Military Review

Yevgeny Pozhidaev: For Russia, the reduction of the nuclear arsenal, rather than reduction, is relevant

Yevgeny Pozhidaev: For Russia, the reduction of the nuclear arsenal, rather than reduction, is relevantSo, the United States once again offered to reduce nuclear arsenals - by more than a third, to 900 warheads, of which only half will be on duty (thus, the number of deployed warheads will be more than tripled). Theoretically, this is quite a lot. So, it is assumed that 500 charges on 550 kilotons (the power of the Topol-M warhead - 500 kt) and 300 on 100 can deprive the US of 65% of the population. In the USSR, it was assumed that the threat of delivery of 150-200 charges is sufficient for reliable deterrence.

However, Russia is clearly not eager to disarm, and Putin, during a meeting on the development of aerospace defense forces, explicitly mentioned the threat of a disarming strike. Moreover, such a threat objectively does exist.

Regarding the disarming scenario, there is a rather impressive set of myths. Thus, it is often assumed that it should be strictly non-nuclear because of the possible environmental consequences for the United States and the subsequent unsuitability of the “unarmed” territory for development and residence. In fact, it is not. In practice, the zone of radioactive fallout will hardly even touch Europe, a global increase in the background radiation by any appreciable amount will not occur either. Even directly in the impact zone, radioactivity will very quickly fall to acceptable values ​​— due to the predominance of short-lived isotopes, the infection level created by an explosion of a nuclear charge decreases about a thousand times faster than in the case of an explosion of an NPP unit. As for the notorious nuclear winter - this is nothing more than a propaganda fake. In other words, the actual restrictions of an “environmental” nature on the use of atomic weapons on a very large scale does not exist - and the disarming strike will be unconditionally nuclear.

What can be a disarming strike for the USA? First, it’s the submarine-launched ballistic missiles Trident 2. Starting off the coast of the Russian Federation (at a distance of no more than 1000 km), they are able to achieve goals in Central Russia in 8-10 minutes. Taking into account the fact that the preparation time of the missiles for the launch is at least 2 minutes, 6-8 minutes remain for checking information about the impact and making a decision, which is frankly not enough. At the same time, the high accuracy of the Trident allows it to destroy highly protected targets, such as silo launchers (silo) and recessed bunkers. It is assumed that two W88 warheads (475 kt) are enough to destroy silos with a probability of 95%, two W76 - 84%.

The United States has 14 SSBNs (“Ohio”) capable of carrying 24 missiles on which eight 475 kilotons or fourteen 100 CT warheads can be mounted. Total - 336 missiles that can potentially carry 2688 W88 or 4704 W76. In fact, due to the ban on installing more than 8 warheads on an SLBM, 2008 W384 and 88 W1344 were deployed on the Tridents to the 76, however, the stored warheads can be quickly enough reattached.

At a time, at least six American SSBNs are in the sea - which potentially means 144 missiles and up to 2016 warheads. At the same time, the domestic anti-submarine defense did not shine with special successes even at the peak of Soviet military power. Now the Russian PLO - shrunk at times compared with the Soviet period - the archaic reserve. ESONPO (surface and underwater lighting system) is one of the most famous long-term construction projects of the domestic military-industrial complex. The more or less systematic control of the 1000 km zone near the coast is not even on paper - it was planned to cover the 2012% exclusive economic zone (30 km) by 370,4. In other words, it is not able to track the movements of American submarines in the threatened zone of the Russian Navy.

The second likely participant in the disarming strike is long-range, sea-based and air-based cruise missiles (the famous Tomogawk and AGM-86, respectively). The United States has about 5 thousand. Formally, in contrast to the Tridents, it is a “slow” weapon, the estimated time is hours. However, the low altitude (10-30 m in the latest modification of Tactical Tomahawk) and low radar visibility (EPR - effective scattering surface - 0,05 m in the same modification) lead to the fact that such missiles are detected extremely poorly. In fact, the only means of detecting them at a considerable distance are airborne early warning aircraft raised in the air. About how bad air defense is capable of fighting with similar, though much less problematic targets, says, for example, impunity for flying over the Minsk Swedish light-engine aircraft last year. The Belarusian air defense system built on Soviet patterns had all the chances to remain in the dark about this visit - don’t throw the landing party out of teddy bears.

At the same time, a strike on several targets can be clearly synchronized, and the Tactical Tomahawk warhead, even in conventional equipment, is able to penetrate 2,5 m of armor steel with a circular deflection of 3-5 m (the thickness of the cover of the missile shaft is about 2 m, and basically this not armor steel).

As for the carriers, 83 US surface ships and 39 submarines can use Tomahawks. So, only 4 converted into "Ohio" ships-arsenals are capable of carrying up to 616 missiles. In total, the American submarine fleet is capable of carrying the Tomahawks to 1150. Potentially, a platform capable of participating in a sudden strike are also three Zamvolt destroyers under construction with reduced radar and acoustic visibility.

Other carriers of cruise missiles are strategic bombers (58 B-52 Stratofortress, 66 B-1 Lancer, 20 B-2 Spirit). Formally, only B-2 and B-52 are carriers of nuclear weapons, but the Lancers were transformed into a non-nuclear version by extremely cosmetic methods. However, only B-1 can potentially carry 1584 cruise missiles.

Such is the shock potential of the United States. What does the list of potential targets look like? On 1 March, 2013 RF had 1480 nuclear warheads. Their distribution between the "nuclear triad" looks like this. 395 intercontinental ballistic missiles are located on land, of which 207 are Topol, Topol-M and Yars mobile complexes (PGRK). Potentially, they can carry up to 1303 nuclear charges, of which on mobile complexes 261-279. It is easy to calculate that in order to disable 95% silos, Americans only need 376 warheads - I remind you that on one SSBN it can be placed up to 192 W88.

As for mobile systems, in 2012-m the duration of PGRK on combat duty was 18 days (five times less than in 80-x) - from which it is sufficient to simply conclude that at one time the combat patrols were about 20 machines. At the same time, the remaining 187, placed in lightweight shelters, in many respects represent a much easier target than silos. Americans, apparently, will spend for each 1-2 stokilotonny warheads (up to 336 on each SSBN).

The elusiveness of the 126-ton PGRC on the patrol route is also greatly exaggerated. With a formally large area of ​​patrol areas, not a brilliant permeability, especially in autumn and spring, sharply narrows the actual size of the territory where the machine can be located. More than 60% of the patrol route inevitably falls on well-viewed roads. At the same time, the overwhelming majority of the time of the PGRK are not in motion, but in positions. As a result, during the exercise, the vehicles were detected during the 1-2 day by the domestic satellite constellation, the capabilities of which are hardly comparable with the American one. Alas, but to extrapolate the experience of the not-so-successful American hunt for the Scuds into a three-fold heavier system is not too witty.

At the same time, the Americans are actively expanding their monitoring capabilities — for example, until 2015, it is planned to create an all-weather radar reconnaissance system (based on small spacecraft) to track PGRK movements.

Let's look at the Air Force. The assets of the Russian Federation include 48 strategic bombers capable of carrying 508 cruise missiles in total (another 60 units are in reserve). Of these, 16 are supersonic Tu-160s capable of carrying 192 cruise missiles, the rest are subsonic T-95 turboprops, whose chances of overcoming air defense are vanishingly small. At the same time, bombers were on air only in the 1980s - now most of the time there is not a single aircraft in the air - and are concentrated at three airfields. Obviously, in the event of a sudden strike, the strategic aviation The Russian Federation will cease to exist in the first minutes at the cost of "spending" just a few warheads.

The Russian Navy has 8 combat-ready submarines with 16 ballistic missiles (SSBNs) each (plus Dmitry Donskoy remaining in combat fleetbut used more like an experimental ship). Total - 128 missiles - basically modifications of the R-29, capable of carrying either 8 combat warheads of low power, or four - medium (now - the main option). According to the most common data, we are talking about 512 warheads. The number of ballistic missile submarines that are simultaneously in the sea is classified - however, it is known that during the Soviet era there were 25-30% of strategic submarines there. Thus, "standard" in the sea should be 2 submarines. In fact, according to American data, last year, as a rule, one SSBN was on duty at a time, and sometimes not a single one.

There is no doubt that the submarines standing in the bases will be destroyed in the very first minutes of the war. In this case, the Americans - total domination of the sea. Meanwhile, the SSBN without a “cover” is not so invulnerable, as is commonly believed, and are not weapons ready for immediate use. Communication with submarines in a submerged position is possible only in the range of very low (VLF) and extremely low frequencies (ELF). To receive the submarine, it is necessary to podskplyvat to a depth of no more than 30 m and use a towed antenna with a length of 300-900 m, limiting the speed of the boat to three nodes. In other words, the SSBN is not constantly in touch, leaving the enemy plenty of time for his search and drowning - which is more than fraught with his absolute domination of the sea. No less vulnerable in this situation, it turns out during the shooting of missiles. Meanwhile, if you do not take one-time and risky experiments on their "volley" start-up, this is not a quick process.

In other words, the fact that the United States is on permanent duty is more than enough to reduce the number of Russian missiles capable, more or less guaranteed, to launch a retaliatory strike, to less than fifty. Theoretically, this is enough for quite reliable deterrence. However, in practice, the active development of missile defense, space intelligence and anti-submarine defense technologies makes the situation more and more risky. Almost threefold reduction of deployed warheads will make it risky tomorrow. At the same time, it is hardly worth repeating the fact that for Russia atomic weapons are the only way to compensate for the weakness of conventional armed forces, unconditionally and radically inferior to the American ones both quantitatively and qualitatively.

For Moscow, taking into account the context, the reduction, rather than reduction, of the nuclear arsenal is relevant.
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Denis
    Denis 2 July 2013 07: 51 New
    So, the United States has once again proposed reducing nuclear arsenals - by more than a third, to 900 warheads
    A very cunning position. The Yankees somehow "forgot" about the nuclear arsenals of other obedient NATO countries
    Maybe it’s worth not building up, but qualitatively improving delivery systems?
    And rebuild rocket trains
    1. domokl
      domokl 2 July 2013 08: 46 New
      Quote: Denis
      The Yankees somehow "forgot" about the nuclear arsenals of other obedient NATO countries

      And you can’t argue ... Only one Israel, which is nowhere to be found anywhere, has, according to experts, up to 300 nuclear charges ... And there is also Europe ...
      Not disarmament, but modernization and the speedy commissioning of nuclear submarine missile carriers on the database. Otherwise, in modern conditions, in the event of a serious mess, our losses will be huge ...
      1. Arberes
        Arberes 2 July 2013 08: 55 New
        Quote: domokl
        speedy commissioning of nuclear submarine missile carriers

        Totally agree with you. Boats that are on the coast of the United States on constant alert are one of the best deterrent arguments! The Soviet Union also made a big bet on the submarine fleet!
        1. Grigorich 1962
          Grigorich 1962 2 July 2013 11: 13 New
          perhaps, in the current alignment of forces, the presence of SSBNs on duty in the Pacific and Atlantic Ocean is the most effective means of deterrence. And these funds need to be further developed with the increase in boats on duty
    2. Andrey Skokovsky
      Andrey Skokovsky 2 July 2013 14: 19 New
      Quote: Denis

      ........ And restore the rocket trains

      on trains, it’s not so simple, if they were there, then it seems like they shouldn’t be restored, we had a base of such trains near Krasnoyarsk in Lesnoy, so the train grumbled that they destroyed the way every time they went on duty ..

      perhaps it’s worth creating a new complex, using modern technologies and an easier one, the only question is how long does it take and how much will such a development cost today? perhaps if everything is calculated, it will only lick its lips and tackle more real problems.
      1. Denis
        Denis 2 July 2013 17: 30 New
        Quote: Andrey Skokovsky
        maybe you should create a new complex,
        That's what I meant, not so put it
        It’s not easy to restore equipment, it’s easier to make a new one, but the system itself. Not only trains, but also its own infrastructure
  2. buzuke
    buzuke 2 July 2013 08: 11 New
    I read somewhere that the Americans in any case will reduce their nuclear weapons, even if ours does not agree to save. hard it costs them financially. but they, of course, will try to push the joint reduction
    1. xetai9977
      xetai9977 2 July 2013 08: 27 New
      Downsizing is beneficial for Americans. In any case, they will retain the required number of warheads and delivery vehicles. They understand that nuclear weapons will most likely never be used (at least if nothing extraordinary happens). And they can "put the squeeze" on any enemy with conventional high-tech weapons. With their level of development in electronics and the latest technology, they can afford it.
    2. Denis
      Denis 2 July 2013 09: 02 New
      Quote: buzuke
      try to push joint reduction
      They want to let it be cut so. And to put pressure ... let it put pressure on the inhabitants of palm trees, it’s not for us. Good GDP now, not a patchwork head, etc. at the helm
    3. Tektor
      Tektor 2 July 2013 18: 07 New
      "I read somewhere that the Americans in any case will reduce their nuclear weapons, even if ours does not agree to save. hard it costs them financially. but they, of course, will try to push the joint reduction"-It's just that the Amerzians have a lot of fuel for reactors. They are forced to use weapons-grade uranium and plutonium for these purposes. There are more than a hundred reactors in the states themselves, and even in the navy - of the same order. And it is necessary to reload periodically, once every 10-20 years ... There is no other option, if not from the weapons one, too: the HEU-LEU ends, and the whole body is "blown away" ...
  3. Odysseus
    Odysseus 2 July 2013 08: 20 New
    It’s a quite competent article. Quantitatively, our nuclear potential still looks very solid, but in practice the probability of a successful disarming strike is growing all the time.
    So it’s important for us not to decrease, but to increase the number of nuclear weapons, and most importantly, the methods of their delivery. Missile trains, possibly disguised merchant ships, possibly medium-range missiles, etc.
  4. fenix57
    fenix57 2 July 2013 08: 25 New
    Quote: Denis
    And rebuild rocket trains

    Given the length of our railways and their sufficient ramification, BZHRK is just what you need! good
  5. pensioner
    pensioner 2 July 2013 09: 09 New
    This article is another reminder to our authorities that a sword has been brought over our country. Constantly! And it is only necessary to show complacency and imprudence, as he sinks with all inevitable force. Vigilance and vigilance again !! In all that relates to the country's defense capability.
    1. cherkas.oe
      cherkas.oe 2 July 2013 15: 15 New
      Quote: retired
      This article is another reminder to our authorities that a sword has been brought over our country.

      The authorities didn’t have time to read articles, they think how to cut the loot and hide it until the amers pulled it, and then after the dough, screw it somewhere, that’s the whole logic of power, or rather those who hang out in it and aspire to it.
  6. stroporez
    stroporez 2 July 2013 09: 23 New
    to "negotiate" with amers on the reduction of nuclear weapons --- all the same, sho and katala play cards. The result is known in advance - they, as always, will find ... ut, and they will make us to blame for this. Although the latter is just right --- neher with cheaters in cards for a walk.
    1. Denis
      Denis 2 July 2013 09: 50 New
      Quote: stroporez
      at all times sho with katala play cards
      I would say with the devil (and a little like)
      Katala may be wrong, but hell ...
      It happened more than once
  7. papss
    papss 2 July 2013 09: 27 New
    The United States, in the person of the president ("clowns" of the Nobel Peace Prize), really wants to support among the peoples of the Earth their desire for peace, disarmament ... In my opinion, the goals are twofold ... Russia will go for reduction - very good ... then the impunity of the first a strike is guaranteed, it won't work - well, it's not bad either ... you can continue to justify missile defense for your satellites and frighten the world with Russia - you see ... the Russians don't want reductions ... you need to arm yourself ... And mind you, all strategic statements are made in Berlin. There Reagan spoke and divorced the then USSR, or rather its leadership. And Barak is in the same place ... Our answer is not to be led by provocations, to further improve the forces of nuclear deterrence ...
  8. Dimkapvo
    Dimkapvo 2 July 2013 09: 34 New
    My opinion is that we will have to butt adult-like with the Americans. They began to look like a stupid, fat, wild boar with greed and impunity, which rushing without making out the road with one thought: EAT, EAT, EAT! The UN, diplomacy, "partnership" with Russia in some issues - about nothing. They have never been and will never become our friends, they will never give up their thoughts to destroy our country and seize our wealth. It is useless and unprofitable to negotiate with them - they will still be deceived, thrown, sold, substituted. There can be no talk of any "reductions" !!! They have already become so small that there is nowhere to go. It is urgent to restore everything that can still be restored, to do new things, to train specialists, to invest in military science and production to the maximum. Do not pay any attention to the blather from the cock's corner. Only a stick can stop a mad dog by talking.
  9. Xnumx kopeek
    Xnumx kopeek 2 July 2013 09: 59 New
    Quote: DC 3
    By the way, a new type of weapon is appearing - a bottom ballistic missile! This can greatly strain the enemy.
    - minnows surely start heart attacks, - laughingthey still need to be hidden from Hillary / Don Skiffy, etc. / - the installation process itself, -
    the whole world is arming. The United States simply goes by inertia, got stuck to Ebnam, etc. - Trains with missiles are already recovering, -or here is a wonderful toy-Club-K, etc. - There’s, say, an Arabian rubbish container in the desert, suddenly it's a shout opens, and from there 4 white swans cheerfully flutter, quite far, quite accurately, and very destructive
  10. Stiletto
    Stiletto 2 July 2013 10: 07 New
    Negotiations are possible only when two strong rivals are talking. If we deliberately put ourselves in a weak position, and go to the disarmament proposed by the Yankees, then there will be no negotiations - they will simply crush us. And in the thermonuclear hellfire will burn not only the one who will lead to the sweet words of the mattresses, but also millions of innocent people. And the survivors after this envy the dead.
    It is necessary to create such conditions under which "the whole world will be in dust" in any case, under any scenario of the development of events, so that potential "scriptwriters" do not even have a thought about a preventive strike. And only when we are guaranteed to surpass them twenty times, then it will be possible to talk with them about something. But even then only in this spirit: "On Our terms, we do not object to your disarmament."
  11. grandfather
    grandfather 2 July 2013 10: 44 New
    I will say one thing: it is impossible to believe amers much.
    25 years showed a trend.
  12. Stiletto
    Stiletto 2 July 2013 10: 52 New
    Quote: bearded
    I will say one thing: it’s impossible to trust amers. 25 has shown a tendency for years.

    To the point, brother. Can not argue.
  13. Grigorich 1962
    Grigorich 1962 2 July 2013 11: 16 New
    here are vile Americans ... always on a plausible pretext they want to get an advantage. in Russian, they want to eat fish and x ... sit down. GDP has enough reason not to be led by the Americans ... it’s not Medvedev, who can be bought on an iPhone
  14. Starover_Z
    Starover_Z 2 July 2013 11: 42 New
    Article in "scarlet". Far from being a rosy prospect.
    I already wrote in another topic - a complete reduction in the US of cruise missiles and a 50 percent reduction in missiles on submarines first, and then "we will talk" about the cuts in Russia! And BZHRK trains on the way!
  15. Per se.
    Per se. 2 July 2013 11: 44 New
    It's a good article, it's a pity that there is no analysis of the prospects for the possible militarization of space by the Americans, which further complicates the situation, as well as the US build-up of missile defense. We would now need rocket trains, as well as a return to the ideas of Project 629 boats, where a low-noise diesel-electric boat could carry one to three nuclear ICBMs, or the construction of Project Amur boats with nuclear cruise missile silos.
  16. Starover_Z
    Starover_Z 2 July 2013 11: 46 New
    A bottom rocket, in my opinion this is a myth. Every 10 meters of depth, this is 1 atmosphere of pressure more - a school axiom. So the rocket just crumbles at a depth. And to make her body highly durable - it simply will not take off.
    1. ziqzaq
      ziqzaq 2 July 2013 13: 37 New
      Quote: Starover_Z
      A bottom rocket, in my opinion this is a myth. Every 10 meters of depth, this is 1 atmosphere of pressure more - a school axiom. So the rocket just crumbles at a depth. And to make her body highly durable - it simply will not take off.

      No, apparently not a myth ... The Skif bottom missile complex plus the AS-12 nuclear deep-water station of the project 10831 "Kalitka" (Losharik) is a harsh (for amers) reality .... According to some sources, Losharik's immersion depth can reach 6000 meters. And then why take off from the bottom of the sea? First, ascent to the launch depth, then separation of the deep-sea container and start ...
      1. Denis
        Denis 2 July 2013 17: 33 New
        Quote: ziqzaq
        According to some reports, the depth of Losharik’s immersion can reach 6000 meters.
        And how to protect her there? In our fun times, a piece of pipe cannot be left unattended
        And to someone else’s nuclear weapons who wish ...
  17. Dimanrus86
    Dimanrus86 2 July 2013 12: 31 New
    Article + It’s definitely impossible to reduce charges, otherwise it will result in a one-goal game, they create missile defense at our borders, and we reduce our chances of a retaliatory strike. At present, Russia really needs not reduction, but restoration of rocket trains and active deployment of SKIF bottom missiles (I hope the tests will be successful).
  18. krez-74
    krez-74 2 July 2013 12: 44 New
    The main thing is to know the measure in everything! And you need to have teeth to be afraid, but you should not get carried away.
    Basically agree! not the time, and not the "friends" in the world to disarm!
  19. falcon
    falcon 2 July 2013 12: 46 New
    The very principle of nuclear deterrence is the guaranteed destruction of the aggressor, if applied by him
    preemptive nuclear strike. And there is only one option - the more nuclear weapons and their delivery vehicles, the
    calmer to everyone, including the potential aggressor (evil thoughts will be less likely to visit).
  20. fenix57
    fenix57 2 July 2013 13: 11 New
    Quote: DimkaPVO
    My opinion is that we still have to butt with adults in America

    Directly with ameri- it is unlikely, that with their submission with the "sixes" of the United States is quite likely ... The Americans take care of themselves, but a large-scale provocation for them is like two fingers on the asphalt. hi Already with their "sixes" they surrounded Russia from all sides.
  21. srha
    srha 2 July 2013 13: 20 New
    For Moscow, it’s not so much to build up a nuclear arsenal, ways to deal with which the Americans have already found. With a simple buildup, the winner will be revealed only by the question of the invested money, which amers clearly has more.
    therefore only the creation of new types of nuclear weapons, new methods for their storage and use can neutralize the system created by amers safe disarmament strike system.
    But for this need science acting as a productive force, and not a project focused on the investment of a global adversary and not a public council of scientists under the government ...
  22. DmitryK
    DmitryK 2 July 2013 13: 35 New
    It seems to me the most reliable option is the creation in the depths of the territories of two, three closed areas of basing of silos of ICBMs with RGM, protected by pro systems with nuclear striking BGs and covered by air defense systems including automated against the Kyrgyz Republic on the principle of anti-helicopter mines.
    Air defense technologies and the construction and operation of silos by our industry are reliably mastered.
  23. slaventi
    slaventi 2 July 2013 13: 58 New
    In no case do not reduce. And withdraw from the agreement on medium-range missiles.
  24. unkou
    unkou 2 July 2013 14: 46 New
    You haven’t heard that the entire database of Internet users has been leaked to the network with open access! There is all the information from personal photos and videos to personal correspondence and copies of documents. Of course, you can delete your data if you do not want everyone to see them. Here is the link
  25. Alexey M
    Alexey M 2 July 2013 15: 26 New
    It turns out that not everything was so smooth in the homeland, I was upset a little bit. It’s necessary to rivet new rockets and put them into space and not to tell anyone about it. From space, it’s all closer to amers than bullet through the pole.
  26. cherkas.oe
    cherkas.oe 2 July 2013 15: 48 New
    Quote: Alexey M
    output and doesn’t tell anyone about it

    Though you say, be quiet, but in space rockets will be visible in the palm of your hand and an unusual howl will rise, they say the Russians are breaking the agreement on not placing weapons of mass destruction in space.
  27. velikoros-xnumx
    velikoros-xnumx 2 July 2013 23: 20 New
    The article smacks of alarmism, but it makes you think about many things. It is not for nothing that information has recently sounded about the resumption of work on the Skif program - a really effective and simple response to all inclinations, especially if containers are placed not only in territorial waters, but also at the bottom of the oceans, spitting on the concluded agreements and withdrawing from them unilaterally ...
  28. The comment was deleted.
  29. The comment was deleted.
    1. velikoros-xnumx
      velikoros-xnumx 3 July 2013 00: 10 New
      I apologize for the triple publication. Glitch computer.
    2. The comment was deleted.
  30. retractor
    retractor 3 July 2013 00: 35 New
    Well, you are being run here :)
    Putin's falcons ??!
    1. Apollo
      Apollo 3 July 2013 00: 38 New
      Quote: retractor
      Well, you are being run here :)
      Putin's falcons ??!

      Nicholas do not run into trouble.