Military Review

Our response to a “quick global strike”

50
The lag in high-tech weapons can be compensated for by ultra-low nuclear weapons.


Weekly "MIC" in the number 15 published materials, indicating the need to develop tactical nuclear weapon RV and A low and ultra-low power. We represent the point of view that, in order to solve the tasks of regional deterrence, our country should withdraw from the indefinite Treaty between the USSR and the USA on the elimination of their medium-range and shorter-range missiles.

In 2009, the Federation of American Scientists, which included Nobel Prize winners 68, and the Council for the Protection of Natural Resources prepared a report “From Opposition to Minimum Deterrence. New nuclear policy on the way to the elimination of nuclear weapons "(From Counterforce to Minimal Deterrence. A New Nuclear Policy on the Path Toward Eliminating Nuclear Weapons). In our country, a number of experts interpreted this event as the US preparation for the transition to a new stage of the arms race: having achieved decisive superiority in conventional weapons, technical equipment of the armed forces and information technologies over their main rivals - Russia and China, the Americans suggest that the rest of the countries abandon the strategic nuclear forces (SNF). A further reduction of the nuclear arsenals of the two most powerful nuclear powers, the United States and Russia, was conducted through the Strategic Offensive Reductions Treaties - START-1, START-2, START-3. This reduction is not removed from the agenda. To this day, work continues in this area, both from the United States and from Russia.

At the same time, a provision is made in the US National Security Strategy to significantly replace the SNF with conventional weapons.

Formulation of the problem

Our response to a “quick global strike”In military science, even in a peaceful political process, a clear concept of “nuclear deterrence at the global level” has developed. As a rule, it is said about SNF primarily of two states - the USA and the Russian Federation.

For the Russian Federation, the preservation and strengthening of strategic nuclear forces at this stage is the only guaranteed way to ensure sovereignty. On the other hand, apparently, with the development of high-precision weapons, information warfare weapons and weapons based on new physical principles (ONFP), the role of nuclear deterrence will decrease. Accordingly, nuclear weapons will no longer be the guarantor of sovereignty. And for this we must prepare.

The US military leadership said that the Americans would not develop high-yield nuclear munitions. In Washington, they believe that spending significant money in this case is inappropriate. Therefore, the United States plans to develop low-precision and ultra-low-power high-precision nuclear munitions. Among other reasons, the indicated class of nuclear warheads requires significantly less time and financial costs than ONFP. As for the latter type of weapon, Russia cannot be kept up with America today. But nuclear warheads of small and ultra-low power should be used in containment at the regional level, since they can be used on the battlefield from conventional carriers without special modifications of the latter and they are more effective compared to traditional high-precision ammunition. It is necessary to take into account the technical condition: the proposed high-precision nuclear warheads must be adapted for air explosions in order to ensure the least environmental harm (this is relevant for a regional conflict).

Likely scenario

The collapse of the bipolar system of mutual deterrence made the world less secure. There was a temptation to solve political problems by military methods. The United States arrogated to itself the right of armed intervention almost anywhere in the world, adopting a new form of deterrence, which is based on the concept of “fast global strike” (BSU). In accordance with the latter created the Main shock command of the US Air Force (Air Force Global Strike Command - AFGSC). 450 installations were assigned to it. In the future, they can be used as a means of launching precision tools with conventional ammunition.

The concept of BSU implies delivering a powerful concentrated strike with several thousand high-precision means to the target country within two to four hours, destroying the most important objects of the state and forcing it to surrender. At the same time, the United States insures against retaliation from Russia and China by deploying a strategic missile defense system.

If we take as an axiom that the United States and the Russian Federation will refuse to use megaton nuclear weapons that could destroy Earth civilization, then the only way to ensure Russia's national security is nuclear deterrence at the regional level. This concept has long been developed by Russian military experts, but for a number of reasons, it has not become widespread.

Imagine the following scenario. The United States inflicted BSU on the most important sites of Russia, and from the territory of the Baltic states (Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia) crossed the state border of the Russian Federation the ground forces of the NATO bloc, captured Pskov, and advanced to Moscow. Given the limitations of the scenario in question, Russia can influence offensive troops with tactical nuclear weapons (TNW), including low-precision and ultra-low-power nuclear warheads. Cash TNW and carriers: front-line bombers with nuclear bombs, cruise missiles, air, sea and land-based. In the near future, the Iskander-M missile system will also have low-power nuclear weapons. In addition, it is necessary to restore the nuclear artillery (caliber 152 mm), for which a significant amount of nuclear warheads are still stored, including the development of ultra low power charge.

The experience of armed conflicts involving the United States and its allies in the first decade of the 20th century showed that the armies of highly developed countries often outperform the RF Armed Forces in basic qualitative and quantitative indicators. In these armies there are well-developed information systems for combat command and control of troops and armaments, including modern ACCS. Thus, in the US war against Iraq in 2003, the presence of such systems allowed the US command to preempt the enemy in making decisions, in the combat use of forces and means, in firing strikes on critical objects with conventional means of destruction.

The only way to solve the problem of abandoning the use of strategic nuclear forces (megaton charges) in the conditions of the qualitative superiority of the enemy will be the possibility of the Russian Federation to implement the mentioned concept of nuclear deterrence at the regional level using high-precision low and ultra-low-power nuclear warheads.

So, regional nuclear deterrence is carried out by tactical nuclear weapons and is an integral part of the global one for which the classical triad is intended - the Strategic Missile Forces, the NSNF and YES. This concept is not only a threat to the use of TNW, but also in the event of an armed conflict - the actual use of a limited number of nuclear strikes in the continental theater of operations or strategic directions. The latter allows restraining the aggressor, which has a clear advantage in human resources, a more modern technical base and, as a result, superiority in equipping the troops with modern automated information support and combat control systems with minimal costs and less damage to their troops.

According to the established views, TNW can be used in the form of a deterrent nuclear strike (NPS). The latter is intended to demonstrate the determination of Russia's intentions in preventing aggression or its escalation. SIAU is also possible as part of the ongoing military operation. Forces and means of tactical nuclear weapons can be used both before the start of active actions, and in the course of repelling aggression. Previously, the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation carry out tasks for disinformation of the enemy, informational countering of technical means, increasing the grouping of forces and means of tactical nuclear weapons.

With the onset of aggression, forces and means of tactical nuclear weapons solve the tasks of defeating individual elements in the opposing grouping of enemy troops in order to disrupt control or reduce its effectiveness at the operational level (this will keep the aggressor from escalating the conflict). Single (selective) nuclear strikes of the minimum total power are applied to individual elements of the military grouping, to the extent possible excluding the direct defeat of the civilian population.

Successful fulfillment of nuclear deterrence tasks at the regional level depends on the range of damage to enemy targets, our ability to deliver single demonstration and deterrent nuclear strikes with available forces and means of tactical nuclear weapons, and the ability to hit typical targets with the required damage.

Assessment of opportunities

Of all the forces and means of tactical nuclear weapons, consider the most modern missile system (RK) "Iskander-M".

The construction of the combat forces of the offensive forces is organized in such a way that the main forces of the groupings, and especially the nuclear missile systems, cannot be hit not only by artillery, but also by tactical missiles. The main forces of the groupings of troops constitute the second echelons. The reserves of brigades, divisions, corps and field armies are located to a great depth from the line of combat contact (LBS).

Currently, the following classification of defeat zones has developed: the tactical zone for building enemy battle formations — distance from the 100 – 150 LBS; operational-tactical (200 – 300), operational (400 – 500), operational reserves and rear facilities (800 – 1000) . Given the maximum range of the launch of the Iskander-M complex and the removal of its battle formations from the LBS, we will determine the capabilities of the Republic of Kazakhstan. The missile launch range with YABCH - 400 kilometers. At the same time, important enemy targets are affected in tactical and operational-tactical (200 – 300 kilometers) zones.

However, Iskander-M is designed for missile brigades of operational commands, and the launch range limitations for this complex, established by the INF Treaty (up to 500 kilometers), do not allow this RC to hit enemy targets in the operational zone and operational reserves where the most important objects. In our opinion, for a long time it would have been expedient for Russia to get out of compliance with the specified agreement to modernize the Iskander-M for launch range to 800 – 1000 kilometers. If the demonstration of low-power demonstrative deterrent nuclear strikes by the Republic of Kazakhstan does not stop the enemy, then tactical nuclear forces can launch a group nuclear strike against the main group and thereby force the enemy to de-escalate the aggression.

An example of a successful resolution of an emerging conflict in the nuclear deterrent system is the Caribbean crisis of 1962. The Soviet Union conducted a brilliant operation "Anadyr", as a result of which our launchers with YABCh were deployed in Cuba. For the American side, these actions were completely unexpected. At that moment, the world was hanging by a thread from unleashing a global nuclear catastrophe. The US leadership demanded the immediate withdrawal of Soviet strategic forces from the island. The USSR set its own conditions: America was demanded to withdraw the carriers of nuclear weapons stationed in Turkey and Italy. A compromise has been reached. This example showed the real capabilities of the nuclear deterrence system, therefore, at the regional level, the security of Russia can be ensured.

Thus, nuclear deterrence at the regional level has the full right to exist. At present and in the near future, new types of weapons, including ONFP, will not be developed and introduced into the RF Armed Forces, the considered concept will become a real deterrent to aggressive aspirations. These proposals have already been worked out in research centers. Today, it is necessary to start working out in the troops in various types of exercises questions of regional nuclear deterrence, and also to include them in the system of combat and professional training in military educational institutions.
Author:
50 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Lech from ZATULINKI
    Lech from ZATULINKI 21 June 2013 15: 34 New
    28
    TNW - this is what OBAMA and his advisers will try by all means to convince OUR MANAGEMENT to destroy in the first place.
    Against them, YANKA has no ANTIVOID.
    1. abc_alex
      abc_alex 21 June 2013 16: 39 New
      -4
      But the Yankees don't care. It is only that the Europeans are shaking ...
      1. Mr. Truth
        Mr. Truth 21 June 2013 20: 09 New
        +7
        Quote: abc_alex
        But the Yankees don't care. It is only that the Europeans are shaking ...

        Just do not care, their ground component is most vulnerable to nuclear weapons.
    2. a52333
      a52333 21 June 2013 17: 06 New
      14
      I do not quite agree with the author of the article. Americans themselves will not crawl. They will act with the help of al-Qaida, Wahhabis and other downs (they are not sorry).
      As for their initiatives, definitely let them push them into * o * y. Do not take anything from the hands of the enemy. Although there is enough IUD inside (and Americans always have silver pieces for them in the 30 pocket for them.).
      In general, dear forum users, I advise everyone to see the reports of Marat Musin:
      analytics politician #18 middle eastern triangle
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tMGiohKUfjk
      1. The comment was deleted.
      2. cartridge
        cartridge 21 June 2013 17: 36 New
        +7
        nuclear deterrence at the regional level has every right to exist. At present, and in the near future, until new types of weapons are developed and introduced into the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation, including ONPP, the considered concept will become a real factor in deterring aggressive aspirations.


        The presence of tactical nuclear weapons in the Russian Army is a guarantee of unleashing a land war against us from any direction.
        Therefore, this is annoying for Americans.
        Putin correctly does that he does not make any concessions to them to reduce or eliminate this type of weapon.
        1. old man54
          old man54 21 June 2013 19: 16 New
          +6
          Quote: cartridge
          The presence of tactical nuclear weapons in the Russian Army is a guarantee of unleashing a land war against us from any direction.

          I didn't understand something, you were not mistaken in writing the phrase, Ivan? Maybe still "is a guarantee NOT unleashing against us "? If so, then I agree!
          1. cartridge
            cartridge 21 June 2013 19: 47 New
            +3
            I apologize for the carelessness! Well of course you're right!
            I wanted to write "... is a guarantee from unleashing ...", but messed up and missed an important word! fool
            Hand fighter writing tired! winked
            Thanks for the amendment, dear Andrei! From me + drinks
    3. Army1
      Army1 21 June 2013 17: 49 New
      35
      I feel they are going to make me feel bad. Okay.
      The authors of the article clearly do not look deep into the problem, the United States at the moment can not deliver a quick global blow, can not! And they are unlikely to be able in the near future, the concept itself provides (for Russia) a strike of more than one thousand, we are talking about tens of thousands, hypersonic missiles, these are promising means of attack against which we already have weapons, but so far they are few, hypersonic missiles themselves, you need to create, have experience in their use, to be sure, to have decent ammunition, to have carriers. Fend off tactical weapons is, to put it mildly, difficult to imagine. At the same time they forget that we are talking about Russia, someone calls it a raw materials appendage, well, God be with them, partly you can understand them somewhere. But even if it’s not as fast as we want, it develops, reduces oil and gas dependence, still it was stagnant, only foreign orders saved our military-industrial complex, which to this day is developing and will develop the best military products: from cartridge to missile, it takes time to recover , and a sharply large state order, it is difficult for him to master. We are not a country that can be brought to its knees.
      I REMEMBER: RUSSIA HAS: AF, EXPLORATION, AND THE MOST IMPORTANT PRESENT PATRIOTS OF YOUR COUNTRY, WHICH DO NOT SCREAM TAGIIIIIL IN TURKEY, AND DO IT IN SCIENCE, STAND AT THE MACHINE, NO DIFFICULTY.

      And the fact that Russia can sleep peacefully (war) is 100%, and in the future it should only grow stronger. Something is hidden, but let it remain a mystery.

      With respect.
      1. Nick
        Nick 21 June 2013 21: 59 New
        +2
        Quote: Army1
        The authors of the article clearly do not look deep into the problem, the United States at the moment can not deliver a quick global blow, can not! And they are unlikely to be able in the near future,

        Absolutely right, BUT, it is necessary to predict the situation not only for the near future, but also for the medium and long term. Otherwise, at some point, we may just be unprepared for external aggression. And regarding medium-range missiles, I think the authors are right. To reach the NATO military bases located along the perimeter of our borders, it is precisely medium and short range missiles that are needed. Speaking about this opportunity, Sergey Ivanov has just expressed himself in an interview with the news channel. I watched it in the program Time. In fact, the INF, as NATO structures approach our borders, acquire the properties of strategic weapons, and in my opinion, they will be the most effective and relatively inexpensive means of deterring external aggression, a response to the expansion and approximation of our borders, the NATO structure.
    4. Kolya
      Kolya 21 June 2013 21: 59 New
      +6
      You just need to stop responding to what the States need. They put forward initiatives in what is in their interest. They suggested that, and we propose a reduction in aircraft carriers to 1 pc.! Then the whole world will see their true attitude towards disarmament.
      1. smirnov
        smirnov 22 June 2013 03: 45 New
        +1
        "reduction of aircraft carriers to 1 unit!" that's a thought))))
      2. Revolver
        Revolver 22 June 2013 06: 59 New
        -1
        Kohl from Canada
        I don’t think abbreviating US Navy to 1 AUG is helpful to you (singular), whether you think of US (singular) as Canada or Russia. These AUGs, which you propose to cut, are the main, if not the only, counterbalance in the Pacific theater to China, whose appetites are growing along with its economy.
        And if Russia still manages to drastically reduce such a damaging factor of nuclear weapons as radioactive contamination of the area, then it seems to me that America will not greatly stink about the deployment of nuclear weapons of ultra-low power and short range in the Far East. That is, all the politically correct phrases on duty about the need for peace and arms reduction will certainly be said, but hardly anything beyond that will be done.
        And then something the Chinese started talking about their interest in the basin of the Arctic Ocean. That's when they begin to carry out this interest, moving a millionth army to the north, and even with the support of about half a million North Koreans, these warheads come in handy. And thanks again, say that the American Nimitans, and not the Chinese Liaoning (formerly Varangian), rule the Pacific Theater. America needs China’s access to the Arctic coast not much more than Russia.
        1. S-200
          S-200 23 June 2013 00: 37 New
          0
          Comrade Mauser, you serially Do you think that when the 5 million regiment of huywenbins rushes to cool down their Asian ardor in the Arctic Ocean, you and your "Kibutz" will sail with both breasts to protect us? Or limit yourself to lend-lease popcorn with Coca-Cola?
  2. MIKHAN
    MIKHAN 21 June 2013 15: 41 New
    21
    If the West offers something you need to do exactly the opposite !!!
    1. Ustian
      Ustian 21 June 2013 19: 28 New
      +2
      Quote: MIKHAN
      If the West offers something you need to do exactly the opposite !!!

      Law of Life No.1 good
  3. Tektor
    Tektor 21 June 2013 15: 54 New
    17
    Correction: in modern warfare there is no rear ... Well, if we take into account the "probable partners", of course. In addition, there is no room for all Iskander's targets: it is necessary that after Iskander the target objects be cleaned up by another, cheaper complex with a comparable range. And here - the trouble: it is not, tk. Tornado-S does not promise us anything like that yet. Therefore, I would suggest thinking about modernizing the Ball complex with the possibility of using it for land targets. In addition, in view of the possible threat of Chinese missile defense systems with a range of 400 km, we just need to come up with a simple means of destroying them, and I don't see better than Bal with Uranus missiles, which can break through defenses at an ultra-low altitude.
    1. S-200
      S-200 23 June 2013 00: 44 New
      0
      In Russia, there is always a place for the rear! wink In my opinion, a ball for 400km has already been created for the Ball, it hits the window!
  4. omsbon
    omsbon 21 June 2013 16: 04 New
    +4
    Or another deception here. No, you don’t believe the horse, Trojans!
    Whatever it is, I am afraid of Danians and gifts that bring.

    Homer

    Americans can not be trusted, no matter how and no matter what they say!
  5. engineer74
    engineer74 21 June 2013 16: 10 New
    +8
    Interesting article! But there are questions:
    How to protect nuclear weapons and strategic nuclear forces from the means of the BSU and the WTO?
    What military goals can be found for nuclear weapons in a network-centric war, how to determine the success of the application?
    All this vividly resembles the American concept of a "limited" nuclear war of the 80s, but it will still end in megatons in cities ...
    1. Misantrop
      Misantrop 21 June 2013 16: 21 New
      +8
      Quote: engineer74
      But there are questions:

      Another question: who said that nuclear weapons of low power are cheaper than heavy charges? Yes, there is less fissile isotope, but on the long-lived natural components such ammunition can not be done, artificial isotopes are required, with a significantly shorter half-life. Accordingly, nuclear weapons will have to be updated very often. And the production of this isotope is required to have well-established. And all this is VERY not cheap ...
      1. Rus2012
        Rus2012 21 June 2013 22: 20 New
        +1
        Quote: Misantrop
        Accordingly, nuclear weapons will have to be updated very often. And the production of this isotope is required to have well-established. And all this is VERY not cheap ...

        You are right dear colleague!
        However, these RIPs are a byproduct of the atomic production chain, IMHO
        1. Misantrop
          Misantrop 21 June 2013 23: 21 New
          0
          Quote: Rus2012
          these rip is a byproduct of the atomic production chain
          This is true. Here is just one problem - this chain is a little ... managed to rust, while the United States enjoyed Russian isotopes bought for ridiculous money. That's the trick wink
    2. Atrix
      Atrix 21 June 2013 16: 48 New
      +3
      The article does not indicate the main reason for signing this agreement. When the USSR had short- and medium-range missiles, the approach time was about 5-6 minutes, at the same time, our short- and medium-range missiles could not reach the United States and the main threat was only for Europe. If you withdraw from this agreement, it will not give Russia anything, but on the contrary will add even more problems. To begin with, now there is no Warsaw Pact, the Baltic countries in NATO. 850 km from Riga to Moscow, 320 km from Talin to St. Petersburg, 390 km from Turkey to Novorossiysk, 300 km to Sevastopol, 620 km from South Korea to Vladivostok. I think for what time the missiles will arrive in 2-3 minutes. Now find the closest points to the United States from where Russia theoretically strike. Cuba will not allow the deployment of Russian nuclear weapons on its territory; it still remembers how the USSR betrayed it. Venezuela is also unlikely to ever agree to this adventure. So if you analyze it, you can conclude that breaking the INF Treaty will bring much more problems than benefits.
      1. Rus2012
        Rus2012 21 June 2013 22: 25 New
        +2
        Quote: Atrix
        breaking the INF Treaty will bring much more problems than benefits.

        But what about the situation when many states along the perimeter of the Russian Federation have INFs? How do you think we should fend off these threats? trust in word that they won’t use against us (Israel, India, Pakistan, China, North Korea, potential nuclear Iran, Japan ...)?
        1. Windbreak
          Windbreak 22 June 2013 17: 48 New
          0
          And why did they drag the Japanese here? They were completely depressed with offensive weapons for an understandable reason. There are no cruise missiles or ballistic missiles.
  6. MIKHAN
    MIKHAN 21 June 2013 16: 12 New
    +6
    Quote: Tektor
    Correction: in modern warfare there is no rear ... Well, if we take into account the "probable partners", of course. In addition, there is no room for all Iskander's targets: it is necessary that after Iskander the target objects be cleaned up by another, cheaper complex with a comparable range. And here - the trouble: it is not, tk. Tornado-S does not promise us anything like that yet. Therefore, I would suggest thinking about modernizing the Ball complex with the possibility of using it for land targets. In addition, in view of the possible threat of Chinese missile defense systems with a range of 400 km, we just need to come up with a simple means of destroying them, and I don't see better than Bal with Uranus missiles, which can break through defenses at an ultra-low altitude.

    Everything we will have with such designers and engineers and the people !! I would like a quick jerk to happen .. The West is in shock! The USSR collapsed Russia in the economic and political abyss .. They already celebrated the victory (they bombed everyone who did not suit them) Bismarck West warned that it would be better not to get in touch with us .. Oh, it will be difficult for us now and we can’t fight for now. I hope we break through !!!
    1. Bashkaus
      Bashkaus 21 June 2013 19: 13 New
      +5
      I hope to break through !!!
      "Guys," - said, referring to the detachment,
      Partisan Sailor Zheleznyak,
      "New York is in front of us, let's break through with bayonets,
      And ten grenades is not a trifle! "
  7. Ruslan_F38
    Ruslan_F38 21 June 2013 16: 12 New
    +3
    It is definitely necessary to get out of the perpetual Treaty between the USSR and the USA on the elimination of their intermediate and shorter-range missiles (INF) with no regard to the reaction of the West. As for small nuclear charges, they need to be equipped with all possible means of their delivery. Moreover, our current financial and technical capabilities allow.
    1. Tektor
      Tektor 21 June 2013 16: 22 New
      +4
      "It is definitely necessary to withdraw from the perpetual Treaty between the USSR and the USA on the elimination of their medium and shorter-range missiles (INF) without any regard for the reaction of the West. "Here I suggest we take our time: we will calmly descend from the mountain, and ... Why should we go out now if there is nothing at hand? Let's develop, produce and then go out ...
  8. crasever
    crasever 21 June 2013 16: 16 New
    22
    Tomorrow is the next, tragic and great anniversary in the life of our people - June 22 ... Get up, keep quiet ...
    1. SlavaP
      SlavaP 22 June 2013 15: 33 New
      0
      Thanks. Remember.
  9. bootlegger
    bootlegger 21 June 2013 16: 19 New
    15
    In our opinion, it would have been advisable for Russia for a long time to get out of compliance with this agreement to modernize Iskander-M with a launch range of up to 800–1000 kilometers.

    And what will the exit from the RMNS agreement give us? The fact that NATO will again have ballistic missiles in Europe with a range of 500-5000 km?
    Everything will return to the situation of the middle of the last century. When we were at the sight of missiles capable of achieving targets in the European part of the USSR in 10-15 minutes and the United States had the capabilities of an effective first nuclear strike.
    Why do we need this? The United States will keep a gun at our temple, and sit out on another continent?
    When the Caribbean crisis erupted, the United States did everything to get rid of such missiles aimed at their territory.
    To prevent such a scenario, missiles with a range of up to 500 km are quite enough for us. with nuclear weapons. and other tactical weapons.
    And the scenario of the attack is described absurdly, no one will act like that until they destroy our ICBMs. In a real war, no one will guarantee that they will not be involved in response to such an attack.
    1. Dimy4
      Dimy4 21 June 2013 17: 04 New
      0
      I agree that any such attack will end, as mentioned above, megatons in cities.
      1. SASCHAmIXEEW
        SASCHAmIXEEW 21 June 2013 18: 13 New
        +1
        God forbid all this will happen! This is the end of everything !!! Really do not understand it !!! neither those nor these !!! It’s worth it and that’s all ... there won’t be a stop !!! All the way, until the end of EVERYTHING !!!!
    2. The comment was deleted.
  10. Valery-SPB
    Valery-SPB 21 June 2013 16: 32 New
    14
    Imagine the following scenario. The USA inflicted BSU on the most important facilities of Russia, and from the territory of the Baltic states (Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia) crossed the state border of the Russian Federation, the ground forces of the NATO bloc, captured Pskov, advancing to Moscow. Given the limitations of the scenario under consideration, Russia can influence tactical nuclear weapons (TNWs) on advancing troops, including high-precision small and ultra-small nuclear warheads.


    This is a bad script, wrong, incompetent. Fantasy scenario on the theme: "And if we had nuclear weapons at 41".

    1. This is such a pleasure, after we hit our facilities on our territory, we must strike at the advancing troops, again, on our territory. Hit on their own territories so that there is nowhere to retreat.

    2. With such a fright, the authors of the article simulate the situation of a small-sized retaliatory nuclear strike (strikes) after massively used precision weapons. They fight as they know how and how they can. Undoubtedly hit by all nuclear forces.

    3. The concept of mass use of precision weapons is determined by:

    - the need to seize material resources and raw material bases in an intact and accessible condition;
    - the presence of highly effective systems for early detection and guaranteed destruction of aerospace carriers of enemy nuclear weapons;
    - the achievement of the task for the pre-war period for the maximum allowable reduction of wearables in the enemy country.
    1. ramsi
      ramsi 22 June 2013 09: 46 New
      0
      Well, imagine this scenario: "the floodgates opened" and a million-strong Chinese army poured into the territory of the Far East. We can cope with this in another way - except by delivering a nuclear strike on our own territory?
      1. RDS-1
        RDS-1 22 June 2013 14: 11 New
        +2
        Of course, by delivering a massive nuclear strike on their territory. Without the rear, not a single army, even a millionth one, will conquer much.
  11. MIKHAN
    MIKHAN 21 June 2013 16: 51 New
    +1
    I think that after a successful (whether it’s scammed) nuclear strike by NATO, there will be no ground mass operations .. UAVs will circle day and night destroying everything that moves .. But since our territory is huge and wooded .. sooner or later, they will flip out all the flyers .. Well, then this is a fantastic film I don’t even want to think .. Here is something presented so .. (God forbid)
    1. The comment was deleted.
  12. mogus
    mogus 21 June 2013 16: 58 New
    0
    Since we are limited to strategic offensive arms by rockets, can we modernize the rocket a bit and call it an unmanned, single-use, high-precision short-range / medium-range jet with a thrust ..? On the verge of banter, but still winked
    1. Pacifist
      Pacifist 21 June 2013 17: 01 New
      0
      For the sake of the spirit of the times, I would have paraphrased in "hypersonic high-precision short / medium-range aircraft with a rocket upper stage at the initial stage of flight" drinks
    2. Misantrop
      Misantrop 21 June 2013 23: 25 New
      0
      Quote: mogus
      name unmanned single-use high-precision short-range / medium-range aircraft with jet thrust ..?
      Why such difficulties? Name exactly as it is now fashionable - shock drone. And what he hits there, so this is the tenth matter laughing
  13. Misantrop
    Misantrop 21 June 2013 17: 02 New
    +9
    Quote: MIKHAN
    . UAVs will circle day and night destroying everything that moves ..

    Will not. After mass strikes, radio communication (and another connection too) will be covered with a copper basin. And automation in the area of ​​high radiation levels also sour instantly (like batteries). So all these UAVs are good only before the strike, and then you can forget about them for a long time wink
  14. Avenger711
    Avenger711 21 June 2013 17: 22 New
    +7
    The very fact of the attack, no matter what means give the full right to deliver to every city in the United States with a population of 200-300k people. on a megaton warhead. And do not care how much she has there KVO, 50 m, 250, or all 1000. So chatter about nothing.
    1. Bashkaus
      Bashkaus 21 June 2013 19: 25 New
      +9
      Ha ha ha, judging by the minuses chatter is very much what.
      But I also disagree with the author of the article on the account of the fact that we are waking up to fight back with limited TNW. For Russia, the only way to survive is the new doctrine of the use of strategic nuclear weapons, which should sound simply “we deeply give a damn about who the instigator is, but for any aggression against, Russia will destroy everyone indiscriminately.
      Here, in fact, the most interesting thing begins, on some ticket sales in the first row to see how the rest of the world wakes up to explain to the "ringleader" that he is wrong, you can make a bullet more than using oil)))
  15. Corsair5912
    Corsair5912 21 June 2013 17: 44 New
    +4
    There are no rules in a war, who is stronger is right, and the enemy is always cunning, insidious and deceitful, it would be time for our bosses in the Kremlin to understand and accept this as the basis of politics.
    To protect their country and their people, everything that holds back the Yankees and their henchmen is suitable, they will never be our friends, so let them be afraid to attack.
    1. SASCHAmIXEEW
      SASCHAmIXEEW 21 June 2013 18: 18 New
      +6
      This is true! They need to be made clear that we will not stop at anything and will go all the way! And first of all, it must be made clear to the Jews!
      1. Bashkaus
        Bashkaus 21 June 2013 19: 26 New
        +2
        And first of all, it must be made clear to the Jews!
        not give but give so convincing
  16. The comment was deleted.
  17. andrei332809
    andrei332809 21 June 2013 17: 48 New
    +3
    let's not shout "gop", not the Soviet Union, and there are hardly any delivery vehicles left. but I would bet on space. in spite of all the betrayals, there are still the developments of the Soviet design bureaus, which "friends" only suspect
  18. Genady1976
    Genady1976 21 June 2013 17: 55 New
    +1
    Cut can not be left. Where will our government put a comma in this?
    I think without nuclear weapons of Russia kaput crying
  19. Nitup
    Nitup 21 June 2013 18: 00 New
    +2
    In my opinion, the R-500 cruise missile for Iskander-K has a range of much more than 500 km. Is this not a violation of the INF Treaty? As for the rejection of nuclear weapons, this is how Putin put it (only I did not understand, it was about nuclear weapons or nuclear weapons, or all together):

  20. mark1
    mark1 21 June 2013 18: 02 New
    +1
    Bypassing the INF Treaty can be formally circumvented by placing SD missiles on a submarine, and given the high mobility of the latter, they can be concentrated depending on the situation, even off the coast of America, even Europe, at least somewhere else.
    1. Nitup
      Nitup 21 June 2013 19: 16 New
      0
      Quote: mark1
      Bypassing the INF Treaty can be formally circumvented by placing SD missiles on a submarine, and given the high mobility of the latter, they can be concentrated depending on the situation, even off the coast of America, even Europe, at least somewhere else.

      So the agreement does not apply to air and sea-based INF. So this is no circumvention of the contract.
      1. mark1
        mark1 21 June 2013 21: 14 New
        0
        I said formally, because - does not concern.
        1. Nitup
          Nitup 21 June 2013 23: 19 New
          0
          Ivanov said today that "this cannot go on forever," meaning the rejection of the ground-based INFRM.
  21. fedorovith
    fedorovith 21 June 2013 18: 11 New
    +2
    "The United States is striking from the territory of the Baltic states ..." Well, we need to strike at the territory of the United States, and not with low-yield nuclear weapons practically on our territory.
  22. Nitup
    Nitup 21 June 2013 18: 21 New
    0
    So I don’t understand why anti-aircraft missiles have long had hypersonic speed, and, for example, hypersonic cruise missiles have not yet been adopted. What is the difficulty, anyone in the subject?
  23. Mr. Red
    Mr. Red 21 June 2013 18: 31 New
    +1
    Quote: Misantrop
    Quote: engineer74
    But there are questions:

    Another question: who said that nuclear weapons of low power are cheaper than heavy charges? Yes, there is less fissile isotope, but on the long-lived natural components such ammunition can not be done, artificial isotopes are required, with a significantly shorter half-life. Accordingly, nuclear weapons will have to be updated very often. And the production of this isotope is required to have well-established. And all this is VERY not cheap ...

    The components are the same (mostly). However, I believe that both nuclear weapons and strategic nuclear forces are necessary. Imagine amers leave themselves the possibility of remote exposure. And we will not have it without SNF. Even the small probability of having a thermonuclear hell at home is a great blow to hot heads.
  24. Misantrop
    Misantrop 21 June 2013 18: 42 New
    +2
    Quote: Mr.Red
    However, I believe that both nuclear weapons and strategic nuclear forces are necessary.

    And who claimed the opposite? I just wrote that if the United States hopes to save money on reducing the power of charges, then these hopes are rather illusory laughing
  25. shinobi
    shinobi 21 June 2013 18: 53 New
    +1
    Superiority in conventional weapons. About whom? In what forms? Speak over Russia? It still needs to be delivered to our borders, and in the sea-ocean, anything can happen with vehicles. It will be no coincidence that they will break in half. But seriously, only in the number of aircraft they have superiority. For now. And the joke is that all the power of the Yankees begins to stall as soon as there is a need for the occupation of territories. And it will be necessary to send troops into our territory, because even if we suppose, let’s just assume that they got through the focus with a global blow and they managed to drive the country in the Stone Age. Most of the population will not go anywhere and the resources will remain with it. It is clear that again the new oligarchs will rake everything up. But these will be our businessmen. They will quickly get the foreigners back as at the end of 90. We'll have to enter the army, and here the Yankees will meet with a simple Russian Vasya Pupkin, who will crush them not from great ideals and global love for his native land (although this is also the case), but because he doesn’t like the faces of those people atrul at the checkpoint and how they grab his daughter. And as the whole history of the Russian State shows, for all occupiers of the Russian land it ends the same way. Let it be at different times. Russia can only be destroyed, never conquered. And without nuclear weapons it is not possible. So the maximum that the Yankees will do is to spoil us economically around the ball. But then time is not on their side.
  26. Dimy4
    Dimy4 21 June 2013 19: 26 New
    -2
    Whatever they write about modern sophisticated systems, infantry still win battles.
    1. Mr. Truth
      Mr. Truth 21 June 2013 20: 12 New
      +3
      Quote: Dimy4
      Whatever they write about modern sophisticated systems, infantry still win battles.

      just the very cool infantry in Iraq in the fallujah crap.
      1. Dimy4
        Dimy4 21 June 2013 20: 48 New
        0
        But I’m not talking about their infantry, I’m talking about ours.
        1. Corsair5912
          Corsair5912 21 June 2013 21: 06 New
          +1
          Quote: Dimy4
          But I’m not talking about their infantry, I’m talking about ours.

          Infantry cannot fight without air support and without air defense.
          Such an density of fire that attack aircraft and attack helicopters can create can’t withstand any infantry and will not sit out in the trenches.
          Armored vehicles are also very vulnerable from the air, even Terkin will not be able to shoot down planes delivering missile and bomb strikes from a height of 15 km from a rifle.
      2. DPN
        DPN 21 June 2013 23: 53 New
        0
        It all depends on what the winner needs, and they only need 15 million from our population.
  27. individual
    individual 21 June 2013 19: 45 New
    +2
    In addition to the military confrontation with the United States and NATO, Russia has an internal problem.
    It is necessary to have a nationally oriented elite free from the offshore interests of third countries.
    The renewal of Russia's governance must begin with the Medvedev government and the replacement of its odious composition of capitalist ministers who can count only their money and solve their personal interests.
  28. Skifo
    Skifo 21 June 2013 20: 42 New
    +5
    Maybe someone will not support me, but I am in favor of Putin's program to build up armaments, at least because it is the restoration of many factories and the construction of new ones, and these are jobs, urban development, our own production and the rise of science, and after it, education will be returned! And in fact, a lot has already been created. The main thing now is to prevent sabotage on the ground, otherwise they will recruit "ours and ours" and then everything will end ...
  29. Aryan
    Aryan 21 June 2013 20: 48 New
    0
    Our response to a “quick global strike”
    should be asymmetric as always:
    "slow and local"
    angry
  30. Per se.
    Per se. 21 June 2013 23: 22 New
    +2
    "The only way to solve the problem of abandoning the use of strategic nuclear forces (megaton charges) in conditions of qualitative superiority of the enemy will be the possibility of the Russian Federation to implement the mentioned concept of nuclear deterrence at the regional level using high-precision nuclear warheads of low and ultra-low power." It seems that it is this "discovery" that is beneficial to our "partners". The modern United States, as a potential aggressor, does not need nuclear weapons in its classical form in general, since it deprives them of clean production, respectively, and the main goal of aggression - clean resources. Tactical nuclear weapons will help them to preserve these very resources, especially with the return to neutron charges and nuclear ones modified for them. Only a global strike on the territory of the United States, its inevitability, can guarantee the security of Russia. The states are separated from Eurasia by oceans, we do not need their resources, the Yankees must understand the reality that civilization will survive if the US territory becomes a zone of exclusion, a desert. If we recall Cuba, Operation Anadyr, then in a modern version, this is the deployment of low-power nuclear missiles on diesel-electric boats, a return here to the ideas of Project 619, there are suitable boats, this is the Amur, which we stubbornly do not build.
  31. Basilevs
    Basilevs 21 June 2013 23: 43 New
    +2
    "... it is necessary to restore nuclear artillery (152 mm caliber), for which a significant number of nuclear warheads are still stored, including an ultra-low-power charge developed ..."

    Why restore it? There she is, alive and well, and "Msta" and "Acacia", just load.
  32. DPN
    DPN 21 June 2013 23: 49 New
    +2
    This article once again shows, RAVALIV your country of the USSR, we became whipping boys in the United States. And if the non-nuclear POWER we had received from Russia from the USSR, Russia would simply not have died. The eBN and the Tagged Nobel did not work in vain. The article correctly reminded of the Caribbean crisis, where the United States for the first time realized that it came * ZD * Ts or END to whom it is more convenient.
  33. Gavril
    Gavril 22 June 2013 04: 46 New
    +1
    Or maybe a furry animal comes to them, of course, not tomorrow, but what is clear to them all around the world, and so they want to lower the bar?
    But they do not think that we will refuse a grenade in the room when everyone is around with knives, although the devil knows them.
  34. Andriasov
    Andriasov 22 June 2013 10: 27 New
    +1
    Why does Europe support the USA? because Russia is not threatening anyone ..
  35. profcom77
    profcom77 22 June 2013 10: 54 New
    +1
    The Russian army clearly needs medium-range weapons. Both nuclear and conventional. Remember the "Relief" complex.