Military Review

Stability base - nuclear response

Stability base - nuclear responseIt has long been talking about the "obsolescence" of nuclear weapons, that in the future it will be superseded by non-nuclear precision weapons (WTO). A lot is said about the “nuclear zero”, about the damage criteria and so on. At the same time, the conceptual apparatus itself for different groups of experts has a different meaning, although we are simply obliged to develop a common view on the fundamental aspects of the problem.

Just to such a state of affairs allows the article “Vasily Burenka and Yuri Pechatnova” “Unacceptable damage” (“NVO”, No. 4, 2013) to move. The position of the authors themselves is defined clearly and clearly, and their theses are impeccable, they can only be developed and supplemented.


The “nuclear zero” advertised in America is nothing more than a maneuver for the United States. It is intended to provoke Russia into a transformation of nuclear policy that would provide the United States with free hand in their policy towards Russia. In fact, the United States, ostensibly ready to abandon nuclear weapons (NW), will never abandon them as an indispensable tool for ensuring their global aggressive policy.

And here there is a certain subtle, at first glance paradoxical moment - the public attitude of the nuclear state to nuclear science today turns out to be the measure of its real peacefulness. Depending on the degree of peacefulness of the state, the role of nuclear weapons can be fundamental or complementary, and the less nuclear power is committed to nuclear weapons in its programmatic declarations, the more aggressive it becomes.

It is impossible to say this about the WTO, however, the way they look at the WTO in a nuclear state can also tell a lot about the essence of the state policy.
In principle, there are three types of military organization of a nuclear state. The first is an aggressive option: the military organization is designed to ensure an aggressive policy of coercive pressure and potential direct aggression. The second is a combined version: a military organization is called upon to ensure both the defense of one’s country against aggression and one’s own potential aggression against another country. The third is a purely peace-loving option: a military organization is called upon to eliminate someone else’s aggression.

The military organization of the USA answers the first option. There are no external military threats to America, and there can be none until it commits aggression against a nuclear-missile state. That is, the US Armed Forces are now becoming not even predominantly, but exclusively aggressive. The United States leads and intends to conduct real combat operations all over the planet. This requires powerful conventional weapons, since the use of nuclear weapons in the presence of similar weapons from Russia and China is impossible. Hence the emphasis on the all-out development of conventional means of warfare, including the WTO. In the long run, nuclear weapons are necessary for America, first of all, as a tool of impunity - under the “umbrella” of the US missile defense system - of a disarming first strike against Russia's strategic means of retaliation, as well as a tool to deter China.

What has been said about the USA can be attributed to England and France. There are no real external threats to their national territory, but the elements of greater or lesser aggressiveness are obvious. At the same time, both countries seem to support the idea of ​​a “nuclear zero”; after all, they, too, are not averse to waging a real war, and they are waging it.

For China's nuclear, the second option is more characteristic, since for the Celestial Empire the task of eliminating the threat from the US is relevant, but at the same time foreign policy is not without elements of potential aggressiveness. China is more likely for Yav, but it does not take a tough position - he, too, is not averse to making war on occasion.

For Russia, only the third option is acceptable and vital. At the same time, an effective nuclear status makes it possible to eliminate the threat of any aggression against Russia and its allies and force a potential aggressor to peace without hostilities. Nevertheless, strangely enough, expert opinions in favor of the “nuclear zero” are also strong in Russia. I personally can’t consider such a position consistent and necessary for our country.

So, YaV can have both potentially aggressive and real defense functions. The genuinely defensive function of our nuclear weapons is to ensure the exclusion of external aggression against Russia.

The formal defense function of the United States is to exclude the effective response of the victims of American aggression with damage to the United States itself. Thus, the American nuclear weapons have a potentially aggressive meaning, and the formal defense function assigned to them serves the idea of ​​unpunished aggressive actions. Unlike Russia, America, under the protection of YaV, plans the first strike, after which the “shield” of YaV will allow the United States to repel a retaliatory strike.

As a result, the military organization of the Russian Federation can perform the defense function only on the basis of the primacy of Russia's nuclear status, which should be understood: at the global level — the ability to provide a guaranteed deep retaliatory strike, causing unacceptable damage to the aggressor in any disarming of his first strike against Russia's strategic means; at the regional level, the ability to neutralize and eliminate the threat of regional aggression or to ensure the rapid de-escalation of aggression. At the same time, demonstration nuclear strikes of Russia against the aggressor are of paramount importance.


Through the prism of the aggressive policy of the United States, it is necessary to consider both the “relationship” of nuclear weapons and the non-nuclear WTO. For America, the WTO is the possibility of a “non-nuclear” implementation of long-standing ideas regarding the use of tactical nuclear weapons (TNW) in local wars. Since the Korean War, the United States has been tempted to provide an immediate decisive advantage and victory through the use of tactical nuclear weapons. Actually, this did not happen once, primarily due to the tough position of the USSR. However, in itself, even the limited use of nuclear weapons against non-nuclear countries was fraught with serious political costs. Therefore, the United States began to actively develop WTO systems, which are capable of largely replacing TNW as a “battlefield weapon” in the course of local wars against non-nuclear countries.

For decades, US tactical nuclear forces have participated in regional conflicts only “virtually” as a hypothetical threat. Today, the US WTO is called upon to actually participate in regional conflicts and ensure the success of aggression. For Russia, the WTO does not have and cannot have such a meaning. WTO systems cannot replace Russian nuclear weapons even at the regional level, not to mention the global one. It follows from this that the nuclear two-level armaments of Russia are the everlastingly important and in no way replaceable guarantor of the military-political security of Russia. High-precision weapons can only be a complementary element of our Armed Forces.

The aggressive US armed forces are called upon to wage widespread regional wars, including those initiated by America. Therefore, conventional weapons, including WTO, are of primary importance to the United States. Nuclear weapons for the United States are complementary.

The defense forces of Russia are called upon to ensure that Russia is not involved in any major armed conflict, or that it can be quickly curtailed, therefore its nuclear weapons are of primary importance to Russia. Conventional weapons, including WTO, are complementary.
America is waging local wars all over the world, because otherwise it will not be able to exercise political control over the world situation, which will ensure its economic control. For such wars, the WTO systems are effective.

Local conflicts, in which Russia may be involved, objectively have a narrow geography. All possible conflict zones lie on the periphery of the Russian geopolitical space, which coincides with the borders of the USSR 1945 of the year. Successful de-escalation and curtailment of hypothetical conflicts such as the Russian-Georgian one do not require either long-term or large-scale hostilities. WTO systems here will not increase the effectiveness of the actions of the RF Armed Forces. The reduction of the conflict is within the power of the conventional armed forces, and Russia's nuclear status should be a guarantee against the intervention of a third force in the conflict, whose power is comparable to or exceeds the capabilities of the Russian armed forces.

If we keep in mind a hypothetical conflict of type, for example, Russian-Turkish as a result of regional aggression by Turkey against the Russian Federation or its allies, then such aggression, without a doubt, can be quickly and successfully curtailed with a limited use of the nuclear factor at the regional level.

Separately, it is necessary to dwell on such a unique quality of Russian nuclear weapons as the provision of the necessary psychological deterrent effect. It is on the psychological uncertainty of the result of aggression against Russia that such a situation arises when any large-scale aggression against our country with the use of both nuclear and conventional weapons becomes impossible. In contrast to nuclear weapons, high-precision weapons, even to a small extent, are not capable of providing such a psychological effect, which excludes the temptation to attack Russia.

As long as large arrays of weapons exist in the world, Russia's nuclear weapons as a guarantor of its security cannot be replaced by anything, including precision weapons. The WTO, even in the long term, is not able to take over any of any significant systemic tasks or the military-political functions of nuclear weapons. Attempts to give the WTO an important meaning for Russia are in fact attempts to uncritically transfer the Western and American concepts of the WTO and the principles of the aggressive strategy of the United States to the defense strategy of Russia.

If the US leaders are so sure that the WTO will replace the Nuclear War, that the World Trade Organization is more efficient than the Nuclear War, then why should America not abandon their supposedly "obsolete" Nuclear War, unilaterally, replacing the systemic niche that was formed with these or other types of WTO? However, the United States will never take such a step.


The program article “The World Without Nuclear Weapons” by former US Secretary of State Kissinger and Schultz, ex-Secretary of Defense Perry and Senator Nunn, mentioned by Vasily Burenok and Yuri Pechatnov, launched a campaign for global “nuclear zero”. However, it does not hinder to recall the words of the famous US military-political ideologist Zbigniew Brzezinski: "The plan for the destruction of nuclear weapons is a plan for creating a world in which the United States will be able to wage a normal war safely." Proceeding from this thesis to the exact opposite, one can say that the preservation and consolidation of the effective nuclear status of Russia ensures the existence of such a world where Russia will not need to wage both conventional and nuclear war.

Theoretically, the nuclear deterrence regime should be considered as having a trigger character. That is, theoretically, there are only two possible positions: deterrence or ensured or not. However, in the mode of containment, a psychological moment is really important, whose quantitative formalized assessments are objectively impossible. Therefore, it is possible to distinguish two “gray” zones of quantitative parameters of the nuclear arsenal of Russia both above and below the conditionally quantitative “W” value. The parameters of the arsenal in these zones provide unsustainable deterrence, that is, a regime in which the temptation of a forceful solution can prevail over a potential nuclear aggressor over fears of receiving a retaliatory strike. In military-technical terms, it is extremely important not to even approach the upper boundary of the “gray” zone lying above the “W” value.

Ultimately, the nuclear deterrence regime is based on the principle of uncertainty of the result of full-scale real-world use by all parties involved in the conflict of the entire volume of their nuclear weapons. The result of a full-scale nuclear war is uncertain in principle. In order to have it, it is necessary to conduct a full-scale nuclear war, which neither side can allow as long as the other side has advanced nuclear weapons, which have guaranteed retaliatory strike capabilities.

And here we come to such an important concept as "the criterion of unacceptable damage." This side of the matter in the article by Vasily Burenko and Yuri Pechatnova rightly received much attention. But I would especially emphasize the most important, in my opinion, authors' conclusion that “the subjective criteria of unacceptable damage cannot be considered as requirements for the prospective grouping of strategic nuclear forces when planning its development.” One can not disagree with the idea that the discussion to determine the agreed amount of unacceptable damage in practice is fruitless. But here you can clarify something ...

The subjective “Mao Zedong criterion” (90% of the population of one’s own country) can only be mentioned in purely historical terms - such a criterion is unacceptable even for China simply because mass death of the population is impossible without catastrophic damage to material values. Subjective “criteria” of de Gaulle (several warheads), Kennedy (several or one war block), Reagan (one war block) also cannot be considered seriously, they are a political propaganda bluff.

The criteria of McNamara and Sakharov are completely objective and systemically consistent, but it is stupid, in my opinion, to argue long about the percentage of the destruction of the military-economic potential that the damage should be considered unacceptable. The objective criterion of unacceptable damage is to take such damage, which has long-term catastrophic consequences for all spheres of state life.

I am especially close to the authors' idea that as a criterion for deterrence, it would be more expedient to take an approximate balance of response potentials. This idea is absolutely indisputable, although it can hang in the air without a correct understanding of the form under which the Russian strategic nuclear forces ensure a guaranteed retaliatory strike when delivering at least 200 warheads to targets.

Acceptable, of course, is the adoption of "substantially reduced damage criteria." But only with the complete refusal of all nuclear powers from missile defense systems, with the exception of active defense systems for missile launches against warheads in the final part of their trajectory. In response to the plans to deploy the US NMD, the only sensible approach would be to massaging nuclear weapons. Actually, it was necessary to begin the day before the new massing of the SNF. Only in this way is the regime of guaranteed nuclear deterrence of aggression retained on the basis of a guaranteed retaliatory strike, with causing unacceptable damage to the aggressor.
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. pa_nik
    pa_nik 26 March 2013 16: 22 New
    How much can you !? No faith in anyone! Neither NATE, nor the EU, nor other Americas with China ... The Army and Navy are the Allies of Russia! They have faith, they also have our support! hi
    1. ShturmKGB
      ShturmKGB 26 March 2013 16: 37 New
      And why not Russia introduce into the military doctrine the possibility of the FIRST strike on the enemy who is about to attack? Why not consider actions in an economy posing a threat to Russia as a declaration of war?
      1. elmi
        elmi 26 March 2013 16: 59 New
        And why not Russia introduce into the military doctrine the possibility of the FIRST strike on the enemy who is about to attack? Why not consider actions in an economy posing a threat to Russia as a declaration of war?

        I agree. Why do we always make excuses for the attacks of the west? they make you feel guilty. Here it affects the hammering in our heads of a defeatist mood, they became worried when the country began to feel victorious, to rehabilitate Stalin, the Stalin association was a victory.
        1. nakaz
          nakaz 26 March 2013 18: 59 New
          By reviving Stalin, we awaken the blood of our ancestors who won the most difficult and bloody war in the history of wars.
        2. imperiolist
          imperiolist 26 March 2013 23: 21 New
          Talk of a "retaliation strike" is already pretty fed up; the doctrine of a "preemptive strike" will undoubtedly be more productive, as you know: "the best defense is an attack." And in this direction all branches of our troops must develop! Throw out Yeltsin’s “retaliatory strike”, but we look like a man with a gun who will shoot only when his head is demolished. [Media = http: // yandsearch]
        3. imperiolist
          imperiolist 26 March 2013 23: 23 New
          Talk of a "retaliation strike" is already pretty fed up; the doctrine of a "preemptive strike" will undoubtedly be more productive, as you know: "the best defense is an attack." And in this direction all branches of our troops must develop! Throw out Yeltsin's “retaliatory strike”, but somehow we look like a man with a gun who will shoot only when his head is demolished.
        4. imperiolist
          imperiolist 26 March 2013 23: 28 New
          let the bastards be afraid of us
          1. crapiv
            crapiv 27 March 2013 01: 34 New
            For some reason, the picture is more reminiscent of Hitler's troops and castles .. Only here are our towers (Arab-Orthodox), but the scarlet banners.
            And the game in this series has become worse. It used to be more interesting ...
        5. crapiv
          crapiv 27 March 2013 01: 26 New
          Personally, I associate Stalin with a gangster who destroyed a powerful country (of course, I do not mean that he alone did this), but managed to win it back in World War II. We assume that it did not happen, then everything is for the better ... But still he is a bastard.
          As for the first to attack, then I cannot agree. Otherwise, we are no better than a NATO military machine (remember: a bad world is better than a meaningless war). Plus, our country is not with a little finger, and not a single country can destroy and intercept the entire triad of Russia's nuclear response to this day.
          We need the WTO and not a large amount of nuclear. At least in proportion to the armed forces of China and the entire EU, so as not to provoke a short, but very effective 3rd world response with a local response.
          1. serzhserzh86
            serzhserzh86 27 March 2013 08: 32 New
            what the heresy ??? minus you
          2. Basilevs
            Basilevs 27 March 2013 23: 22 New
            Quote: crapiv
            Personally, I associate Stalin with a bandit who destroyed a powerful country

            What is the most powerful country that Stalin destroyed ?? Rotten and failed @ cannonized JANUARY Romanov ??
            Quote: crapiv
            (of course, I don’t mean that he did it alone)
            CREATED a powerful country, and this, unfortunately, is a fact.
            Quote: crapiv
            But still he is a bastard

            Here it would be appropriate to say: "but such and such is not a bastard." And who is not a bastard? Leiba Trotsky? Bukharin? Rykov? maybe Tukhachevsky?
            1. crapiv
              crapiv 28 March 2013 01: 51 New
              Basilevs, this is your opinion.

              What is the most powerful country that Stalin destroyed ??

              Well, at least the Russian Empire.
              Under Nicholas II, the Russian financial and monetary system was created. In his reign, the ruble pressed the franc and the mark, overtook the dollar and was rapidly approaching the quotation to the pound.

              Stalin-a bastard like the entire Bolshevik guard of that time !!!

              And this is my opinion. Though crap, but you can’t change him.
        6. kostyan77708
          kostyan77708 27 March 2013 07: 24 New
          Wait gentlemen! In my doctrine, like I think the possibility of delivering a preventive strike is spelled out
      2. JonnyT
        JonnyT 26 March 2013 17: 32 New
        It is too dangerous, as soon as they enter it, it will be necessary to bang. They want to attack us all the time !!! And the balance of power will collapse. And our mentality is not like that. Russian man is not an aggressor and invader! The introduction of such a doctrine marks the beginning of a war.
      3. zao74
        zao74 26 March 2013 17: 54 New
        Because we are not them! And we will not become them!
        1. ABV
          ABV 26 March 2013 21: 21 New
          They are not us, we are not them !!
          head in the sand like a bird is not good ... you need to know the enemy ... no, not in the face. the enemy must be known, in principle, and be prepared to fight back. here the Anglo-Saxon foes constantly stir up against us ... so why, proudly so do not pay attention ??? ... they also need to set their brains, all the accessible methods, and not so proudly, like a prince .. "Oh, let me, it's disgusting, like something out of silence ..." disgusting, but nada! otherwise they will devour ... oh my god! which country is ours ... how many tried to smash, but we hold on - there would be more brains and a global hegemon would be provided! You read - reviews about us on holidays abroad! they are not of our type, they are afraid of unculture, THEY ARE SUCH, I personally saw ... they are afraid of our nation because the Russian ethnic group can crush everything and everything under itself and not even choke, because we are haha not funny --- tolerant !!!
      4. oSeR
        oSeR 26 March 2013 21: 01 New
        It has long been stated in the military doctrine that in the event of a serious threat to national security, Russia has the right to use nuclear weapons first :)
    2. SPACE
      SPACE 26 March 2013 21: 58 New
      This can not even be argued, what a zero! They took how to do the nefig they left the ABM Treaty and began to build, and even under their very noses, promised not to drag anyone into NATO and what? Someone refused the basic instinct of self-preservation? NoooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooesosNoooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooesoszie, shepherd’t give her a goofy little bit of a bang-up shit. "
      Why won't they take and combine the efforts of Mita, Makeev and Hume and simply, without frills, repeat the joint feat of their ancestors, create a r-36 orb with bb20мт! well, at least one a year. While in the forest, wolves, extra precaution does not hinder.
      This is the case when size matters, like there is no one to relieve itching.
    3. vjhbc
      vjhbc 26 March 2013 22: 12 New
      think correctly, look how much that North Korea is and whether or not she has yao in general knows exactly how to dance with her like a princess and all because of the mere suspicion that there is now look at Serbia and the Middle East no yao well and get the full program
      1. alexng
        alexng 26 March 2013 22: 50 New
        - Where is this world heading?
        - Do not ask stupid questions, come on, come on!
  2. lechatormosis
    lechatormosis 26 March 2013 16: 26 New
    I would add to the article of RUSSIA it is necessary to have faster and more powerful means of delivering NUCLEAR WEAPONS to the territory of the USA and NATO countries.
    This provides us with the OPPORTUNITY to DICTATE the United States its parity conditions in the eternal arms race.
    1. serzhserzh86
      serzhserzh86 27 March 2013 08: 38 New
      as well as invulnerable to missile defense ... well, those that bring fear to the pi.ndosov (although any of our weapons makes them fear)
  3. smel
    smel 26 March 2013 16: 30 New
    For our power, a nuclear shield is necessary as air. Americans are not a decree to us.
  4. Tersky
    Tersky 26 March 2013 16: 30 New
    What kind of "zero" are we talking about? The EBN of nuclear weapons of Russia has already “nullified” to cowards. And we need -
  5. Stiletto
    Stiletto 26 March 2013 16: 31 New
    A country that has rolled to "nuclear zero" is inevitably and immediately at risk of becoming zero without a wand.
  6. Ruslan67
    Ruslan67 26 March 2013 16: 35 New
    Americans dream of freeing their hands and waging wars safely with conventional weapons Well, well, they don’t take into account the option that, if they don’t have a nuclear club, the same North Korea will slam a couple of torpedoes into the side of an aircraft carrier passing by and will wait for the next one with the same greetings wassat
    1. es.d
      es.d 26 March 2013 16: 47 New
      Quote: Ruslan67
      Americans dream of freeing their hands and waging wars safely with conventional weapons Well, well, they don’t take into account the option that, if they don’t have a nuclear club, the same North Korea will slam a couple of torpedoes into the side of an aircraft carrier passing by and will wait for the next one with a similar hello wassat

      As far as I understood from the article, they are not going to refuse TNWs. In Vietnam, MacArthur demanded its use. With overwhelming superiority in the air, intelligence and information superiority, such a club for the rebels is simply charming.
      1. Ruslan67
        Ruslan67 26 March 2013 17: 07 New
        Quote: es.d
        such a club for the rebellious is simply lovely.

        Only such a truncheon in Russia is three times longer and many carriers are sharpened just under it. So they will have to flinch and look around before getting it recourse
        1. es.d
          es.d 26 March 2013 20: 18 New
          Quote: Ruslan67
          Quote: es.d
          such a club for the rebellious is simply lovely.

          Only such a truncheon in Russia is three times longer and many carriers are sharpened just under it. So they will have to flinch and look around before getting it recourse

          So they are the tactical nuclear weapons that they want to bind to strategists in the "negotiations". What wonderful system did they kill us based on the results of previous negotiations (not Iskander), which of the aircraft carriers was forced to withdraw the refueling system?
    2. Tersky
      Tersky 26 March 2013 16: 58 New
      Quote: Ruslan67
      Americans dream to untie their hands

      Just let them pay attention to the weather forecast more often, it’s useful to know what the day ahead is preparing for them wink
      1. Ruslan67
        Ruslan67 26 March 2013 17: 46 New
        Quote: Tersky
        it’s good to know what the day ahead is cooking

        Well, with foresight they have a rather poor mentality of overweight butterflies. request laughing
        1. Tersky
          Tersky 26 March 2013 18: 29 New
          Quote: Ruslan67
          Well, with foresight, they’re not good enough.

          Ruslan, hi ! Poorly said this, to put it mildly, it is completely absent, to them Hollywood foresees everything and predicts wink
          1. Ruslan67
            Ruslan67 26 March 2013 18: 36 New
            Quote: Tersky
            them Hollywood foresees and predicts

            Sometimes it seems to me that it’s not the president or the State Department who rules them, but Hollywood, they even know how to focus their attention on their possible ass and their influence on their minds bully
            1. Tersky
              Tersky 26 March 2013 19: 59 New
              Quote: Ruslan67
              Sometimes it seems to me that they are not ruled by the president and the State Department

              Judging by the films (low-grade thrash) the way it is wink Although I confess to 80 when the first VCRs appeared before the morning, the Rambi, Bruce, etc. laughing ., now I can’t remember without laughter ..
              1. Ruslan67
                Ruslan67 26 March 2013 20: 02 New
                Quote: Tersky
                Judging by the movies, the way it is

                Only they are not always listened to. One of such geniuses is George A. Romero. The first bell rang from him in 1968. -The night of the living dead was recognized as a masterpiece, but no conclusions were drawn. wassat
  7. varyag
    varyag 26 March 2013 16: 37 New
    I’m somehow calmer asleep while the “poplars” ride and the “Boreas” swim. And his minuscule tax citizen of Russia on this - do not mind. Bear - he is a bear. We have such a small cozy den on one fifth of the land - go guys, look where it’s not so cold!

    Sleeping baby

    I'm in a cozy cradle.
    Around the fir, pine, spruce.
    Snow on its feet, jumping sable.
    And among the taiga - your "Poplar"!

    My tractor is my stroller.
    Michigan or Nebraska?
    But the excitement is unknown to me -
    Mortar quick start.

    My nipple is a fairing.
    Russian genius is my creator
    To protect against the enemy.
    In the meantime - snow, snow ...

    Seven axes, as in soft paws.
    Only my bear smells
    Sniffing the track under the dawn.
    In the meantime, I'm just sleeping.

    I am sleeping! But still it’s not easy.
    They say I'll see the cosmos
    When I become familiar
    With a ballistic jump.

    Into the narrowness of billiard pockets
    My nozzles flare up in the sky
    From contact on key
    And above them hr

    On a separate slice
    A scary umbrella will fall apart
    Sobering Russian spirit
    Kiloton slap in the face.

    Illinois or Nevada?
    Only it would be better - no!
    Better me under the blizzard howl
    Sleep among the native taiga.
    1. ansons
      ansons 27 March 2013 23: 22 New
      Verse Super good , who is author?
  8. erased
    erased 26 March 2013 17: 03 New
    The water is wet, the sky is blue, the sun is shining ... a repetition of simple truths is sometimes necessary. And so it is clear to everyone - without the powerful nuclear forces of the Russian Federation, as a state, it would not last a year.
    This is an axiom.
    DERWISH 26 March 2013 17: 48 New
    WHY DO YOU LISTEN TO ANYONE !!! RUSSIA should be the fairest and strongest and not independent from anyone!
  10. Genady1976
    Genady1976 26 March 2013 19: 06 New
    Without nuclear weapons of Russia Khan
  11. Fregate
    Fregate 26 March 2013 19: 33 New
    In the 90s, under a bilateral agreement, we unilaterally reduced our nuclear weapons, now let them reduce them without us.
  12. Lecha57
    Lecha57 26 March 2013 19: 52 New
    It seems to me that our leadership will never again go on dubious deals with the Americans, it was too thinly liquidized in the field of disarmament.
  13. AlNikolaich
    AlNikolaich 26 March 2013 19: 55 New
    Well, if the amers want a nuclear zero, let them be reset. And we can’t do it. We have strategic, tactical and operational-tactical nuclear weapons. And let it be! Still reanimate medium and short range delivery vehicles, and it would be normal!
    Powerful deterrent! Maybe it’s never applicable, but it cools down hot heads and specifically clears the back chakra!
    1. Dante
      Dante Alighieri 26 March 2013 21: 25 New
      I know one thing: if someday humanity completely abandons nuclear weapons it will mean only one thing: the world has a single master who is not at all interested in anyone disputing his status. Why, one wonders, when the world is divided and each country occupies its own specific place in it, a factor that destabilizes the world order so well and makes it possible to reconsider the “helmsman” candidacy. Therefore, the state’s desire to reduce strategic arms is quite understandable.
      Another thing is that our politicians should understand that only the presence of such destructive weapons makes it possible not to depend on anyone, to be sovereign within the country and outside it. Unless, of course, their only employer and employer is the multinational Russian people, otherwise START-4, START-5, etc. are waiting for us.
  14. saw486
    saw486 26 March 2013 20: 07 New
    The WTO must be developed along with nuclear weapons. Then our guys will die less. So far, we have the main losses, just in local conflicts. Afghanistan and below ....
  15. Klim
    Klim 26 March 2013 21: 11 New
    Mlechin again shoves his pro-American propaganda on TVC, when this zatz will be removed from the central channels.
  16. wax
    wax 26 March 2013 21: 55 New
    The refusal of Russia (together with the USA and others) from nuclear weapons will mean a transition to a race of a wide range of high-tech weapons, which a country with 140 million people cannot afford. For us, the presence of atomic and hydrogen ammunition of high power means a guarantee of independent peaceful development.
  17. knn54
    knn54 26 March 2013 22: 06 New
    Slowly rockets float away
    Meet them a little wait
    London we all a little sorry
    Washington, of course, is ahead ...
  18. I think so
    I think so 26 March 2013 22: 08 New
    The article seems to be a matter of business, but it is nevertheless trying to push through the idea of ​​AGGRESSIVE China (?). So custom-made - that’s exactly what’s most important for the USA right now to prevent joint actions of Russia and China. Therefore, in the article, together with the correct considerations, SUBMISSION promotes the idea of ​​China's aggression, which by the way is unfounded neither historically nor politically. A dubious article ... But as for the fact that Russia’s nuclear weapons CANNOT be cut back more correctly.
  19. darksoul
    darksoul 26 March 2013 22: 21 New
    Everyone perfectly sees what is happening with countries without a nuclear shield that stand in the way of America's interests. Stamp to stamp and stamp again like pies .... let them be afraid, not well if they want a zero level, let them withdraw their nuclear stockpile and let them drown their missile defense for the company ...
  20. Per se.
    Per se. 26 March 2013 22: 42 New
    Of course, high-precision weapons will develop and improve, approaching nuclear weapons in terms of efficiency, but nuclear weapons will remain the limiting factor. Why? Because the potential aggressor first needed nuclear blackmail, counting on impunity (as with Hiroshima and Nagasaki), and then, with the loss of its monopoly and the possibility of a real nuclear war, the aggressor’s nuclear weapons ceased to suit, for it deprives him of the meaning of aggression - production turning the territories and resources he needs into unusable radioactive deserts and exclusion zones. The states are in a geographically advantageous situation, in case of a conventional war, but with a retaliatory nuclear strike (and even more so a preventive one), it is the United States that becomes an exclusion zone, separated by oceans from civilization. Russia does not need US land, but, now, the Yankees have views of the raw materials and resources of the Russian territory. It is more difficult with China, it is perhaps more dangerous here precisely because it can quickly seize large territories of Russia in the event of aggression. The situation is reminiscent of post-war Europe, where Soviet troops, not yet having atomic bombs, could reach the English Channel, occupying all of Europe and depriving the United States of its nuclear trump card. China is a very dangerous "friend" here, especially since the Chinese are not shy about drawing maps "with territory to the Urals," and their military and economic power is growing by leaps and bounds. For us, time is expensive, it is not necessary for the Chinese to sell the latest weapons, but to rearm their army, strengthening its Far Eastern grouping.
  21. darksoul
    darksoul 26 March 2013 22: 55 New
    Quote: Per se.
    It is more difficult with China, it is perhaps more dangerous here precisely because it can quickly seize large territories of Russia in the event of aggression.
    But we don’t understand this or don’t want to understand, the total population of the Far East and the Siberian District 6.5mln will probably only decline further ... politicians either don’t see or don’t want to see it ... there will simply be no one to protect the Far East ... .... more actively it is necessary to build up and rearm the group in the south and the Far East .....
    1. Per se.
      Per se. 26 March 2013 23: 20 New
      Quote: darksoul
      And we do not understand this or do not want to understand
      Here, trade is in the first place, then politics ... At one time, they were “friends” with Hitler against the Democrats, now we hope to create a NATO counterweight, they blew the States together with the yellow-faced brothers. The situation with the Far East is exacerbated not only by its descent on Russian lands, but also by the settlement of them by Chinese migrants, Chinese immigrants. Here, even without war, a precedent such as Kosovo is possible. It is hoped that common sense and national security will prevail over dubious benefits, add caution and foresight in relations with China.
  22. VictoRO
    VictoRO 27 March 2013 00: 37 New
    It is a pity that there is no such device that would simply turn all nuclear fuel into nuclear lead. For winners in a warrior using nuclear weapons are unlikely to be :(
    1. es.d
      es.d 27 March 2013 18: 35 New
      Quote: VictoRO
      otherwise there is no such device that would simply turn all nuclear fuel into nuclear lead. For winners in a warrior using nuclear weapons are unlikely to be :(

      Alas, without nuclear weapons the winner will be. At least for now, IMHO.
  23. fenix57
    fenix57 27 March 2013 03: 27 New
    And why not Russia introduce into the military doctrine the possibility of the FIRST strike on the enemy who is about to attack?

    I remember the GDP (though long ago) talked about the right of Russia to inflict preventive strike on the territories of states threatening the security of Russia. hi
  24. serzhserzh86
    serzhserzh86 27 March 2013 08: 45 New
    But m doesn’t like such a “nuclear zero” anymore: the United States is destroying its nuclear potential, and Russia is destroying its own, but only in the United States, delivering it to the Fields, Satan, Mace, etc.