be required. But if the satellite reconnaissance system detects a massive missile launch, there is a high probability that the United States will hit back, without understanding where the missiles flew.
This, by the way, was one of the main reasons for the curtailment of work on ballistic “anti-aircraft” missiles - their launch could easily be confused with ICBMs.

Quote: Victor Leningradets

And here is the US response to the attack on Ukraine

Have you decided to destroy the Armed Forces of Ukraine with nuclear warheads of megaton power? :))))) Do you even understand what nonsense you are talking about now?
Nuclear weapons have very limited usefulness as a weapon against military units. In an air explosion with a power of 1 Mt, the zone of complete destruction (98% of those killed) has a radius of 3,6 km, severe and moderate destruction - 7,5 km. At a distance of 10 km, only 5% of the population dies. And combat units located in field fortifications and armored vehicles are protected even better. This is not to mention the fact that the Ukrainian Armed Forces, by a strange coincidence, likes to cluster around populated areas...
That is, in order to destroy the Armed Forces of Ukraine with nuclear weapons, you will need to unleash a full-scale nuclear war with dozens of megaton-class nuclear warheads, practically on YOUR territory with mass casualties among the civilian population.
The United States, of course, will not strike back. They will give you a standing ovation.

Quote: Victor Leningradets

At the end of WWII, Germany bombarded London with its Vergeltungswaffe (V-1 and V-2), and what did it give?

Quote: Victor Leningradets

You have already been defeated and with your last effort you are using some mythical weapon of universal destruction? (well, Vergeltungswaffe again!)

I don’t even dare to comment on this. Compare the FAA, with their meager warheads, from which the British quite successfully defended themselves, with a large-scale strategic strike of nuclear weapons...

Quote: Victor Leningradets

and by this time you will have NO strategic potential,

I won’t even ask where the Strategic Missile Forces divisions will go if NATO itself starts a large-scale non-nuclear blitzkrieg using the Fuhrer’s method.

Quote: Victor Leningradets

So nuclear weapons, especially strategic ones, are weapons of the FIRST, disarming strike, which determine the defeat of the enemy.

Complete nonsense. Nuclear weapons are weapons that guarantee the infliction of unacceptable losses on the enemy, by which we mean losses such that the post-war world will a priori be no better for him than the pre-war one. That is, the meaning of starting a war is lost

Quote: Victor Leningradets

It is with Bucha, Boeing, Skripals, White Helmets, Iraq before your eyes that you believe in the tired cliche about world public opinion

Public opinion exists, and I have no idea what you brought Buchi and Skripals into here.
This is the very public opinion, despite the entire ideological machine of the “golden billion” that is working today. That is why a lot of countries in Asia and the East (and not only) are not at all ready to see the Russian Federation as the world’s boss. That is why the Russian Federation suffered sanctions from the West (we are dragging what we need from the East :)))
But if we use nuclear weapons, everyone will turn away from us.

[Victor Leningradets]

Quote: Victor Leningradets
Andrey, I'm sorry, but this is nonsense.

Will not forgive.

Well, that's even better.
The delusion of “witnesses of all the best against all the bad” is not cured, but it is exposed.
And so:

To ensure the destruction of nuclear weapons from “another country,” say, England or France, a massive nuclear missile strike will be required. But if the satellite reconnaissance system detects a massive missile launch, there is a high probability that the United States will hit back, without understanding where the missiles flew.

They wrote a gag about the massive strike of strategic nuclear weapons on poor France and attributed it to me? A method of conducting a discussion known in the scientific community with the aim of discrediting an opponent. Only it’s old (60s of the twentieth century). I haven’t written anything about the crazy idea of ​​challenging the NATO bloc - your creativity.
But in fact, if hypothetically an Indo-Pakistan conflict occurs with the use of nuclear weapons, no one will flinch.
In general, the decision to use nuclear weapons is subject to lengthy preparation, based on received, verified and analyzed intelligence data. So in each case, the response move is always verified and a simple salvo from the ocean will be followed by a request-response via a closed communication line within a few minutes. Well, then the corresponding response will be activated.

Quote: Victor Leningradets
And here is the US response to the attack on Ukraine

Have you decided to destroy the Armed Forces of Ukraine with nuclear warheads of megaton power? :))))) Do you even understand what nonsense you are talking about now?
Nuclear weapons have very limited usefulness as a weapon against military units. In an air explosion with a power of 1 Mt, the zone of complete destruction (98% of fatalities) has a radius of 3,6 km, severe and moderate destruction - 7,5 km. At a distance of 10 km, only 5% of the population dies.

Well, again, my favorite trick is to pass off my wildest vision of operations using nuclear weapons as my words. Compare the two texts and you will see that I do not have a single phrase you cited.
Unlike you, I dealt with calculations of the impact of nuclear weapons on strategic targets in the 80s of the twentieth century, and I know very well that troops on the march under conditions of a nuclear threat, or in defensive positions, are lowly vulnerable. But hydraulic structures and bridges, urban development, industrial buildings, energy facilities and warehouses are vulnerable. Just like your favorite fleet and port facilities. And most importantly, they cannot go anywhere during the flight time. Although we tried hard in the fleet. But time passed and cities with a population of over a million gradually disappeared from the list of priority targets, since the population, warned of an attack, managed to take shelter, and the demolition of the boxes had practically no effect on defense capability. By the way, this was confirmed by the processing of the results of the shelling of London by V-1 and V-2. They destroyed no less than a nuclear explosion due to their massive use. A total of 10492 projectiles were launched across England, of which 3200 reached its territory (!), of which 2419 reached London. As a result of the V-1 shelling, British losses amounted to 5649 people killed and 16196 wounded (according to other sources, 6184 and 17981 people, respectively). 23 thousand buildings were destroyed and up to 100 thousand were damaged. The statistics are similar for the V-2, which in Antwerp alone scored 590 hits, killed 1736 people and wounded about 4500. Thousands of buildings were damaged or destroyed. And in both cases these are permanent stone buildings. not Japanese paper chicken coops. However, the impact of these deaths and destruction on the course of the war is near-zero. So the nuclear cannibalism that you describe (I hope you do not profess) is not held in high esteem by the military and serious politicians.

Quote: Victor Leningradets
and by this time you will have NO strategic potential,

I won’t even ask where the Strategic Missile Forces divisions will go if NATO itself starts a large-scale non-nuclear blitzkrieg using the Fuhrer’s method.

Well again - great! I wrote something about a NON-NUCLEAR blitzkrieg against a nuclear power?! Well, yes, you are deliberately talking nonsense, but you attribute it to me. All your Strategic Missile Forces divisions will be preemptively attacked from a short approach distance by a complex strike of nuclear precision weapons, and the satellite constellation will be disabled by space weapons using nuclear space explosions. Nevertheless, a small part of strategic missiles will take off and cause ACCEPTABLE damage to the enemy. Ask the Pentagon for his criteria; by your peremptory nature, you have your own people there.

This is the very public opinion, despite the entire ideological machine of the “golden billion” that is working today. That is why a lot of countries in Asia and the East (and not only) are not at all ready to see the Russian Federation as the world’s boss. That is why the Russian Federation suffered sanctions from the West (we are dragging what we need from the East :)))

Blessed are the believers, for they have no doubts.
No public opinion will force the ruling oligarchy to risk much in the name of positive emotions for the plebs. And the great majority of the people don’t care about everything that happens in the world; they would like to solve their own troubles. And they cooperate with us for immediate benefit. If the benefit ends, we will get, if not a pike in the back, then a lower kick (watch out for Armenia). But for adherents of “enlightened humanity” the idea is important, I won’t try to convince you otherwise.

For this reason, I no longer see discussions with you, I don’t comment on articles and posts, and I don’t give ratings.

[Mordvin 3]

Quote: Victor Leningradets

As a result of the V-1 shelling, British losses amounted to 5649 people killed and 16196 wounded (according to other sources, 6184 and 17981 people, respectively). 23 thousand buildings were destroyed and up to 100 thousand were damaged. The statistics are similar for the V-2, which in Antwerp alone scored 590 hits, killed 1736 people and wounded about 4500. Thousands of buildings were damaged or destroyed. And in both cases these are permanent stone buildings. not Japanese paper chicken coops. However, the impact of these deaths and destruction on the course of the war is near-zero. So the nuclear cannibalism that you describe (I hope you do not profess) is not held in high esteem by the military and serious politicians.

And as a result, the top of the country that launched the FAA in London ended up in the dock.

[Andrei from Chelyabinsk]

Quote: Victor Leningradets

They wrote a gag about the massive strike of strategic nuclear weapons on poor France and attributed it to me? A technique known in the scientific community for conducting a discussion with the aim of discrediting an opponent.

Excuse me, do you have memory problems? I wrote

Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk

If you hit Ukraine, it will not respond, because there is nothing. If for a country with nuclear weapons...

At the same time, the discussion was, as is obvious from the context, about the blows that the Russian Federation could inflict. You didn't like it and you responded

Quote: Victor Leningradets

If you competently hit nuclear weapons on a country that has weapons, then it will no longer be able to respond, or almost not be able to.

I gave you the consequences of a nuclear attack by the Russian Federation on France or England.

Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk

To ensure the destruction of nuclear weapons from “another country,” say, England or France, a massive nuclear missile strike will be required. But if the satellite reconnaissance system detects a massive missile launch, there is a high probability that the United States will hit back, without understanding where the missiles flew.

In my opinion, I have given comprehensive explanations. Because if the United States, during a period of exacerbation, detects a massive launch of ICBMs from the territory of the Russian Federation, they may well, without hesitation, hit back with everything they have, and not figure out who we are going to attack. Moreover, I explained to you that the danger of a retaliatory strike from the United States in the USSR was considered significant even if the missiles did not target any territory of any country at all, if the strikes were directed into the ocean.

Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk

This, by the way, was one of the main reasons for the curtailment of work on ballistic “anti-aircraft” missiles - their launch could easily be confused with ICBMs.

And you are not able to understand anything I said.

Quote: Victor Leningradets

I haven’t written anything about the crazy idea of ​​challenging the NATO bloc - your creativity.

You failed to realize that a retaliatory strike from the United States in the event of an attack by us on England or France could be inflicted not because we attacked England or France. But because the United States can easily not figure out who we are attacking, but strike back while they have something. The danger of this, I repeat, even during the late USSR was assessed as very high.
By the way, I took England and France as an example not because they have something to do with NATO. But because both of these countries have very insignificant nuclear potential (which reduces the amount of forces needed to destroy it), but even in this case, to try to nullify it, a massive nuclear strike is required.

Quote: Victor Leningradets

But in fact, if hypothetically an Indo-Pakistan conflict occurs with the use of nuclear weapons, no one will flinch.

I'm crazy about you. You complain that I am taking the discussion aside and... immediately propose to predict the consequences of a nuclear war unleashed by the Russian Federation on the basis of the Indo-Pakistani conflict.

Quote: Victor Leningradets

Well, again, my favorite trick is to pass off my wildest vision of operations using nuclear weapons as my words. Compare the two texts and you will see that I do not have a single phrase you cited.

You are trying to oppose me in response to my forecast of the use of nuclear weapons against Ukraine

Quote: Victor Leningradets

But the US response to the attack on Ukraine will be determined by military-strategic expediency, and not by moral standards.

I explained to you that the United States will respond with applause for nuclear strikes on Ukraine. And you touchingly abruptly changed your point of view

Quote: Victor Leningradets

So the nuclear cannibalism that you describe (I hope you do not profess) is not held in high esteem by the military and serious politicians.

without forgetting to accuse me of using dishonest methods of discussion :))))))

Quote: Victor Leningradets

Well again - great! I wrote something about a NON-NUCLEAR blitzkrieg against a nuclear power?!

This is Я wrote about a non-nuclear blitzkrieg against a nuclear power

Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk

Nuclear weapons are taboo. It will be possible to use it first only in the event of such aggression, which is impossible to cope with by conventional means, and which threatens the existence of the country and nation.

And you came to argue with me

Quote: Victor Leningradets

How is that? You have already been defeated and with your last effort you are using some mythical weapon of universal destruction? (well, Vergeltungswaffe again!) Yes, by this time you will not have ANY strategic potential, and relics of tactical nuclear weapons will not stop anyone.

And in return they deservedly received

Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk

I won’t even ask where the Strategic Missile Forces divisions will go if NATO itself starts a large-scale non-nuclear blitzkrieg using the Fuhrer’s method.

Why are you complaining now? Have you challenged my thesis about a non-nuclear blitzkrieg? Disputed.
“You shouldn’t shyly pull your skirt over your knees, Comrade Captain 1st Rank, when you came to a venereologist for help. Tell me how you managed, from such a good and necessary thing as receiving a patron’s delegation, to arrange a drunken orgy with trips on a command boat in the winter Gulf with prophylactic grenade launching?" (With)

Quote: Victor Leningradets

For this reason, I no longer see discussions with you, I don’t comment on articles and posts, and I don’t give ratings.

“Honor would have been offered, but God would have saved me from the loss” (c)

[Horon]

Such a country really needs to be destroyed - like a mad dog.
Nuclear weapons are taboo.

Did I miss something? Has someone already destroyed the United States for using nuclear weapons against Japan? In my opinion, this taboo exists only in the case of maintaining a database outside the territory of the owner country. Databases have already shifted to Russian territory, taboos remain only in the minds of inadequate people.

[Andrei from Chelyabinsk]

Quote: Horon

Did I miss something? Has someone already destroyed the United States for using nuclear weapons against Japan?

The Americans were forgiven for one simple reason - at that time no one, including the Americans themselves, understood what exactly they had used. Awareness of the threats posed by nuclear weapons came much later.

[Horon]

The Americans were forgiven

With this approach you confirmed their exclusivity. Are you tired of praying for them?

[Andrei from Chelyabinsk]

Quote: Horon

With this approach you confirmed their exclusivity.

No, only yours :)))
You don’t know that the realization that there are nuclear weapons came already somewhere in the 60s, and in the same 50s, both the Americans and we conducted combined arms exercises using nuclear weapons. Ours - in 1954 (Totsky exercises), the Americans - as many as 8 exercises in 1951-57. For example, in the first exercises, the Americans staged an air explosion of 20-25 kilotons, and then sent troops to the epicenter, although they did not enter the epicenter itself, they stopped a kilometer away. But in the third exercise they already drove infantry through the epicenter without personal protective equipment...
A banal misunderstanding of the damaging factors of nuclear weapons both in our country and in theirs.

Quote: Horon

Are you tired of praying for them?

Well, no, of course not. Morning, afternoon and evening:))))))

[Horon]

Ours - in 1954 (Totsky exercises), the Americans - as many as 8 exercises in 1951-57. For example, in the first exercises, the Americans staged an air explosion of 20-25 kilotons, and then sent troops to the epicenter, although they did not enter the epicenter itself, they stopped a kilometer away.

What a sweet time it is, what was blooming has now rotted.
Why don’t you remember the accident at the Chernobyl nuclear power plant? There, the release of radioactive substances was thousands of times higher than any nuclear explosion.

drove infantry through the epicenter without personal protective equipment...

With experience comes not only understanding, but also methods of protection from certain factors. On the other hand, it’s difficult for me to understand what to do there? Do you really want to take control of the territories where the nuclear demon danced? Meaning? Nuclear weapons differ from other types of weapons only in their power and accompanying damaging factors, due to which their use has been limited. But if, for example, missiles and bombs begin to fall on the United States, then they will not even have any hesitation about using it, if the use of other types of weapons cannot quickly change this situation, so as not to engage in rhetoric on this issue, re-read the history of Japan. American confrontation, in particular examples of Japanese attempts to strike at US territory - they are there.

awareness that there are nuclear weapons,

The American military and scientists should not be considered naive; they knew a lot from the time of the first tests; subsequent tests were needed only to clarify the influence of factors and develop methods for neutralizing them. In this sense, even accidents at nuclear power plants are used to test techniques, methods and develop equipment, including for military purposes.

Well, no, of course not. Morning, afternoon and evening:))))))

It’s noticeable, because according to your logic, Russia would be better off getting rid of nuclear weapons, otherwise its purpose will somehow be eroded. On the one hand, it exists, but under no circumstances should you use it, otherwise suddenly everyone will be offended. It’s better to let the enemy calmly hammer us from the quiet with conventional weapons, at the Kremlin, at headquarters, at nuclear forces, nuclear power plants and reservoir dams. And we will, smearing our snot, argue “no matter what happens” and “suddenly they will be offended at us.”
If you are not aware, then there were already plenty of reasons for its use, even according to the current doctrine, but it is the lack of a correct reaction to this that gives the West a reason to increase the degree of conflict. The West understands that even the destruction of Russia will not be perceived as a reason for full self-defense. Russia, thanks to an approach like yours, has turned not even into an ear of clay with legs of clay, but a generally legless disabled person.

[Andrei from Chelyabinsk]

Quote: Horon

What a sweet time it is, what was blooming has now rotted.

So there’s no need to remember ’45. Or do you have “I remember here, but I don’t remember here”? :)

Quote: Horon

Why don’t you remember the accident at the Chernobyl nuclear power plant?

Hmm, let me think... Probably because this accident has nothing to do with the issue under discussion?

Quote: Horon

The American military and scientists should not be considered naive

you just need to know the history, and not fantasize about a given topic.

Quote: Horon

It’s noticeable, because according to your logic, Russia would be better off getting rid of nuclear weapons

Do not confuse my logic with your lack of it.

Quote: Horon

If you are not in the know, then there were already plenty of reasons for its use, even according to the current doctrine

Name at least one. With reference to the doctrine, the point of which was violated.

[Mordvin 3]

Quote: Horon

If you are not aware, then there were already plenty of reasons for its use, even according to the current doctrine,

Don't talk nonsense. The doctrine of the use of nuclear weapons provides for the threat of the collapse of the state, and in our country, if you haven’t noticed, it is only increasing. It is precisely according to our doctrine that Ukraine could apply it. For us, dear ones. Because we are the ones who destroy it. So we sit and rejoice that Ukraine does not have nuclear weapons. However, if it had been there, we wouldn’t have gone there.

[solar]

The uniform use of nuclear weapons against a non-nuclear state, contrary to the agreement, will mean the complete collapse of the NPT. In just a few years, nuclear states will be trampled on like rain. Japan, Brazil, South Korea, many European countries - there is no particular technical difficulty in creating a nuclear charge, especially when the technologies have already been tested in the world. And China is no more interested in such developments than the United States.

[bayard]

Quote from: parabyd

2. Having stepped over the use of nuclear weapons once, why not step over the second? By introducing new sanctions, you can get a missile, but what do you have to lose? That is, the most common blackmail on the part of Russia. The method is effective and efficient, let's leave morality to philosophers.

In order to show the seriousness of intentions, it is necessary not to launch tactical nuclear weapons on one’s own territory (because the Northern Black Sea region is the Russian Land) (this will be a sign of one’s own insolvency), and especially not a single demonstration strike on NATO territory . To begin with, it is enough to conduct a series (precisely a series) of nuclear tests on Novaya Zemlya and, having sent Shoigu and Gerasimov into retirement, replace them with younger, competent, decisive ones.
Simply replacing the General Staff command and the leadership of the Defense Ministry, coupled with the resumption of nuclear weapons testing, will indicate that the previous indecisiveness and incompetence is over.
And believe me, this kind of action there (on the other side of the global sight) will be taken very seriously.

And they will continue to chew the towers... and wait for nuclear weapons to appear at the used... which they “of course” will do themselves. And long-range missiles.
And there is no need to be afraid of “offending respected people” by dismissal - due to their age, it’s time for them to retire... again, such stress does not improve their health... This is CARE FOR PEOPLE.
After all, there are experienced imitators in the towers, so get creative - bring those who have failed into the shadows and start PR for “fresh blood”.

[Alexey Lantukh]

I will add that in the event of isolation after a nuclear strike, it is possible that nuclear weapons will be supplied to Iran, and the Jewish state will definitely not like it. And the Jewish lobby is very strong. So there are options here too.

[topol717]

Quote from: dmi.pris1

If used, we will really become a rogue country with the corresponding result. Refusal to supply everything necessary from Asia. About NATO members... There are not sufficient forces, means, desires, Faberge and the list goes on

The whole world doesn't care about this Ukraine. Everyone is only interested in their own personal benefits. The USA forced gay Europe to fulfill its wishes. The rest of the world sent the US and NATO. The same thing will happen with the use of nuclear weapons in Ukraine. There are no friends in big politics, everyone is for himself. And if it comes to the use of gay Europe, then there will be a big boom, and then it’s time to change the car to an AKM with 4 magazines and break through to the African continent or in northeastern Siberia to look for a place without radiation and from there begin to restore the country.

[your1970]

Quote from: dmi.pris1

There won’t be a more “limited attack” on NATO, or something like that. If used, we will actually become a rogue country with the corresponding result. Refusal to supply everything necessary from Asia

That is, don’t you catch the fact that even 1 Tactical will immediately cause panic among the world’s stockbrokers?
Real resources then tutu after that...
And yes, it will be quite enough to fire a second charge at Suez. Floating goods in a circle will sharply increase China’s compliance

[al3x]

To begin with, it would be a good idea to resume nuclear weapons testing to show the seriousness of the words. We have experience. But, unfortunately, the one who, above all others in Russia, declared to the whole world: we are only after the Americans.

[Vladimir M]

Our resumption of nuclear weapons testing will not bring us anything good. The USA, Britain, France will also resume testing... and there is a possibility that the “nuclear club” will be replenished with new members.

[al3x]

The nuclear club is gradually replenished with new members. Maybe Eun will provide a testing ground. and this information will somehow leak somewhere, so that here and there someone will get seriously burned.

[taiga2018]

Yes, what kind of attacks are there on the territory of Poland, for starters, at least start shooting down reconnaissance planes over the Black Sea...

[tralflot1832]

Please note that American “experts” only consider options that suit them, in everything.

[Boa kaa]

Quote: tralflot1832

And hardly in Ukraine.

Absolutely in a hole! (from)
The Yankees present options where they will not be touched at all (according to their scenario), although they are actually the instigators of the whole mess. Provocateurs think that this will not affect them. In vain.

[Sugoi_Dekai]

Russia has long had weapons worse than nuclear ones, so ours are calm and ready for anything.

[Al manah]

Yes, screen propagandists - we will drop them by parachute behind enemy lines.

[Vasilenko Vladimir]

Quote from Sugoi_Dekai

Russia has long had weapons worse than nuclear ones

Have you watched the anime?!

[Magellan]

We can do without nuclear weapons. The main thing is serious, with conventional means of destruction, but where necessary and massively

[alex aircraft]

And without using Yao, you can solve problems. For example, don’t beat the crap at substations, which don’t decide the outcome of the war in any way, but carry out transport logistics in a Westernized state with the elimination of the leadership, but this is not being done at all. And the Kremlin simply has no desire to win in its , and even more so when deciding to use it...

[your1970]

Quote: Alex aircraft

for example, don’t beat the crap at substations that don’t decide the outcome of the war in any way,

A year ago, everyone was saying, “We need to remove the substations.”...

Quote: Alex aircraft

liquidation of management,

when Hitler was carried to the trash in a rug, he had a radio...
Ze's situation now is a little simpler than in April 1945 - and there are about two dozen receivers at once...
And the American ambassador will confirm his position....

[alexoff]

Why use nuclear weapons somewhere in Europe? Everything is arranged by the Americans, so you can hit them right away. One small bomb on Wall Street and the whole world stands applauding, including every second American. Second in the Soros Open Society office.

[solar]

And how happy China will be! His reserves of dollars will immediately become empty pieces of paper, and his main market for the sale of goods will be covered with a copper basin.

[alexoff]

Oh, the joy of modern countries - to supply Americans with what they need in exchange for their pieces of paper! Directly according to the New Testament - “And the kings of the earth, who committed fornication and lived luxuriously with her, will weep and lament for her, when they see the smoke from her fire... And the merchants of the earth will weep and lament for her, because no one buys their goods anymore.”

[Vic Vic]

“In addition, Moscow did not initially plan to use nuclear weapons in a special operation and did not study scenarios for war with the entire West.”
It cannot be that there are no plans for war with the entire West. Unless Yeltsin destroyed such plans, but there are no new ones. Having nuclear weapons and not having war plans is somehow very strange. Depending on the situation, what to do, like how it goes...

[Boa kaa]

Quote from vicvic

It cannot be that there are no plans for war with the entire West.

As for the West, no. But against NATO, and its core - the USA - there is one for all occasions: under various conditions of development of events. Plans have been developed and, to “implement” them, force exercises and command post exercises are conducted... sometimes with designated forces.
Against their “instant disarming global strike,” we have an administrative procedure for transferring the armed forces to the highest levels of the battlefield, we have the forces and means of the BS and DB of the elements of the “triad” of strategic nuclear forces. The combat duty of the Dead Hand and early warning systems, including the space echelon, has been restored. Therefore, the work of the General Staff of the RF Armed Forces is carried out continuously, taking into account the emerging situation.

[JonnyT]

Here they are itching - they are slowly but surely introducing the idea to the population about the inevitability of the use of nuclear weapons.

For the Anglo-Saxons this is beneficial - it is the limited use of nuclear weapons that they want to control this process...
According to their scenario, the use of nuclear weapons should be in such a way as to cause critical damage to competitors and acceptable damage to themselves and their allies - they will make such an exchange without hesitation, or a demonstrative and terrible use of nuclear weapons, after which the world will voluntarily disarm in order to avoid disaster... After all, after the use of nuclear weapons in their plans for globalization and total control over the world

[Bolt cutter]

after the use of nuclear weapons

The unipolar world will settle down. The pole will be Brazil. The Southern Hemisphere will be virtually unaffected by nuclear carnage in the North. Thus, South America will become practically the only habitat of a highly developed technological civilization.

[Victor Leningradets]

Even Wales won't suffer!
Where ground operations are not carried out, the food supply, medical care will deteriorate (yes, all pensioners are subject to voluntary euthanasia), personal transport will practically be laid up, but everything will be as it was.

[Sergey3]

slowly but surely introducing the idea to the population about the inevitability of the use of nuclear weapons.

This is a fact, not the implementation of someone’s thoughts. The current war crossed the point of no return last year. Now there is only victory at any cost. And so they think on both sides of the conflict. Without the use of weapons of mass destruction, the current situation is completely stalemate. However, this cannot continue indefinitely. About six months before the use of weapons of mass destruction. Only fools do not understand all this.

[Mordvin 3]

Quote: Sergey3

Now there is only victory at any cost. And so they think on both sides of the conflict.

That's what you think. But in my opinion, there will be another agreement, because I don’t see anything about victory at any cost.

[forty-eighth]

In a stalemate, chess players shake hands rather than punch each other in the face

[Victor Leningradets]

In a stalemate, chess players shake hands

And they are preparing for a new fight, where they hope not to miss their goal.

[Motorist]

Quote: forty-eighth

In a stalemate, chess players shake hands rather than punch each other in the face

Only in vain does he joke with our brother,
I have a measure, even two:
If he kills me,
So I him - through the hip with a grip
Or a knight's move - on the head!

[Sergey3]

slowly but surely introducing the idea to the population about the inevitability of the use of nuclear weapons.

This is a fact, not the implementation of someone’s thoughts. The current war crossed the point of no return last year. Now there is only victory at any cost. And so they think on both sides of the conflict. Without the use of weapons of mass destruction, the current situation is completely stalemate. However, this cannot continue indefinitely. About six months before the use of weapons of mass destruction. Only fools do not understand all this.

[Yuri Vasilyev]

Why do we need to use nuclear weapons on our Russian soil? We still have many powerful non-nuclear weapons: ODABs, for example.

[Al manah]

And somewhere else there supposedly is a BOV. Well, that's what they say/write. But they don't use it. Just like cassette ones. We are not like that, we are different (drooling suckers, or what?).

[razved]

The US expert center RAND Corporation analyzed the likelihood of Russia using nuclear weapons in Ukraine

They started to push the topic again... It calmed down, and here it is again... They're not preparing anything...

[Vladimir80]

We will turn on the TV louder to these threats, because there are so many useful shows, truthful information and patriotic art (sarcasm)

[Normann]

The most “hard” scenario involves missile attacks on six key air and sea ports of the alliance, including the Ramstein base and the port of Rotterdam

What kind of nonsense is this? After such a strike, WW3 will immediately begin.

[Zaurbek]

I would make it simpler. I would use Poseidon in the ocean on communications between America and the EU.....and call it Demo Explosion.

[Mordvin 3]

Quote: Zaurbek

I would make it simpler. I would use Poseidon in the ocean on communications between America and the EU.....and call it Demo Explosion.

Today is the anniversary, exactly one year since the Nord Stream was blown up. For some reason I don’t see any replies.

[Al manah]

And how then is our Ilitka would you get involved with kids living in Miami? Ay-ay, that’s not good... That’s why you won’t be allowed to control the Poseidons...

[Tagan]

Quote from: dmi.pris1

There will be no use of nuclear weapons on air, or even more so a “limited attack” on NATO, or something like that. If used, we will actually become a rogue country with the corresponding result. Refusal to supply everything necessary from Asia. About NATO members.. .No sufficient strength, means, desire, Faberge and the list goes on

You can enter from the other side. What exactly is the sufficiency of NATO forces and do they have the determination to go to the end?
How do you know about Faberge? Do you think NATO members have them? You can, as always, continue to fantasize. Because you have exactly the information that they considered necessary to feed you. Your analyst is also so-so.
The paper epaulets turned my head.

[Ezekiel 25-17]

Is it difficult to consider the scenario of using only tactical nuclear weapons in Ukraine? Somewhere around 100 warheads from 2 to 5 kt at logistics centers, as well as the central control center.

[Ax Matt]

It seems that everyone has forgotten how in Transbaikail or Siberia a mountain was demolished and a river was blocked? This will probably be a warning: somewhere in Norway or the Carpathians, or maybe in Alaska, a hill will “accidentally” be blown into a river or lake... Everyone will understand everything instantly. And they will cool down. Yellowstone will be next...

[Vlodek]

in this case, “queues” are unnecessary. right away... if you can, on the yellow stone! and if you can’t, you shouldn’t shake the air. 5-6 points under the caldera and America will no longer care about Europe!!! they will have their own problems from Alaska to California

[Al manah]

And if they don’t understand, we’ll use the Death Star.

[Tagan]

Quote: Vladimir80

We will turn on the TV louder to these threats, because there are so many useful shows, truthful information and patriotic art (sarcasm)

This is not sarcasm, but an unsuccessful idle fart before sleep.
With your other “sarcasms” you have long since earned your time.

[Tagan]

Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk

Nuclear weapons are taboo. It will be possible to use it first only in the event of such aggression, which is impossible to cope with by conventional means, and which threatens the existence of the country and nation. The world will understand this. But nuclear terrorism, which you propose, is the path to real and unconditional isolation from the rest of the world.

Come on!
It has already been used unnecessarily. Or rather, they beat one at a time in order to stun the others. And nothing. The world accepted everything and did not isolate anyone. Why are we worse? Moreover, those for whom it was used are trying to pretend that they don’t remember who such a bad radish used it))

[rocket757]

The conflict in Ukraine may have several options for continuation, including escalating into an international conflict with the use of nuclear weapons. The likelihood of this option was analyzed by the American expert center RAND Corporation, which traditionally lays claim to the shadow General Staff of the Pentagon.

. They start a cartoon, and then they start scaring everyone with evil Russians, Chinese, North Koreans... standard tactics, everything is according to the textbook.
They will also offer to get rid of nuclear arsenals... although no one except them has used nuclear weapons on civilians, and indeed, for real purposes!

[opuonmed]

The Russian Federation will use it if necessary and will not ask anyone! but at the same time it will warn you whether you want it yes or no, if the answer is yes, then Europe and the United States will find out what their leaders have done and why they will all die, then it will apply if not, then it will not fly and Europe and the United States will give the guarantees that the Russian Federation asked and demanded from Europe and the USA but with new realities! here again the choice depends on the USA and Europe, they are ready to die! and the Russian Federation only defends itself in any situation! Well, if the USA and Europe don’t have the key to the nuclear weapons of the Russian Federation, maybe the Russian Federation has the key to the nuclear weapons of the United States! Well, this is nothing more than a fantasy! and yes, nuclear weapons are parity and a tool (that in the event of mutual destruction, no matter what happens) countries will speak on an equal footing and respect each other’s interests within reasonable limits! maybe I’m wrong and everything is different!

[Prisoner]

Their experts were in a puddle with their conclusions regarding the impact of sanctions on the Russian economy, which was supposed to collapse. So let them be careful with their conclusions. They will make a mistake here - the matter will not end with just expensive gas and diesel fuel. It would be better if they sat straight on their butts, because for modern warfare the concept of rear is very relative. The dogs won't sit out.

[garik77]

Quote from: dmi.pris1

Refusal to supply everything necessary from Asia.

Why the fright? Or do the Chinese not understand that they are next in line if Russia is defeated?!

[Etoya]

NATO is hitting Moscow! But if we hit London, it’s not fair, what kind of scum they are

[Sergei N 58912062]

_________________________________________

At least tactical nuclear weapons in western Ukraine.

[Igor Viktorovich]

We will never be the first to use either tactical nuclear weapons or strategic nuclear weapons. Firstly, there is not even a war, secondly, we will immediately show our weakness, and thirdly... then weapons of mass destruction will appear XNUMX% in the hands of certain individuals who want the death of Russia!

[Yuri Vasilyev]

We will use nuclear weapons only according to doctrine, and nothing else. Otherwise, many forget in an emotional outburst what kind of weapon it is, when it is used and what the consequences will be.

[bravo77]

Quote from: parabyd

Too many transport routes go through or over Russia. Northern Sea Route, air, etc.

oh those fish.
The sea route operates 3-6 months a year. limited by the width of the fairway, requires reinforced container ships
The mainstream sea route is dozens of times overloaded, does not depend on the time of year and is not tied to the wishes of one country.

the air route has not been used for a long time as before; you can even look at the sky to see the obvious.

the land route is being built through Kazakhstan-Azerbaijan, Armenia, Turkey
and it will not replace the sea

[Prisoner]

"Piques interest
Your thought process.
You've been screwed since birth,
Or are there courses somewhere? "(c) Arranging someone else's problems on the ground is like two fingers on the asphalt. Especially in Kazakhstan, especially already.

[bravo77]

Quote: Captive

Their experts were in a puddle with their conclusions regarding the impact of sanctions on the Russian economy, which was supposed to collapse. So let them be careful with their conclusions. They will make a mistake here - the matter will not end with just expensive gas and diesel fuel. It would be better if they sat straight on their butts, because for modern warfare the concept of rear is very relative. The dogs won't sit out.

3 trillion budget deficit is, of course, nonsense
dollar at 100 with oil price at 95 too

in winter, vegetables, fruits, meat will be sold domestically as always
not from Israel, Egypt, South America

[Neutron Retarded]

Quote from: bravo77

3 trillion budget deficit is, of course, nonsense

The funny thing is that it’s really nonsense against the backdrop of a debt of 33 trillion from the issuer of cut paper, which for some reason we continue to buy at the price of two loaves of Russian bread... Two whole loaves for a candy wrapper. And this is the main problem. Stronger than nuclear bombs.

[Pilot]

Under the current leadership of Russia, the use of nuclear weapons is impossible in principle. And this is good, but we will have to fight for a very long time and this is bad.

[Prisoner]

Why don’t you like our yellow-blooded leadership? It seems they are not fooling around with carpet bombing. This is how the most frostbitten ones are passed through a meat grinder.

[Rimlianin]

There are so many frostbitten people here, Mama Mia. If you want to burn in a nuclear fire, then please do it alone. There is no need to speak for everyone, especially on behalf of the country.

[Prisoner]

That's it. “Fools are neither sown nor reaped. They themselves are born.” (With)

[tolmachiev51]

It seems that such centers do not fully understand the use of nuclear weapons. You need to use the phashington directly and everything will stabilize, though for the survivors. For a start, it would be nice to explain the “abnormal” operation of the Poseidon off the coast of the regional committee by the intervention of Ukrainian scuba divers from a yacht...

[barbiturate]

Some people here are making some strange apocalyptic forecasts, as if defeat in a war or a conflict for decades is better for Russia.
We just need to clearly define our position at the highest level - we cannot lose and leave, this is not Afghanistan or Vietnam, which means that with the continuation and massive supply of weapons, the further mobilization of millions of Russians ("Ukrainians") against the Russians with the full participation of Western countries - We will begin to strike tactical nuclear weapons at key supply hubs in western Ukraine - the Beskydy tunnel, road junctions, traction stations (so that there is nothing to restore) and the junction stations themselves.
Before this, conduct nuclear weapons tests.
And why do some people think that Russia will become a “rogue country”?
And now who are we for Western propaganda? We just don’t eat children yet, but close. Yes, 2/3 of the world will just clap their hands for us, especially since we are not talking about bombing cities, as the United States did, which is what we need to emphasize.

[pavel.typingmail.com]

For some reason, the option of changing the Ukrainian leadership is not being considered.

[Victor Leningradets]

My vision of the problem is the following:
1) A stalemate has developed on our Western Front due to increasing losses and the weakening of Russia’s internal stability.
2) A diplomatic solution is impossible at this stage, since the United States and its allies are confident of eventual victory and view negotiations as a means of forcing Russia to capitulate.
3) The solution for the United States and its allies is to expand the conflict to Belarus and the Caucasus, where we will not be able to field sufficient groups to repel aggression.
4) The solution for Russia is the lightning defeat of Ukraine followed by occupation, while neutralizing NATO’s ability to intervene directly in the conflict.
5) Carrying out such an operation is impossible without the widespread use of nuclear weapons to crush the enemy and suppress his will to resist.
6) Such actions will cause broad international consequences in the form of an attempt to organize a naval and aerospace blockade of Russia and the collapse of the nuclear weapons non-proliferation policy. An escalation of the conflict could lead to the collapse of the global economy, mass famine and, at maximum, a Third World War, the outcome of which is variable.
7) The alternative for Russia is defeat and loss of statehood, followed by a war for the division of its territory.

[Alexey Lantukh]

5) Carrying out such an operation is impossible without the widespread use of nuclear weapons to crush the enemy and suppress his will to resist.

I am also a supporter of a nuclear strike specifically against Ukraine, primarily a tactical strike against advancing troops, bridges, and important railway stations in western Ukraine. Maybe just not so wide. And I think the United States will not respond with a nuclear strike on Russia - its own shirt is closer to the body. And this will save many lives, not only Russian, but also Ukrainian.

[Victor Leningradets]

this will save many lives, not only Russian, but also Ukrainian.

Totally agree with you.

[ZovSailor]

Wow, friends and foes!
Can't wait! Well, stupid according to M. Zadornov...
All these centers are collectors and analyzers of information to develop ready-made solutions for their so-called. to the brainless leaders of the False West!
Tremble and be afraid, for our answer will be illogical, and therefore unpredictable and unexpected! So get ready for hell right away!
We warned - “Don’t wake up the dashing in vain, Don’t fight with the Russians, even the dead be afraid of us - don’t fight with the Russians!”
And let them not climb
I have the honor

[Ulembeck]

Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk

at that time, no one, including the Americans themselves, understood what exactly they used. Awareness of the threats posed by nuclear weapons came much later.

They understood everything perfectly. A month before Hiroshima and Nagasaki there was Trinity - a double of “Fat Man” was blown up at the Alamogordo test site.

[Mordvin 3]

Quote: ulembeck

They understood everything perfectly. A month before Hiroshima and Nagasaki there was Trinity - a double of “Fat Man” was blown up at the Alamogordo test site.

And within a month they analyzed the consequences of radiation sickness?

[Ulembeck]

They were analyzed back in 34, when Marie Curie died.

[staer-62]

I am for the use of nuclear weapons in Europe because it is on our borders, thanks to Europe, the United States can do what they do. There are many options for using nuclear weapons without bombing cities and even military bases or industry.

[Alexey Lantukh]

Why in Europe? Do you want a third world war? So, neither the USA nor Europe definitely wants it, just like us. But tactical nuclear weapons in Ukraine are just right. They are advancing near Rabotino - a couple of air strikes, so as to minimize radioactive contamination, nuclear strikes on the attackers and their rear, and then our offensive follows. Next there should be tactical attacks on bridges, dams, tunnels, and important railway stations in the West. A more powerful bomb should be detonated in the stratosphere over Kiev to disable EMP electronics. Next, a massive raid of bombers and missiles with the destruction of bridges and Bankova. This is so that some people don’t think that tactical nuclear is not that important and there is no point in it, as pro-Ukrainian activists say. That’s when the feathers of many presidents will droop and there will be capitulation. Those who are going to give me minuses must answer: are you for tactical nuclear weapons or for the war to go on for a long time and tens of thousands to die, adding to the already tens of thousands of dead, our guys. By the way, tens of thousands of Ukrainian guys will also be saved.

[Sebastian Aristarkhovich Pereira]

Russia could defeat NATO troops in the Baltics in less than 60 hours. Michael Carpenter, Deputy Secretary of Defense for Russia, Ukraine and Eurasia, stated this to the American newspaper The Weekly Standard. According to him, this is how much it would take for Russian troops to reach the capitals of Estonia and Latvia. And that in such an attempt Russia will have advantages in time and distance.

“We are working on the situation, we will deploy troops and equipment in such a way as to prevent aggression from Russia,” Carpenter said.

And they are already deploying American tanks, guns, and planes in the Baltics. Although some local politicians are already saying that “they are sick of the constant horror stories “The Russians are coming!”

But who supplies the Pentagon with all these calculations? It turns out that this is RAND - an American strategic research center that studies US national security problems. In which, by the way, a lot of professional intelligence officers work on a commercial basis.

“They seem to be serious men, but they are engaged in such nonsense,” they told the KP correspondent at the Russian General Staff, “why should we go into the Baltic states? For what strategic purpose? For sprats, or what? Or to re-build factories for the Baltic states in Soviet times, which they destroyed and closed when they joined the European Union and NATO? Well, if we assume only theoretically that this could happen, then these provocateur-analysts from RAND even insult us with their calculations. An hour is enough to complete such a task."