Military Review

Tool last frontier

120
Nuclear weapon without general purpose forces unable to protect the country


The emerging trend of exaggerating the role of nuclear weapons in ensuring Russia's military security carries with it serious threats. There are many forms of military aggression against which nuclear weapons are powerless. Without powerful, numerous and well-equipped general-purpose forces based only on nuclear deterrence, Russia’s security cannot be ensured.

After the collapse of the Soviet Union in the sphere of military policy, there was a dangerous tendency to lower the threshold for the use of nuclear weapons. The reforms led to such a reduction of strategic nuclear forces (SNF), which became clear - in the response nuclear strike, Russia was no longer able to cause unacceptable damage to the aggressor. Therefore, it abandoned the principle of non-use of first nuclear weapons, but still undertakes not to use them against non-nuclear states.

Continuous reforms continued, and by the beginning of the 2000s, it became clear that in regional conflicts the Armed Forces would not be able to resolve them on acceptable conditions without nuclear weapons. The economy, mobilization potential and capabilities of the Armed Forces made it possible to count on the success of the general-purpose forces (CPF) only in local wars. Also, once again lowered the threshold for the use of nuclear weapons. It was found that in local conflicts Russia will manage with general-purpose forces, and in regional ones it will use tactical and strategic nuclear weapons. The task of the strategic nuclear forces to contain the nuclear threat from the United States and NATO and to strike back was preserved.

Tool last frontierThe reforms initiated in 2008 under the leadership of then-Minister of Defense Anatoly Serdyukov and with the approval of President Dmitry Medvedev, led to the further degradation of the CPA. Even in local wars, they became unable to ensure the security of the country. In the most favorable scenario, they will be able to resist aggression in a maximum of two conflicts. The threshold for the use of nuclear weapons again lowered. It was accepted that it can be used against any enemy in local wars, if the expected outcome threatens sovereignty and territorial integrity.

This was spoken by top officials, in particular Security Council Secretary Nikolai Patrushev. The new principle is enshrined in the Military Doctrine of the Russian Federation adopted in 2010: “... in response to the use of nuclear and other weapons of mass destruction against it and (or) its allies, as well as in the case of aggression against the Russian Federation with conventional weapons, when the very existence of the state is threatened. ” Such a broad interpretation of the criteria leads to the fact that you can launch a nuclear missile at any time by the decision of the political leadership. In response, states - potential adversaries can also move on to an extended interpretation, which means a sharp increase in the threat of a nuclear catastrophe.

An analysis of the statements of senior officials, politicians, experts and ordinary citizens about the country's security mechanisms shows that nuclear weapons are seen here almost as a panacea. As an example, they cite North Korea, which is calm under the protection of its Tephodon. More economically and militarily, Iraq and Libya were attacked, crushed and occupied, their leaders killed.

But is nuclear weapons a guarantee of protection against possible military threats to Russia? Is it permissible to ensure security without having developed non-nuclear general-purpose forces, as Sergei Brezkun suggests in his article “Inexpensive and angry”? In order to answer this question, it is necessary to figure out what factors limit the use of nuclear weapons, to evaluate their real effectiveness in various military conflicts.

First of all, it should be noted that nuclear weapons are a tool of the last frontier, the last argument of kings. Its use because of the huge civilian casualties and the emergence of large radioactive contamination zones should be properly justified in moral, ethical and legal terms. This is an exceptionally dirty weapon, both ecologically and morally. Its use in limited conflicts, if it is decided by the Russian Federation in the face of military defeat, will inevitably be regarded by the majority of the population of the Earth as a monstrous crime against humanity.

Global obstruction and indignation will lead to the isolation of Russia, the transformation of leadership in rogue states and even international criminals. The possible euphoria from a nuclear strike is unlikely to last long inside the country, if at all. Most citizens will eventually realize that the use of nuclear weapons is not a sign of strength, but of the weakness of the country's leadership, which has brought the Armed Forces to such a state that they are unable to resist the enemy even in limited conflicts. Skepticism to the authorities, together with the inevitable international sanctions, will cause an increase in the social instability of such strength that the collapse of the ruling elite can become a matter of time.

Understanding the consequences, even the most resolute and political elite that is independent of external forces will find it extremely difficult to decide to use nuclear weapons in low-intensity conflicts. Recall that Hitler's Germany had enormous reserves of chemical weapons, but even in agony did not dare to fight them.

The current Russian leadership in terms of freedom of choice of funds is not like the Soviet. It is very seriously connected with colleagues in other countries and transnational capital, largely depends on them, having large real estate abroad and tangible assets in banks. Therefore, it is unlikely that anyone will want to lose all the gigantic benefits accumulated during the "years of overwork." The Russian elite does not possess enough determination to use the tool of the last frontier. After all, until now the atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945 all over the world is considered to be one of the worst and barbaric acts in stories humanity.

Probably, the military itself will seriously object to the use of nuclear weapons in local and regional conflicts. There is one more reason. A country that has decided to open military aggression against Russia will most likely not act alone. Most likely, it will be in the composition of a whole coalition, or at least under the auspices of some states that have military potential at the level of Russia or are superior to it. Recall: even the US never fights on its own and facing the threat of another war, the first thing their administration does is to make allies. So it was against incomparably weaker countries like Libya and Iraq.

So if the aggressor itself is a non-nuclear state, it will be necessary, given the status of Russia, to be supported by the major powers. This means that a blow to the aggressor of nuclear weapons is fraught with counterparts with similar or larger scale actions. Losses from a defeat in a local conflict may turn out to be less noticeable than from retaliatory nuclear strikes, so the use of nuclear forces loses meaning.

This meaning is only in large-scale wars against powerful coalitions, if the enemy with general-purpose forces has already inflicted huge losses on the civilian population, destroyed half of Russia, and organized a humanitarian and environmental catastrophe. Only then will limited nuclear strikes be a natural stage in the development of such a war. Moreover, they are justified from a moral and psychological point of view as an act of fair retribution.

Supporters of nuclear weapons as an absolute factor of national security point to the exceptional power of these weapons, which guarantee victory or non-admission of military conflict. Is it so?

Undoubtedly, the destructive potential of nuclear weapons is great when striking cities and towns, military bases, airfields, large enterprises and stationary areal infrastructure facilities. It is well demonstrated strikes on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. But will it be just as effective against enemy groupings? Will the very fact of its use in armed confrontation allow for their defeat, if not supported by appropriate actions by sufficiently powerful general-purpose forces?

In accordance with the existing views on the use of strategic and operational groups, nuclear strikes on enemy troops are only a stage of the operation, the results of which allow it to achieve its objectives by the actions of the troops (forces) during the subsequent stages. That is, in itself, a nuclear defeat does not allow to solve operational and strategic tasks. Yes and the use of tactical nuclear weapons is not always possible, and the strategic nuclear forces in the theaters of operations are not used.

If nuclear strikes involve the threat of a military defeat leading to the loss of territorial integrity, this means that enemy forces are already operating in Russia. Then, beating its groups, especially those located in populated areas, means destroying, first of all, its own civilian population, conducting radioactive contamination of its territories, like in Chernobyl, making them unfit for habitation and depriving the surviving citizens of their homes and food. The use of nuclear weapons against groups of special operations forces and irregular formations operating by guerrilla methods also does not make sense. And today it is one of the most effective tools for waging war.

Another consideration. Under field conditions, formations and units of the ground forces have good security. The radius of destruction of a typical tactical nuclear munition of concealed manpower or armored vehicles is less than three to four kilometers. Accordingly, in order to suppress or destroy a division, several such munitions will be required. And in order to achieve an operationally significant result against the corps or the army, dozens of units are needed. At a strategic level, even more ammunition will need to be consumed - up to a hundred or more. Radioactive contamination of the area from such a massive impact will be huge.

Even more doubtful is the expediency of using nuclear weapons against groups of ground forces advancing in dispersed military formations, which is characteristic of modern warfare. Relatively little gives a blow to nuclear weapons of naval targets. Modern missiles, having warheads in conventional 300 – 500 kilograms, are guaranteed to incapacitate or destroy almost all classes of warships (excluding aircraft carriers) on the first hit. The aircraft carrier must hit up to six or seven warheads, depending on its size.

Modern ship formations, usually in the event of danger, are rearranged into anti-nuclear warrants, which exclude the possibility of defeat of two ships with one ammunition. Under these conditions, the firing of nuclear missiles at cruiser class ships and less does not make sense. And strikes against aircraft carrier connections also do not lead to a significant increase in combat effectiveness, since in order to avoid missiles being hit in nuclear equipment, it is necessary to significantly increase the scale of the salvo, which in turn significantly increases the capabilities of the naval air defense system. That is, the increase in the missile capabilities of the missiles is offset by a decrease in the probability of reaching the goal.

Nuclear weapons will be very effective for punching holes in the air defense system and suppressing aviation the enemy at the airfields. However, here it should be used only if the results consolidate the assault actions of aviation. It should be borne in mind that the objects, forces and means of nuclear attack will always be for the enemy the objectives of priority destruction and will be affected in the first place. Without highly effective means of defense, nuclear weapons cannot be used at all, they will be destroyed with lightning speed.

In addition, ammunition is stored in separate specialized arsenals. Submission to the troops will be 100% in the face of opposition from sabotage groups from the special operations forces of the enemy. And if you deploy nuclear arsenals in advance in combat areas, without providing adequate protection by general-purpose forces, disrupting delivery to the troops can be solved even more effectively. In general, the conclusion is the most important. NW in general and especially the SNF in particular is an important factor in the defense of the state, it has always restrained large-scale aggression against our country. However, without powerful, numerous and well-equipped general-purpose forces, the sovereignty and security of Russia cannot be ensured.
Author:
Originator:
http://vpk-news.ru/
120 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Canep
    Canep 4 December 2013 15: 18
    +7
    To use tactical nuclear weapons in the offensive is crazy, then there will be nowhere to attack. In defense, it can be used to a limited extent to change the terrain, the destruction of dams, the destruction of passes, etc. And strategic nuclear weapons must be used either immediately after the launch of enemy missiles, or if there is little left of Russia, but there is little chance that these nuclear weapons will remain. That is, except for restraint, it is of little use for anything.
    1. Onyx
      Onyx 4 December 2013 16: 13
      -5
      Quote: Canep
      but at the same time there is little chance that this nuclear weapon will remain.

      At least PGRK and strategic aviation will remain
      1. patsantre
        patsantre 4 December 2013 19: 14
        +7
        Quote: Onyx
        strategic aviation

        She is just the most vulnerable element of the strategic nuclear forces and will be destroyed in the first place.
        1. Onyx
          Onyx 4 December 2013 22: 57
          +1
          Quote: patsantre
          She is just the most vulnerable element of the strategic nuclear forces and will be destroyed in the first place.

          If, after receiving information about the launch of enemy missiles, aircraft are raised into the air, then it will be preserved. + SSBN
          1. patsantre
            patsantre 5 December 2013 18: 23
            0
            The SSBN - yes. And the strategists will not have time. The ICBMs can fly to us no more than an hour, during this time raise the personnel, put them on alert and fly away so that they don’t make a shockwave along the way - this is unlikely. Yes, and the planes themselves can bring down , as well as KR. Aviation is a weak link in the nuclear triad.
    2. Papakiko
      Papakiko 4 December 2013 16: 22
      25
      Quote: Canep
      That is, except for restraint, it is of little use for anything.

      That is, Sergei is ready to put-crumble in stuffing-pack in boxes, up to a million compatriots in a local conflict?
      Personally, I believe that any mongrel under the supervision of the owner should know and understand that the Russians will not exchange frags and will beat them with a "club" even for 1000 people. Therefore, the place of mongrels with their nose in the owner's ass.
      I believe that 40000000 victims of USSR citizens in WW2 are a sufficient contribution and reason to value every citizen's life.
      As for the condemnation-not approval, then let the owners and mongrel repent to blacks for slavery and Indians for genocide, etc. etc. enough examples.
      1. zennon
        zennon 4 December 2013 22: 50
        +2
        As for the condemnation-not approval, then let the owners and mongrel repent to blacks for slavery and Indians for genocide, etc. etc. enough examples.

        On June 19, 2008, the US Senate formally apologized to all Afronegrams. This was reported on June 18 by AFP.
        The resolution adopted by the Senate refers to the recognition of "injustice, cruelty, bloodthirstiness and inhumanity of slavery." The Senate also condemned the racial segregation laws that were in force in the United States in 1890-1964. On behalf of the US people, the Senate has apologized to African Americans for "wrongdoing against them and their ancestors." The document does not provide for any monetary compensation to the descendants of the slaves.
        In 2009, the US Congress included in the Defense Expenditures Act a statement apologizing to the US Indians for "the many incidents of violence, abuse, and neglect that United States citizens were subjected to."
        In turn, I must say that with the same success everyone can demand an apology to everyone. For example, the Moors must apologize to the Spaniards for 800 years of dominance. Manjurs to the Chinese. Mongols to the Russians. Tutsi to Hutu (or vice versa, who the Negroes will understand), and so on, add until you get bored.
        1. Current 72
          Current 72 5 December 2013 04: 01
          +1
          There is no sense in these apologies, not worth a penny !!! Thousands and millions of dead and mutilated fates, and they apologize. Well, they did not think about it, in Yugoslavia, in Iraq, Libya, and even now in Syria. They are bastards. bastards.
    3. Airman
      Airman 4 December 2013 17: 41
      21
      Quote: Canep
      To use tactical nuclear weapons in the offensive is crazy, then there will be nowhere to attack. In defense, it can be used to a limited extent to change the terrain, the destruction of dams, the destruction of passes, etc. And strategic nuclear weapons must be used either immediately after the launch of enemy missiles, or if there is little left of Russia, but there is little chance that these nuclear weapons will remain. That is, except for restraint, it is of little use for anything.

      When the question arises, to be Russia or not, I believe that most RUSSIANS will say IT IS BETTER TO DIE STANDING THAN LIVING ON KNEES! And therefore, I consider the question of the use of nuclear weapons legitimate in the event of a threat to the sovereignty of the country. You can’t be liberals.
      1. Rus2012
        Rus2012 4 December 2013 18: 10
        +6
        Quote: Povshnik
        When the question arises, to be Russia or not, I believe that most RUSSIANS will say IT IS BETTER TO DIE STANDING THAN LIVING ON KNEES! And therefore, I consider the question of the use of nuclear weapons legitimate in the event of a threat to the sovereignty of the country. You can’t be liberals.

        Definitely! There can be no other opinion!

        And further...
        Here the author was spreading about the incitement of small aggressors, such mongrels, an example we remember, which will be set against us ...
        It was like that. And maybe there will be more ...
        BUT!
        If this happens, patrons of small mongrels know very well - EVERYONE will get a hit! Both performers and planners ...
        For example, when an armed gang of shakaloshvili went to Tskhinval, the question posed to the UES was a question posed by a mongrel-to fill up the Roksky Pass in order to block the troops of the Russian Federation. The draft of such an order lay before Bush ...
        Send aircraft to bomb the entrance to the tunnel.
        As we see, the chief leader did not dare to support the ally ...
        And if only I sent F16 or axes, what do you think, how would it end?
      2. zart_arn
        zart_arn 4 December 2013 18: 22
        +9
        As long as there are nuclear weapons, even in smaller quantities than now, no one will even try to raise the question - "to be Russia or not." This is the main goal of the existence of the strategic nuclear weapons. For local conflicts of the Armed Forces, the same is more than enough, unless, of course, we are going to impose our values ​​by force far away from the land, only now it seems to me that we, the Russians, have already fought in foreign lands, the main task now is to raise our economy.
        1. Alekseev
          Alekseev 4 December 2013 19: 13
          +2
          Quote: zart_arn
          As long as there are nuclear weapons, even in smaller quantities than now, no one will even try to raise the question - "to be Russia or not."

          That's right.
          Quote: zart_arn
          For local conflicts of the armed forces (currently), the same is more than enough

          That is unlikely. request
          There are many forms of military aggression against which nuclear weapons are powerless. "
          Absolutely accurate definition! good
      3. baresi
        baresi 4 December 2013 18: 25
        +3
        Verily verbally! On the world and death is red!
        1. nik6006
          nik6006 4 December 2013 22: 04
          +4
          death is nowhere red. conflicts must be avoided in every way, but if it comes to that, everyone will have to get wet, even penguins in Antarctica, I exaggerate of course, I just think that if it comes to nuclear weapons, even tactical, even a couple of charges, the planet will end, everyone will fit.
    4. Sandov
      Sandov 4 December 2013 18: 28
      +5
      Its use in limited conflicts, if the Russian Federation decides on it in the face of military defeat, will inevitably be regarded by the majority of the world's population as a monstrous crime against humanity.

      The heinous crime will be an attack on the evil empire against Russia. And their destruction is good for the world.
    5. And Us Rat
      And Us Rat 4 December 2013 21: 03
      +4
      A collection of different bomb explosions in HD, mesmerizing winked

      1. sashka
        sashka 5 December 2013 00: 15
        0
        Cool video .. And I live on such a powder keg?
        1. And Us Rat
          And Us Rat 5 December 2013 05: 19
          0
          Quote: Sasha
          Cool video .. And I live on such a powder keg?


          Contrary to the instructions for civil defense, when you see the outbreak, do not lie down with your feet to the explosion and do not cover your head with your hands, sit comfortably at a point with a good view - since you will never see such a spectacular sight again.
          PS - If you are a military man - keep your arms outstretched so that molten metal does not drip onto state boots. wassat

          1. sashka
            sashka 6 December 2013 15: 25
            0
            Noticed, appreciated. Moreover, he laughed. But this is true.
      2. Sandov
        Sandov 5 December 2013 12: 33
        +1
        As Richard Feyman said, not physicists are responsible for nuclear weapons, but politicians. The evil empire (ameria) at death can pull the whole planet along with it.
    6. StolzSS
      StolzSS 4 December 2013 21: 29
      +2
      You apparently do not understand how it should be used in the offensive. Tactical nuclear weapons are quite applicable in the variant of an air blast over certain targets, but only as a means of enhancing air force strikes and in those areas an attack on which is unprincipled for us. That is, where we can get around, but the enemy has forces and means there ... Although I want to hope that things will not come to nuclear weapons and we will get by with the bombing ...
      1. Andrey Yuryevich
        Andrey Yuryevich 5 December 2013 04: 13
        +3
        Although I want to hope that things will not come to nuclear weapons and we will get along with the bombing .................I hope that things will not come to the bombing ...
    7. biznaw
      biznaw 4 December 2013 22: 11
      +1
      Quote: Canep
      To use tactical nuclear weapons in the offensive is crazy, then there will be nowhere to attack.

      Yes, you are not even a corporal. The tactical nuclear weapons designer such eccentrics created an unnecessary weapon supposedly used against the enemy, and there will be nowhere to attack. I will add yes and it is not necessary, they went around the incinerated fortified area and rushed on to La Manche, walking like burning another couple dozen fortified areas and military bases.
      I bet you - for trolling on the forum.
    8. Angry reader
      Angry reader 4 December 2013 23: 11
      +1
      Remember Sakharov’s proposal, even before the liberoid schiza.
    9. Lesnik
      Lesnik 5 December 2013 01: 33
      0
      The use of strategic nuclear munitions is justified and actually developed for a retaliatory strike, operational-tactical nuclear weapons can and should be used, and what is interesting WILL !! to be used both in defense and in the offensive, and it is justified in calculating the ratio of the opposing sides not in our direction, well, and then different options are possible.
    10. POBEDA
      POBEDA 5 December 2013 01: 38
      0
      And in your opinion, in a local or regional conflict, will the ability to get tactical warheads to a number of their cities, including the capital, be a deterrent? AND? Launch range x-102 5500 km. Iskander - 500 km, which is also quite effective .... Have you come to capture our territory? Get deserts instead of your cities. And who will need it?
      1. Lesnik
        Lesnik 5 December 2013 01: 42
        0
        Fighting is not to frighten or to rob, but to physically destroy the enemy
        1. VKabanov
          VKabanov 5 December 2013 11: 06
          0
          A war even on the scale of Yugoslavia already refutes this. You can defeat the army, but the people will have to be destroyed, and this is expensive in all respects.

          By the way 2008 He clearly demonstrated how local conflicts of high intensity will be conducted in the near future.

          Moreover, global conflicts will not be waged to destroy even with large-scale use of nuclear weapons.
          1. Lesnik
            Lesnik 5 December 2013 19: 03
            0
            You are the PLA armies, they will definitely support you laughing
    11. Andrey Yuryevich
      Andrey Yuryevich 5 December 2013 04: 32
      +1
      hi
      Crossroads project, Baker trial. Test: Baker; Date: July 24, 1946; project: Crossroads; location: Bikini Atoll, Marshall Islands; test type: underwater, depth - 27.5 m; power: 23 kt; type of charge: atomic. This test was the second nuclear explosion in the framework of the Crossroads project and the 5th nuclear explosion in the history of mankind. The bomb was enclosed in a waterproof hull and attached to the bottom of the LSM-60 landing ship, which was installed in the center of the experimental flotilla, which consisted of 71 ships. The closest position to the atomic bomb was occupied by the aircraft carrier "Stratoga". For research purposes, many laboratory animals, plants, and even biological agents were placed on board the vessels participating in the experiment. Eight vessels were sunk and turned over: Stratoga, Arkansas, Apogon and Pilotfish submarines, Nagato, LSM-60, ARDC-13 dry dock and YO-160 tanker. Another 8 vessels were seriously damaged. The explosion lifted several million tons of water into the air, forming a water column 600 meters high, with a wall thickness of 100 meters. The blast wave generated waves of great height in the ocean. The stern of the aircraft carrier "Stratoga" rose on the crest of the first wave to a height of 13,5 meters above the surface of the water. The entire lagoon was contaminated with radiation. For the first 24 hours after the explosion, the radiation level was fatal, and remained extremely dangerous for the next 7 days. (Photo: US Navy / Wikicommons)
  2. patriot2
    patriot2 4 December 2013 15: 19
    10
    Russia has the "last argument of the kings" in abundance and is improving, but it is said correctly about the increase in general-purpose forces: a new calculation of forces and means without the use of nuclear weapons is required. It is necessary not only to talk about this, but also to do it, correcting Serdyukov-Makarov "blunders".
  3. Stiletto
    Stiletto 4 December 2013 15: 19
    34
    The author claims that "in the event of the use of nuclear weapons, global obstruction and indignation will lead to the isolation of Russia, turning the leadership into outcasts and even international criminals."
    And who, let me ask, will there be indignation ?! Cockroaches?
    1. Onyx
      Onyx 4 December 2013 16: 09
      18
      Quote: Stiletto
      And who, let me ask, will there be indignation ?! Cockroaches?

      Something no one has undergone special obstruction of the United States after Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Moreover, the Japanese did not threaten US territory, and this Sivkov talks about the use of nuclear weapons in protecting our own territory. You just need to be strong and no one will pickle.
      1. Stiletto
        Stiletto 4 December 2013 16: 17
        21
        Quote: Onyx
        Something no one has undergone special obstruction of the United States after Hiroshima and Nagasaki.


        Here, by the way, is the right turn of the topic. The United States calmly bombed, and now Japan is the most faithful friend and ally of the States in the region. And no howling, and no obstruction.
        And we wanted to spit on this obstruction, if it happened, if that. It is better to listen to the cries of partners under a nuclear umbrella than to be white and fluffy with a naked jo.
        There, Brokeback was disarmed, now the best friend of the entire world LGBT community, the old p ... s.
        With such "friends" no enemies are needed.
        1. Deniska
          Deniska 4 December 2013 17: 31
          +5
          Are Gorbachev and LGBT people different things? ;)
          1. alone
            alone 5 December 2013 00: 06
            +2
            Quote: Deniska
            Are Gorbachev and LGBT people different things? ;)


            Well, let's say this, legally these are two different things, but in fact, one complements the other !! wassat
      2. Alexander_
        Alexander_ 4 December 2013 17: 57
        +2
        Probably everyone understands that a lot of civilians of the aggressor countries will be killed, this should restrain them.
        1. Andrey Yuryevich
          Andrey Yuryevich 5 December 2013 04: 18
          +1
          civilians, never worried or stopped anyone ...
    2. Tersky
      Tersky 4 December 2013 16: 38
      +7
      Quote: Stiletto
      The author claims that "in the event of the use of nuclear weapons, global obstruction and indignation will lead to the isolation of Russia, turning the leadership into outcasts and even international criminals."

      Experts also want to eat, so they reason in terms of anti-atomic orders, dispersed groups, forces and means. The more reasoning, the higher the fee. Given the number of internal enemies of Russia, why do we need to talk about strategic nuclear forces, AUG warrants, and think that someone will attack us, internal forces will open the borders and surrender both the army and us with giblets. An example of this is the end of the 80 years, the beginning of the 90 years, the Tagged and EBN.
    3. Deniska
      Deniska 4 December 2013 17: 22
      +5
      That's for sure !!! Another phrase that just killed me: "An aircraft carrier needs to hit up to six or seven warheads, depending on its size." yes, I would look at an aircraft carrier with a single 500kg warhead hit ... How will it wait for 5-6 more pieces ...
    4. Airman
      Airman 4 December 2013 17: 33
      +3
      Quote: Stiletto
      The author claims that "in the event of the use of nuclear weapons, global obstruction and indignation will lead to the isolation of Russia, turning the leadership into outcasts and even international criminals."
      And who, let me ask, will there be indignation ?! Cockroaches?

      Cockroaches weed dichlorvos.
      1. shuhartred
        shuhartred 5 December 2013 00: 10
        +1
        Quote: Povshnik
        Quote: Stiletto
        The author claims that "in the event of the use of nuclear weapons, global obstruction and indignation will lead to the isolation of Russia, turning the leadership into outcasts and even international criminals."
        And who, let me ask, will there be indignation ?! Cockroaches?

        Cockroaches weed dichlorvos.

        As if after all they did not poison us. wassat
    5. Rus2012
      Rus2012 4 December 2013 18: 12
      +1
      Quote: Stiletto
      And who, let me ask, will there be indignation ?! Cockroaches?

      Certainly not liberalists ...
    6. pensioner
      pensioner 4 December 2013 18: 25
      +3
      Quote: Stiletto
      And who, let me ask, will there be indignation ?! Cockroaches?

      Rats still tolerate radiation well ... yes
  4. A.YARY
    A.YARY 4 December 2013 15: 22
    16
    I did not rate the article!
    Firstly, it’s very superficial
    Secondly, because there are no inverse calculations, even by sense too damp!
  5. q_556
    q_556 4 December 2013 15: 31
    +9
    Nuclear weapons are the only thing that prevents war between developed countries. There will be no nuclear weapons - there will be no peace. Moreover, not even how much nuclear weapons, how much nuclear missile parity, therefore, one cannot speak of any reductions in nuclear weapons.
    1. Ingvar 72
      Ingvar 72 4 December 2013 15: 55
      12
      Quote: q_556
      There will be no nuclear weapons - there will be no peace.

      It’s just that if the enemy has nuclear weapons, the war is waged in other, less rapid ways, but no less effective ways. The USSR was destroyed precisely as a result of the Cold War. What is happening now, it’s difficult to call the world. A war is being waged with us now. hi
      1. q_556
        q_556 4 December 2013 17: 30
        0
        What is happening now, it’s difficult to call the world.


        A bad world is better than a good war.

        A war is being waged with us now.


        Everything is relative. The war that is being waged against us now is a trifle compared to an organized military invasion.
        1. Ingvar 72
          Ingvar 72 4 December 2013 19: 24
          -1
          Quote: q_556
          The war that is being waged against us now is a trifle,

          Count population and economic losses. Not a trifle at all. Everything is relative. hi
          1. A.YARY
            A.YARY 4 December 2013 19: 50
            0
            Ingvar 72
            Apsalyutna saglasen!
            Are you a big tree, but an old one and a really sick tree?
            It’s necessary to start logging from the upper branches, and gradually going down to the bottom .......
            But there is a way a lot easier though longer — kerosene in the roots and go relax! It is already foliage does not choke the young! And by the time the juveniles become strong trees, it will dry out.
            Nothing like?
      2. Sandov
        Sandov 5 December 2013 12: 41
        +1
        Quote: Ingvar 72
        Quote: q_556
        There will be no nuclear weapons - there will be no peace.

        It’s just that if the enemy has nuclear weapons, the war is waged in other, less rapid ways, but no less effective ways. The USSR was destroyed precisely as a result of the Cold War. What is happening now, it’s difficult to call the world. A war is being waged with us now. hi

        From the inside, ruin the state with the help of liberals and fooled ones, and then with your bare hands take what you want. Stools in the trash, and plow themselves like mammoths. Raise the country.
  6. 1c-inform-city
    1c-inform-city 4 December 2013 15: 31
    11
    The article is about nothing. On the surface analysis they try to draw global conclusions.
    1. bif
      bif 4 December 2013 18: 24
      +2
      Quote: 1c-inform-city
      The article is about nothing. On the surface analysis they try to draw global conclusions.
      I agree with you completely.
      After the words of the author "The reforms have led to such a reduction in strategic nuclear forces (SNF) that it became clear that in a retaliatory nuclear strike Russia is no longer capable of inflicting unacceptable damage to the aggressor. Therefore, it abandoned the principle of non-use of the first nuclear weapon ..." I don't even see the point of reading further. Without going into the numbers of strategic nuclear forces and other military nuances, on the face of the FULL break of the logical chain - there is little and the damage is "not fatal" for the enemy, therefore "abandoned the principle of non-use of the first nuclear weapon", simply speaking - ready to hit first (by the way, in psychiatry usually people look very intently at those who like to express their thoughts so "clumsily" and floridly) ...
  7. S-200
    S-200 4 December 2013 15: 33
    +2
    The promise is true, but what should be multiplicity Sun?
    again "guns instead of butter"? ...
    we work to - live or live to - to fight ???
    The army should be - "pocket" ... ie. "affordable" for the state budget
    1. Migari
      Migari 4 December 2013 16: 43
      +3
      First you need to restore the army, so that there would be an adequate response to any challenge, and we have neglect in almost everything, thanks to these figures.
      Reforms launched in 2008 under the leadership of the then Minister of Defense Anatoly Serdyukov and with the approval of President Dmitry Medvedev, led to further degradation of SRE.
      And you can live and slaves, so now you need to feed and arm your army.
  8. vlad0
    vlad0 4 December 2013 15: 36
    11
    At one time, Gaddafi was persuaded to abandon the development of their own nuclear industry and the creation of nuclear weapons. It ended for Libya and Muammar himself very deplorably.
    Obviously, this would have happened to Russia earlier, if not for our nuclear potential.
  9. Dezot
    Dezot 4 December 2013 15: 37
    15
    And again prosralipolymers. This is already a trend. The third article in the last 2 weeks about strategic nuclear forces, but still at the same gate fool
    The reforms led to such a reduction in strategic nuclear forces (SNF) that it became clear that in a retaliatory nuclear strike, Russia was no longer able to inflict unacceptable damage on the aggressor.
    I think few people dare to verify this.
    These are extremely dirty weapons, both environmental and moral. Its use in limited conflicts, if the Russian Federation decides on it in the face of military defeat, will inevitably be regarded by the majority of the world's population as a monstrous crime against humanity.
    It is primarily a deterrent and a guarantee of peace. According to the author, it turns out that the attacker is a dandelion of God, and the defending side is scoundrels, because decided to protect themselves. It’s not democratic negative
    There are many forms of military aggression against which nuclear weapons are powerless.
    The only form of military aggression against which nuclear weapons are powerless is the now popular "controlled chaos", when there is no clearly defined enemy. All other conflicts can and should be suppressed by all methods, if the country's existence is threatened. So that others are discouraged wink
    1. RA77
      RA77 5 December 2013 00: 29
      0
      Quote: Dezot
      The only form of military aggression against which nuclear weapons are powerless is the now popular "controlled chaos", when there is no clearly defined enemy.

      I don't like the idea that there is no clearly defined adversary in "controlled chaos". This is not the first time I have already read this and it seems that this idea is as if specially hammered into our minds, so that we would not delve into it by default and that's all.
      The one who finances and organizes this chaos is the enemy. The task is to find out who it is. And judging by the events of recent years, the leadership of the country where they are trying to launch this process, firstly has such information, and secondly, this "someone" usually turns out to be a foreign state. On their own territory, only executing pawns.
      But the problem is that apparently there are some factors that make it difficult to call a spade a spade and act accordingly. Those. for some reason, no one equates the creation of external processes in their country as a form of attack on it and does not respond equally. Now only the United States is capable of this, which already can respond with a missile strike for cyber attack. (although it’s probably even harder to understand who attacked than in real life)
      1. Rus2012
        Rus2012 5 December 2013 10: 47
        0
        Quote: RA77
        I don't like the idea that there is no clearly defined adversary in "controlled chaos".

        With "controlled chaos" - a completely adequate response to the organizers is assumed, by the same means and in the same way, asymmetric ...
        No wonder the Yankees procured say several milennes of plastic coffins and are building up the National Guard ...
      2. Dezot
        Dezot 5 December 2013 11: 49
        0
        Quote: RA77
        I don't like the idea that there is no clearly defined adversary in "controlled chaos". This is not the first time I have already read this and it seems that this idea is as if specially hammered into our minds, so that we would not delve into it by default and that's all.

        You may not like it, but this does not negate the fact that nuclear weapons are not applicable in this case.
        Quote: RA77
        The one who finances and organizes this chaos is the enemy. The task is to find out who it is. And judging by the events of recent years, the leadership of the country where they are trying to launch this process, firstly has such information, and secondly, this "someone" usually turns out to be a foreign state. On their own territory, only executing pawns.

        Well, found, found out. And what do you propose to do, launch a couple of products in this country? Congratulations, you instantly moved from the category of victims to the category of aggressor in front of the entire world community. As a result, at best, we get war on the borders and inside the country. In the worst case, there will be the last nuclear. Any of these scenarios will be fatal for the country.
        Quote: RA77
        But the problem is that apparently there are some factors that make it difficult to call a spade a spade and act accordingly. Those. for some reason, no one equates the creation of external processes in their country as a form of attack on it and does not respond equally. Now only the United States is capable of this, which already can respond with a missile strike for cyber attack. (although it’s probably even harder to understand who attacked than in real life)

        This is called international law.
        I agree with a friend Rus2012 wink , the only problem will be the lack of time to "create a similar response"
  10. 528Obrp
    528Obrp 4 December 2013 15: 42
    +6
    The radioactive contamination of the area from such a massive impact will be huge.
    Neutron ammunition is very clean and very effective against manpower.

    The appropriateness of using nuclear weapons against ground forces advancing in dispersed battle formations, which is characteristic of modern warfare, becomes even more doubtful. see above. neutron ammunition will destroy manpower practically harmless to those who use it. The main damaging factor of neutron munitions is neutron radiation of very high density.

    Modern ship formations are usually in case of danger rebuilt into anti-atomic warrants, eliminating the possibility of hitting two ships with one ammunition

    All ships and do not need to destroy. Modern control systems are built on microcircuits with a very high degree of integration. If at least one neutron enters the crystal, it will cause a failure of the entire microcircuit, in addition, email. a magnetic pulse will deprive the entire grouping of eyes and ears - it will disable all radar installations.

    PS
    Now there is no such nuclear weapon that was used in the first half of the 20th century. Now it is more effective both in terms of damaging factors and in the "purity" of the explosion
  11. Volkhov
    Volkhov 4 December 2013 15: 45
    -4
    But there is an atomic war in Syria and its environs in all environments and nothing, on Seliger this summer the airship was shot down by mistake with a nuclear air defense missile - the young people liked it and did not think for a long time - it only gained altitude ...
    The only question is when they move to large equivalents, but then the Internet will not be with forums and +/-.
    1. Ingvar 72
      Ingvar 72 4 December 2013 16: 00
      +2
      Quote: Volkhov
      There is a nuclear war in Syria and its environs in all environments and nothing

      ?????????? What is it like???
      1. 528Obrp
        528Obrp 4 December 2013 16: 05
        +1
        Quote: Ingvar 72
        ?????????? What is it like???

        Silently! wassat
      2. Dezot
        Dezot 4 December 2013 16: 07
        +1
        Sarcasm?:)
        1. 528Obrp
          528Obrp 4 December 2013 16: 09
          +1
          Quote: Dezot
          Sarcasm?:)

          Yes, funny! everywhere already winter is nuclear, but we think the calendar!
    2. pensioner
      pensioner 4 December 2013 16: 47
      +8
      Quote: Volkhov
      There is a nuclear war in Syria and its environs in all environments and nothing

      And the men didn’t know ...belay
    3. Petergut
      Petergut 4 December 2013 17: 49
      +4
      Quote: Volkhov
      But there is an atomic war in Syria and its environs in all environments and nothing, on Seliger this summer the airship was shot down by mistake with a nuclear air defense missile - the young people liked it and did not think for a long time - it only gained altitude ...
      The only question is when they move to large equivalents, but then the Internet will not be with forums and +/-.


      Tie with substances bro.
    4. matross
      matross 4 December 2013 17: 54
      +4
      Quote: Volkhov
      nuclear war in all environments and nothing

      Quote: Volkhov
      on Seliger this summer the airship shot down

      Ahaha))) It's just, damn it, a comrade was pleased! Why are you minus something angry you? It’s good for a man, but you ... laughing
      1. nik6006
        nik6006 4 December 2013 22: 23
        +1
        Tin, especially about the airship and nuclear defense missile, and about the Molodezh which I liked !! Yes, the youth has gone now, she likes a lot of things ...
  12. FC SKIF
    FC SKIF 4 December 2013 15: 52
    +3
    If we have a huge army, compact special forces will be beaten against us, if we reduce our army to the utmost, even if it is packed in the highest order, then the crowd will pile up, if we have a super fleet, then they will tumble down from land, all the money will be spent on infantry spend, the naval landing will prevail. WE THINK, STABISTS, THINK, AND LET OUR GENERALS ARE NOT PREPARED FOR WARS OF THE PAST
    1. knn54
      knn54 4 December 2013 19: 20
      +2
      -FK Skiff: LET OUR GENERALS ARE NOT PREPARED FOR WARS OF THE PAST.
      Nuclear weapons will not help against the "leaked" militants (disguised as guest workers).
      The amateurism and cowardice of SOME commanders of the Red Army, the betrayal of internal enemies led to the tragedy of 1941. And what is the strategic nuclear forces if the Taburetkins give the adversaries the codes?
      AND WHY in the law "On Defense" the PEOPLE is not specified ???
  13. sasha127
    sasha127 4 December 2013 15: 53
    +4
    The article may be superficial, but the meaning is clear. What should be developed is not only nuclear weapons and strategic nuclear forces. But general-purpose forces.
    1. 528Obrp
      528Obrp 4 December 2013 15: 59
      +4
      Quote: sasha127
      The article may be superficial, but the meaning is clear. What should be developed is not only nuclear weapons and strategic nuclear forces. But general-purpose forces.

      That's right! In order to normally settle down in a new house, you need a good "roof" so as not to flood. This roof in our house is nuclear weapons.
  14. asbaev
    asbaev 4 December 2013 16: 21
    +1
    Sorry, but this article is similar to the arguments of the Soviet schoolchild on the problems of world capitalism.
  15. Wedmak
    Wedmak 4 December 2013 16: 25
    +6
    Nonsense of course, but this was the most fun.
    Modern ship formations are usually in case of danger rebuilt into anti-nuclear warrants, eliminating the possibility of hitting two ships with one munition. Under these conditions, firing nuclear missiles at class cruiser ships and makes less sense.

    It’s damn how the order can be rebuilt so that the BCH does not hit two ships with rhinestones ???? It needs ships remoteness of about 20 km, no less! What warrant can we talk about if there is 20 km of ocean between ships? Or did the author forget about the concomitant factors of a nuclear explosion?
    One Yars carries 4-8 warheads. This is enough to sink to the bottom or irreversibly damage the AUG in its entirety.
    1. URAL72
      URAL72 4 December 2013 17: 08
      +5
      Yars is not intended to destroy sea targets. For this, there are anti-ship missiles with nuclear warheads on ships, submarines, tactical aircraft, and so far on the Tu-22. In the future, anti-ship missiles will be able to use both existing and promising strategic bombers. There is also a nuclear warhead for coastal defense missiles. I do not agree with the author that it is risky to store nuclear warheads in parts dispersed. Rather, there is a higher risk of losing them immediately in the first strike with the current limited number of storage places that (!) Are inspected by potential friends under the START treaties.
      1. Wedmak
        Wedmak 4 December 2013 17: 51
        +7
        Yars is not intended to destroy naval targets.

        Yes, you understand what the trick is: Yars doesn't care what to destroy. Ground targets, sea targets, villages, cities, ports ... if target designation is given to the ocean area (no matter where), warheads will go on target. But RCC still need to convey to the turn of the launch.
        1. Rus2012
          Rus2012 4 December 2013 19: 57
          +1
          Quote: Wedmak
          Yes, you understand what the trick is: Yars doesn't care what to destroy. Ground targets, sea targets, villages, cities, ports ... if target designation is given to the ocean area (no matter where), warheads will go on target. A RCC

          To the point, colleague!
          In-flight retargeting is already being introduced. A space reconnaissance and target designation system will be!
          If there will be UBB, and they will, part of the regimes will also provide homing for an aircraft carrier! Do the airmen want this or not ... laughing
      2. Onyx
        Onyx 4 December 2013 18: 20
        +3
        Quote: URAL72
        Rather, there is a higher risk of losing them immediately in the first strike with the current limited number of storage places that (!) Are inspected by potential friends under the START treaties.

        START does not affect tactical nuclear warheads, so there are no inspections
  16. andrei332809
    andrei332809 4 December 2013 16: 31
    +3
    Without powerful, numerous and well-equipped general-purpose forces relying solely on nuclear deterrence, Russia's security cannot be guaranteed.

    yah? so I learned the truth what it’s necessary to work, not to cut finances
  17. Andrey Ulyanovsky
    Andrey Ulyanovsky 4 December 2013 16: 47
    +2
    Nuclear weapons, in their meaning, are a means of guaranteed destruction of the enemy, which is a deterrent weapon. Has anyone read the concept of the use of nuclear weapons by the USA, RF and other "members of the nuclear club"? What is the article about?
  18. Sibiriya
    Sibiriya 4 December 2013 16: 56
    +3
    It is necessary to build up but qualitatively.
    A man with a sledgehammer is still better than a woman with a hammer
  19. Same lech
    Same lech 4 December 2013 17: 00
    +5
    Indeed, until now, the atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945 around the world is considered one of the most terrible and barbaric acts in the history of mankind.


    It’s not true, in the USA this is not considered a crime, moreover, the pilots who dropped atomic bombs are considered heroes and they do not feel remorse.
    The author of the article gently falsifies the desired under the real.
    1. nik6006
      nik6006 4 December 2013 22: 57
      +2
      Truman justified the atomic bombing of Japanese cities very simply and unpretentiously: according to his calculations, it turned out that the invasion of ground forces in Japan would cost the United States half a million the lives of American soldiers and officers and about the same number of victims would be from the Japanese. It turns out that the Japanese still owed him at least a quarter of a million lives.
  20. kartalovkolya
    kartalovkolya 4 December 2013 17: 01
    +4
    And this article is about "it's time to drain the water", another paid scoundrel is trying to convince us that nuclear weapons are not a guarantee of our safety! because of the cordon) And now guess three times who benefits from it and who paid for it!
    1. Andrey Ulyanovsky
      Andrey Ulyanovsky 4 December 2013 17: 04
      +2
      That's what I'm talking about. As Osya Bender said, "You need to kill such specialists!"
    2. The comment was deleted.
  21. Kirzhak
    Kirzhak 4 December 2013 17: 04
    +1
    Reforms launched in 2008 under the leadership of the then Minister of Defense Anatoly Serdyukov and with the approval of President Dmitry Medvedev, led to further degradation of SRE. Even in local wars, they became unable to ensure the country's security. In the most favorable case, they will be able to resist aggression in a maximum of two conflicts.

    Good. As for the first part, about the reforms of Serdyukov - Medvedev, I still agree with the author. But, in the second part, I’m not catching up at all request What did he mean? More than two local conflicts: simultaneously, but from different directions or one after another? And what will we miss: human resources, equipment and weapons, or finance?
  22. Ivanovich47
    Ivanovich47 4 December 2013 17: 06
    +4
    Something often authors with articles of a strategic nature. Recently, a review and status of our strategic nuclear forces was brought to our attention. Now they have taken up tactical nuclear weapons. In order to conduct an in-depth analysis of nuclear potential, one must possess information that is closed by higher vultures (OB). It is clear that no one will allow this on an open Internet site. We can discuss on our site any probabilistic assumptions that are allowed for use in open press. And naturally, we can argue only at this level. And the rest is all from the evil one
    1. shuhartred
      shuhartred 5 December 2013 00: 23
      0
      Quote: Ivanovich47
      Something often authors with articles of a strategic nature. Recently, a review and status of our strategic nuclear forces was brought to our attention. Now they have taken up tactical nuclear weapons. In order to conduct an in-depth analysis of nuclear potential, one must possess information that is closed by higher vultures (OB). It is clear that no one will allow this on an open Internet site. We can discuss on our site any probabilistic assumptions that are allowed for use in open press. And naturally, we can argue only at this level. And the rest is all from the evil one

      Run out of rockets? Vladimir Vladimirovich is over. Call. Picks up the phone. The Far Eastern missile district, consisting of 10000 missiles, is ready for battle. "Russia will respond to any of your cunning with completely unpredictable stupidity" Otto von Bismarck. In my opinion laughing
  23. stayer
    stayer 4 December 2013 17: 14
    +2
    Why did the author decide that Russia would be afraid to use nuclear weapons? What they say someone will condemn, discuss? If a war has already begun with the enemy from outside, then excuse me, we have written about it in the Military Doctrine:

    “... In response to the use of nuclear and other weapons of mass destruction against her and (or) her allies, as well as in the event of aggression against the Russian Federation with conventional weaponswhen the very existence of the state is threatened

    Therefore, the invasion has not yet begun.
    But ordinary troops, of course, also need to be maintained, cared for and cherished ...
  24. Ivan Tarasov
    Ivan Tarasov 4 December 2013 17: 27
    -1
    That is why it is necessary to rely on combat robots.
    If at the beginning of the war no army can cope with the assembly line and produce 60 million a year - there will not be enough people.
  25. SV
    SV 4 December 2013 17: 37
    +1
    A strange article in every way ... Sivkov, what is a universal expert?

    Estimate the composition and number of troops involved in armed conflicts since 1991 (if there is info, please specify). And also the number of the Armed Forces of the "partner" countries, their composition, and the system (by level and stages) of the use of force.
    Strange article ...
    In the case of large-scale military operations from several directions (coalition of states) against the Russian Federation, the use of nuclear weapons will be mandatory / compelled. But why (according to the article) apply it on their territory, aggression can be stopped by the destruction of economic centers, base storage and the structure of the military-industrial complex / armed forces of the enemy on its territory ...
  26. xomaNN
    xomaNN 4 December 2013 17: 38
    +4
    To argue that nuclear weapons are the main military trump card seems to be few who try winked Great is the hope that Putin and the team will not give up the country's interests in negotiations with staff on strategic nuclear forces.
    Unlike past rulers what
  27. mountain
    mountain 4 December 2013 17: 38
    +3
    As deterrence of nuclear weapons is naturally not replaceable, and this is a fact. But imagine any clashes with neighbors and the help of loyal states and all of them in your territory, and what a fucking bastard they are? The article is intelligible and there is something to think about and how to solve the problems that have arisen not in vain about this, and Putin said.
  28. Syrdon
    Syrdon 4 December 2013 17: 43
    +4
    it’s enough to destroy the enemy’s infrastructure with nuclear strikes and all this iron, there’s just nowhere to grow back. There will be no fuel, food or anything else and everything will rise. That is why nuclear weapons are important and should always be ready.
    1. Per se.
      Per se. 4 December 2013 21: 29
      +1
      Quote: Syrdon
      it’s enough to destroy the enemy’s infrastructure with nuclear strikes and all this iron, there’s just nowhere to grow back.
      After 1945, the United States had a monopoly on the atomic bomb for quite a long time, and they also had plans for atomic bombing of all major cities of the USSR. But, our "iron", with a powerful army hardened in the war, could in a short time reach the English Channel, capturing all of Europe. Moreover, on the initiative of Stalin, immediately after the war in Chukotka, a group of our troops was created, the task of which, in the event of a new war, was a northern threat to the United States, an invasion of Alaska and Canada. These were the factors that the Americans had to consider.
  29. Moore
    Moore 4 December 2013 17: 49
    +4
    The article did not like. I'll try to justify.
    The reforms led to such a reduction in strategic nuclear forces (SNF) that it became clear that in a retaliatory nuclear strike, Russia was no longer able to inflict unacceptable damage on the aggressor. Therefore, she abandoned the principle of non-use of the first nuclear weapons, but still pledges not to use it against non-nuclear states.

    To whom did it become clear? How did the author determine the threshold of unacceptable damage? The refusal to not use nuclear weapons as the first is not based on the weakness of the first nuclear weapons, but on the incomparability in terms of number and capability of the troops of the prospective aggressor and the troops of the Russian Federation.
    Understanding the consequences, even the most resolute and political elite that is independent of external forces will find it extremely difficult to decide to use nuclear weapons in low-intensity conflicts. Recall that Hitler's Germany had enormous reserves of chemical weapons, but even in agony did not dare to fight them.

    Where did the author get the idea of ​​the possibility of using nuclear weapons in low-intensity conflicts? Some unethical trick: to prove the sound, in general, the idea of ​​the need to develop conventional means of warfare, by building arguments sucked from the finger, then easily refuted by the author because of their initial absurdity.
    Modern ship formations are usually in case of danger rebuilt into anti-nuclear warrants, eliminating the possibility of hitting two ships with one munition. Under these conditions, firing nuclear missiles at class cruiser ships and makes less sense.

    Dear Wedmak got ahead. As they say, "but the men do not know ..." and continue to develop tactics of defeating the AUG with the help of a warhead in nuclear warheads.

    The Strategic Missile Forces could become the ideal deterrent. But which ones? Protected not only by their own forces, the guards, which are now commonly called "special forces of the Strategic Missile Forces".
    1. Covered by ground forces.
    2. Covered by troops of the Ministry of Internal Affairs with their invaluable experience in guarding facilities and anti-sabotage combat.
    3. Covered by tactical and strategic air defense forces.
    4. With the area stuffed with police forces, territorial defense troops, teams from the local population. There is nothing to be ashamed of - everything will go to work. Then I completely agree with M. Kalashnikov.
    Based on such "islands of containment", one can already plan operations to force anyone to do anything.
    1. Rus2012
      Rus2012 4 December 2013 20: 07
      +1
      Quote: Moore
      The Strategic Missile Forces could become the ideal deterrent. But which ones? Guards covered not only by their own forces, which are now called "special forces of the Strategic Missile Forces" .1. Covered by ground ground forces. 2. Covered by the Ministry of Internal Affairs troops with their invaluable experience in protecting facilities and counter-sabotage. 3. Covered by tactical and strategic air defense forces. 4. With a terrain stuffed with police forces, territorial defense troops, teams from the local population. There is nothing to be ashamed of - everything will go into action. Here I completely agree with M. Kalashnikov. Based on such "islands of containment" one can already plan operations to force anyone to do anything.


      Dear colleague, everything is planned for the "special period". Wait for the special forces RV in the form that it was in the late 80s, early 90s, no ...
      1. VKabanov
        VKabanov 5 December 2013 11: 17
        0
        Coming soon, just give time.
  30. JIaIIoTb
    JIaIIoTb 4 December 2013 17: 59
    +5
    French energy is 80% nuclear power plants. Hitting them will cause a catastrophic infection throughout the western part of Europe. This is so, for example, such weak spots can be found (and found) in any state that is both non-NATO and non-NATO. Why am I doing this. Moreover, when the question arises about the existence of our state and, accordingly, the people living in it, the blow will be dealt with the most possible efficiency. And I will not care whether they survive or not, most importantly they (survivors) will be 100% envious of us.
    Let them know about it and think three times before attacking Russia.
    I'm not bloodthirsty, no. But I believe that those who unleash wars must either be destroyed, or suffer incredibly before death.
  31. Peaceful military
    Peaceful military 4 December 2013 18: 01
    +3
    Something I did not understand about the inability of Russia to cause unacceptable damage in a retaliatory nuclear strike. It is clear that this depends on what is considered unacceptable damage and that the author leaves Russia for the final blow. Somehow, everything looks slimy with him.
    BUT!
    The fact that DRE as a result of the collapse of the Union and the Sabbath of the Liberalists was in a deplorable state and that something was really necessary and urgent to do this was obvious.
  32. velikoros-xnumx
    velikoros-xnumx 4 December 2013 18: 02
    +6
    Although I agree with some of the author's arguments, I nevertheless put "-" in the whole article.
    First of all, it should be noted that nuclear weapons are an instrument of the last frontier, the last argument of kings.

    The United States in 1945 was by no means in a critical situation, so the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki can hardly be called the last argument and, as it was said earlier in the comments, “no obstruction,” “friends” forever. Personally, I consider it acceptable to use tactical high-precision nuclear weapons in regional wars of low and medium intensity for the destruction of industrial, military facilities, clusters of infrastructure equipment, highly protected facilities, etc. What is the difference in the case of using tactical ammunition of limited power (for example, something around 0,5, 10-40 kt) and high-precision non-nuclear ammunition of commensurate power (although it is not yet commensurate at the moment, but the so-called vacuum ammunition, which, together with high-precision carriers, is approaching in efficiency to nuclear) is very close. Modern nuclear warheads, especially those of low power from the point of view of ecology, are practically "clean", so that the ecological aspect disappears. As for the moral aspect, and what is the use of flamethrower weapons, napalm, agent orange is more moral, have you seen the process of attack and death from napalm or flamethrower? I happened to be familiar with a man who, as a child, saw a napalm attack in Viet Nam, so he still does not want to remember it even while drunk. Today, the nuclear component is seriously different from that of some 50-XNUMX years ago, nuclear weapons, like other types of weapons, have also gone their way of evolution. It is not at all necessary to hit cities, you can strike with limited power at low-protected objects, damage to which will cause mass death or a humanitarian catastrophe - for example, the Hoover Dam, the Panama Canal, the explosion of ammunition off the coast in order to cause a wave, etc. Although it is me, somehow quiet , but steadily slipped into an attack on the United States, the same is applicable and true against other opponents, although I believed, I believe, and in the foreseeable future I will consider them the main enemy soldier .
  33. Ivan.
    Ivan. 4 December 2013 18: 10
    +1
    Indeed, until now, the atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945 around the world is considered one of the most terrible and barbaric acts in the history of mankind.

    Yah! As in the United States, most are sure that they won the 2nd World War, and in Japan, I am sure a lot of idiots think that the United States is not worth it, or even the USSR is to blame and for most countries controlled by NATO it was some kind of humanistic act.
  34. kaktus
    kaktus 4 December 2013 18: 16
    0
    Simple conclusions: 1. "Everyone imagines himself a strategist, seeing the battle from the side."
    2. In addition to nuclear weapons, weapons of mass destruction include both chemical and bacteriological weapons. Plants with worn-out equipment are found throughout the country, and infections get their own way.
    3. Enemies - there and the road, but it’s high time to restore order for yourself. yes
  35. Ivan.
    Ivan. 4 December 2013 18: 31
    +1
    Shooting nuclear weapons at the enemy's army is stupid, it is for the destruction of bases, strategic objects on the enemy's territory - an army without a rear is defenseless and in general it makes no sense to strive forward if there is nowhere to return. Previously, a powerful army was needed to defend its country, now it is needed only to protect allies and their interests in local and regional conflicts around the world. A power that failed to protect its interests outside of its borders turns into a controlled one and it "disintegrates" so as not to revive.
  36. vasiliysxx
    vasiliysxx 4 December 2013 18: 39
    0
    don’t write an article, but there’s no method against scrap, especially if it’s heavy and thick like ours
  37. Tartary
    Tartary 4 December 2013 18: 58
    -1
    Drove, drove a beard on the table, lol but it all turned out that butter was butter ... request

    Article "-"
  38. Clueless
    Clueless 4 December 2013 20: 29
    0
    "When we use nuclear weapons, we will be given sanctions" - he laughed to the point of colic :) Who after the use of nuclear weapons by us will decide to issue these same sanctions (if these countries remain on the map at all)? For if a country used nuclear weapons in a small conflict, then when sanctions are applied, all the rest of the warhead will fly in the data of the "sanctions".

    We go further - the weakening of the use of nuclear weapons makes the world more stable. Imagine hypothetically - Jews attacked us (well, they are to blame for everything as usual smile ), and we issue a warning to them - such as an oblique look towards our borders, and we will use nuclear weapons. Yes, the whole world will run the Jews to reassure, because after a primitive blow to them the rest of the countries will still get (the muck will spread all over the world, especially among the countries lying down). Of course, the assaults will go on us.

    But there are two results - either the world, or the whole world, ultimately to dust.
  39. twister
    twister 4 December 2013 20: 45
    +2
    I don’t understand who writes this .... after the use of nuclear weapons by Russia, the whole world will declare us outcasts ... what kind of world, the afterlife chtoli? or the world of mutants? wassat
  40. m262
    m262 4 December 2013 20: 50
    +1
    Quote: Rus2012
    The draft of such an order lay before Bush ...

    Well, I think not everything is so bad in the "Kingdom of Denmark" that the US Air Force conduct operations to block our troops!
    They don't sit there either, but the article is a minus, when the Motherland is in danger, I personally DO NOT care about the opinion of the "world community", 50 years ago when the US attacked Vietnam, only the USSR and China were condemned, the rest turned away, and nothing, the world did not turn upside down! !!
  41. Samsebenaum
    Samsebenaum 4 December 2013 21: 36
    0
    If I understand correctly, this is an article on the status and role of nuclear weapons.
    And how do we think the future of Russia without this power?
    What is the future there ... And yesterday and today it is unconditionally the main argument for deterrence ..
    In general, I try not to discuss this topic. Still obvious ...
    Russia, a nuclear country with which everyone will have to reckon, whether they want it or not ...
    We stood on that and will stand ..
  42. Per se.
    Per se. 4 December 2013 22: 23
    +1
    The topic covered in the article is delicate and complex. Here, the majority took up arms against the author, who, first of all, emphasized the need to strengthen conventional weapons, and not to have only one hope for nuclear weapons. Isn't there a problem, didn't Serdyukov's "reforms", in general, money and profit, as a criterion for the effectiveness of everything that is possible and impossible, under the supervision of "effective" managers in the military-industrial complex and the army, did and do not harm the defense? Soviet stockpiles of nuclear weapons have been reduced, and most missiles have already been extended many times over. What used to be done in hundreds, now by the piece. The Yankees not just perked up with missile defense, with the creation of space shuttles-drones, there is a chance of a preemptive strike, with the ability to block or greatly weaken the response. In addition, we are not only surrounded, but also create hotbeds of tension and instability near Russia and on our territory, where, in addition to the Caucasus, an abscess may be brewing in Tatarstan and Bashkiria. Finally, the plot of 1969 will repeat itself, whether a new Damansky, will we shoot nuclear charges at our own territory or at the allied, for example, in Kazakhstan? Today, China is our partner and like a friend, what will happen tomorrow, no one will vouch. This is what we are talking about, you need to strengthen the army, have a competent military doctrine, and not boo what is unpleasant to hear.
  43. voliador
    voliador 4 December 2013 22: 36
    -3
    The current Russian leadership in terms of freedom of choice is not a match for the Soviet. It is very seriously associated with colleagues in other countries and transnational capital, it largely depends on them, having large real estate and tangible assets in banks abroad.

    No one doubts. Zasyt is the very leadership of the loot to lose, and merge the country.
  44. voliador
    voliador 4 December 2013 22: 41
    +1
    Losses from defeat in a local conflict may turn out to be less tangible than from retaliatory nuclear strikes, so the use of nuclear forces makes no sense.
    This meaning is only in large-scale wars against powerful coalitions, if the enemy with general-purpose forces has already inflicted huge losses on the civilian population, destroyed half of Russia, and organized a humanitarian and environmental catastrophe. Only then will limited nuclear strikes be a natural stage in the development of such a war. Moreover, they are justified from a moral and psychological point of view as an act of fair retribution.


    It seems that the author’s brain is in parallel reality, separate from the body.
    When it comes to such an extent that the enemy has destroyed half of Russia already, maybe there will be no one to use nuclear weapons. In addition, the enemy will primarily destroy nuclear weapons delivery vehicles.
    1. zennon
      zennon 4 December 2013 22: 56
      0
      When it comes to such an extent that the enemy has destroyed half of Russia already, maybe there will be no one to use nuclear weapons.

      No one has canceled the "Rule of the Dead Hand". Google yourself what it means. Mattress toppers know VERY well. As for:

      It seems that the author’s brain is in parallel reality, separate from the body.

      Then you are right ...............deleted by the moderator.
      1. studentmati
        studentmati 4 December 2013 23: 17
        0
        Quote: zennon
        Nobody canceled the "Rule of the Dead Hand"

        So it is so, but we are talking about the fact that by the 20th year "Perimeter" will have nothing to control and give commands ...
        1. zennon
          zennon 4 December 2013 23: 46
          +1
          So it is so, but we are talking about the fact that by the 20th year "Perimeter" will have nothing to control and give commands ...

          Yes, what are you! Quite the contrary. The strategic nuclear forces are now experiencing a renaissance. I think you know how many times defense spending has increased over the past 8-10 years. But nuclear weapons are in a privileged position. Yes, the careless attitude of the 90s liberals is headed I remember well with the EBN plug. But now the situation is diametrically opposite. Don’t worry.
          1. studentmati
            studentmati 4 December 2013 23: 53
            0
            Quote: zennon
            But this hour the situation is diametrically opposite. Don’t worry.

            Just, I suppose, there is something to worry about. Money is money, but I worry about personnel. Almost everyone left, either retired or to the "supreme" employers. And new ones to grow and grow. In addition, the "machine park" is completely outdated, and frankly destroyed. You yourself understand that "products" are not digging holes and erecting monoliths, qualifications are needed here! And it is 80% lost, unfortunately ...
            1. zennon
              zennon 5 December 2013 01: 29
              0
              Money is money, but I worry about personnel. Almost everyone left, either retired or to the "supreme" employers. And new ones to grow and grow. In addition, the "machine park" is completely outdated, and frankly destroyed.

              Yes, the failure of 10 years in time has not gone anywhere, but keep in mind that the situation has changed since the beginning of the 2000s, and not just that! It's been 10 years since serious money has been flowing. The situation is recovering. In addition, even in the 90s, and even races ... by the Kremlin, money for nuclear weapons was allocated in a larger volume than for the rest of the defense industry as a whole. The situation is not simple, but there is no tragedy. I also do not like the mechanical extension of the service life of the R-36M (Satan), but the development is not only TTRD-shnyh pukalok, like "Topol", but also a solid rocket engine.
              I repeat, the situation is not simple but far from catastrophic. In addition, amers also have smart, sane people along with carpet clowns like McCain. I assure you, they have something to lose in life.
              1. kartalovkolya
                kartalovkolya 5 December 2013 08: 15
                0
                You may be right, but let me say that everything is determined not by those who have "brains in place", but by those who have a lot of money and they are the actual power. Everything is planned and decided by "Club 300", and everything else is just scenery for their performance. They have penetrated almost all spheres of our state, and their lackeys obsequiously betray the country! And with nuclear weapons, not everything is as good as you are telling here, remember at least the story of the uranium sold to the United States, and this is at least treason .As long as there are people without conscience and honor in the power structures who have sold themselves to the enemy, there is no need to talk about any protection of the country's interests!
  45. Black
    Black 4 December 2013 22: 43
    +1
    Quote: StolzSS
    Although I want to hope that things will not come to nuclear weapons and we will get along with the bombing ...


    Moreover, I would like to hope that things will not come to the bombing. This, I think, is the main task of the nuclear triad.

    But I agree with the author conceptually.
  46. dima1970
    dima1970 4 December 2013 22: 48
    +1
    Maybe the main idea of ​​the case, but the presentation is strange: war criminals, outcasts ... If you use a tactical warhead on the advancing parts of the enemy on your territory, what is this crime? Damage to nature is much less than that of Fukushima. And this story about the ubiquitous enemy special forces in the forests of the Urals ... Who delivered, how many of them, our special forces sleeps ????
    1. Rus2012
      Rus2012 5 December 2013 10: 52
      0
      Quote: dima1970
      And this story about the ubiquitous enemy special forces in the forests of the Urals ...

      Well, about that ... laughing
      Apparently a clear allusion to the 5 column ...
      But, the overwhelming majority of representatives of this column in the first half hour of the "special period" will be where they belong. And rightly so ...
  47. DPN
    DPN 4 December 2013 22: 58
    0
    Quote: Tersky
    An example of this is the end of the 80s and the beginning of the 90s, Tagged and EBN.

    God forbid that RUSSIA does not have more such scoundrels. For this period, Russia has no protection more reliable than the strategic nuclear forces, and only a small DPRK can be an outcast, and it can be painful to bite if they are strongly cornered and will be right.
    If Khrushchev a little scared the states then they lived in the WORLD and the cities were restored after the war, it’s another matter that these two Judas were in power. Having ruined a country with such raw material wealth. And all the Saudis had to scare with this strategic nuclear forces and the States would not have poked their heads.
    1. Angry reader
      Angry reader 4 December 2013 23: 15
      0
      Forgive the Fellow Citizens, let them be, only on a smaller scale, like a vaccine against the infection they carry (EBN AND SPOT) INFECTIONS
  48. zasxdcfvv
    zasxdcfvv 4 December 2013 23: 32
    0
    Now all wars between major players are held in the cabinets. All acts and subacts signed on behalf of the Russian Federation will never become an object of publicity. Countries can feed other countries without ever seeing an rival soldier. We can only guess and believe
    1. studentmati
      studentmati 4 December 2013 23: 41
      0
      Quote: zasxdcfvv
      now all wars between major players are held in the offices

      Very accurately Vladimir noticed!
    2. Rus2012
      Rus2012 5 December 2013 10: 56
      0
      Quote: zasxdcfvv
      .All acts and subacts signed on behalf of the Russian Federation will never become an object of publicity. Countries can feed other countries without ever seeing an rival soldier. We can only guess and believe

      One must think, not without it ...
      But flirting is also not worth it, you need to remember History.
      Otherwise, new Minins and Pozharsky will come and turn the board over and throw chess pieces off the playing field ...
  49. alone
    alone 5 December 2013 00: 08
    +1
    now there are local, economic, financial and information wars. A nuclear war is automatically excluded. Everyone wants to live.
    1. studentmati
      studentmati 5 December 2013 00: 12
      0
      Quote: lonely
      now there are local, economic, legislative and information wars. Nuclear war is excluded automatically. Everyone wants to live.

      The war with the most severe losses that we are waging today and not in our favor - this is a demographic war. We are already on the verge when there will be nobody to defend the vastness of Russia ...
  50. not good
    not good 5 December 2013 00: 11
    0
    From the current leadership of the country, hardly anyone is able to assume political and moral responsibility for the use of nuclear weapons, there Medvedev 08.08.08 and then waited until the GDP wakes up.