Military Review

Nuclear Disarmament Myths

109
Only the creation and deployment of new domestic ICBMs, and not the resetting of Russia's nuclear potential, will serve to preserve strategic stability.


Nuclear weapon Since its inception, it has played and continues to play a decisive role in the policies and strategies of nuclear states. Disputes over its complete elimination do not subside. However, in the current military-political and economic conditions, the goal of achieving a “global zero” for Russia seems to be very, very premature.

For almost the entire second half of the twentieth century, the development of strategic nuclear forces (SNF) was determined by the concept of nuclear deterrence. It was based on the recognition of the impossibility of achieving victory in a large-scale nuclear war by any of its participants due to the real and unquestioned threat of destroying their own state. At the same time, the idea of ​​limiting strategic weapons and missile defense systems (ABM) was born, which for many years set the agenda for the dialogue between the leaders of superpowers.

Today, Russia has become embroiled in a process initiated by the West to discuss nuclear disarmament at the level of proposals for the complete elimination of nuclear weapons, almost without taking into account the ratios of the destabilizing factors of nuclear deterrence.

Global Zero Trap

The first meeting of the initiative group to support the Global Zero movement (“Global Zero”) was held in Moscow in October 2009. The action plan developed by the group was brought to the attention of persons representing the Russian system of making military-political decisions, and received approval from the political beau monde of the country of that time.

Nuclear Disarmament Myths

The discussion itself can hardly pose any danger, especially when it comes to the elimination of such destructive weapons. The ideas of nuclear zero resonate with a certain part of society, which does not particularly burden itself with the analysis of the consequences of such a military-political decision. The arguments “for” are a traditional set of statements about the uselessness and uselessness of having the Russian Federation a powerful SNF potential due to the fact that the West is not planning an attack on Russia, which has taken the path of democratic transformations.

But based on the interests of Russia, we need to talk about more subtle and deeper problems associated with the permissible limits of reduction of domestic strategic nuclear forces. Is it true, as claimed by some VIP analysts, that the US and Russian nuclear arsenals significantly exceed the indices necessary to meet reasonable containment requirements? What should be the attitude to the outwardly spectacular new disarmament plan of Barack Obama, associated with a significant (before 1000 – 1100 warheads) reduction in the quantitative indicator of the Russian strategic nuclear forces?

The reaction to these and similar initiatives implies first of all a search for an answer to the question: why did the US leadership, who did not even want to hear about nuclear disarmament for many decades, suddenly announced that it was necessary to lower the level of nuclear confrontation with the Russian Federation? What changed?

It would be naive to believe that this is just a well-thought PR move by the US President aimed at changing the image reputation of his country, one of the outcomes of which was the receipt of the Nobel Peace Prize by the President of America.

You should look for more meaningful and compelling motives.

What has changed?

One can often hear that nuclear deterrence in the context of globalization and the growing interdependence of the world becomes an anachronism. This position was reflected in an article by Henry Kissinger, Sam Nunn, and other authors, published in the United States at the beginning of 2008, and found understanding and support among supporters of nuclear disarmament in Russia. The goal of nuclear disarmament was officially confirmed at the first 2009 summit of Presidents Dmitry Medvedev and Barack Obama in London.

Perhaps the US self-esteem has changed its place in the world? No, despite the fact that America did not withstand the test of monopolarism, having largely exhausted itself by participating in military conflicts in Europe as well as in the Middle East, priority for it was, is and remains the condition for maintaining its leading position in the world.

It is obviously impossible to achieve this by disrupting the balance of the strategic nuclear forces. The United States decided to go another way associated with their restriction.

The imbalance of the strategic nuclear forces is limited, on the one hand, by contractual obligations on the corresponding quantitative indicators of combat units (warheads) and their delivery vehicles (carriers). On the other hand, the probability of delivery of warheads to the target, which is determined by the state and capabilities of the missile defense system. If a one-sided increase in the strategic nuclear forces is not possible, the conclusion is that it is necessary to create an effective missile defense system. It was with these considerations that the United States was guided above all by carrying out its withdrawal from the ABM Treaty and starting active work on the deployment of the corresponding system both on its territory and on adjacent territories, as well as in Europe, particularly in Poland and the Czech Republic.

However, even rough estimates provide an understanding that protecting the country from delivering hundreds of strikes, let alone thousands of nuclear warheads, requires a system that cannot be created in the foreseeable period. This is precisely the reason why, despite the enormous costs and efforts of the parties, large-scale missile defense systems in the territories of Russia (USSR) and the USA were not created. The guaranteed overcoming of a system built on the basis of the THAAD and SM-3 interceptors with a total potential of the order of 200 megatons can be achieved by attacking 900 units of warheads installed on no more than 400 – 500 carriers even with 0,9 interception capabilities. At the same time, the number of warheads stipulated by the limitations of the Moscow Treaty on Strategic Offensive Potentials is equal to 1550 units with the order of 750 units of deployed carriers and the total number of deployed and non-deployed launchers of ICBMs, SLBMs and TB corresponding to 800 units.

Hence, it is not difficult to understand the logic of the recommendations of General James Cartwright (USA) regarding the desirability of reducing the nuclear arsenals of the United States and Russia to 900 strategic warheads with the operational deployment of only half of them.

American strategists do not have to worry about how not to overdo it when carrying out nuclear disarmament. By virtue of the implementation of the Reconstruction Concept for two decades, the United States today is more ready for a rapid decrease in its nuclear potential than Russia. Mainly due to the qualitative gain of the non-nuclear component of strategic and defensive weapons, for which the Russian backlog from the United States is very noticeable.

Thus, the question of the permissible limits for reducing nuclear forces has moved from the theoretical plane to the area of ​​vital decisions. It is clear that the finding of these solutions is possible only on the basis of the formulation of adequate criteria and the establishment of determining factors for assessing the nuclear stability threshold. The matter is complicated by the fact that the most frequently and widely used criterion of the type of unacceptable (deterrent) damage is not only ambiguous, multidimensional, but in some cases subjective.

Unacceptable damage. Concept transformation

The task of estimating the number of warheads guaranteed to ensure the national security of the state arose almost from the moment the carriers of the respective warheads in the form of long-range ballistic missiles and their warheads appeared.

Back in the middle of 50, under the leadership of Alexander Samarsky, at the Institute of Applied Mathematics (IPM - later IPM named after MV Keldysh) Sergey Kurdyumov and other scientists made one of the first attempts to solve the problem based on an adapted version of the Lanchester's model of the theory of operations research . Assuming, a priori, the known probability of the destruction of the nuclear weapons of a potential enemy, as well as his own weapons, a solution was obtained not even of the first, but zero approximation, which gave the critical threshold value approximately in 1500 warheads. A little later, at the beginning of 60, Robert McNamara (USA) introduced the concept of "guaranteed destruction of the enemy." It meant a nuclear strike in which from one-fifth to one-fourth of the population perishes and between half and two-thirds of the country's industrial potential is destroyed. American analysts estimate the corresponding potential in 400 of one megaton warheads. Subsequently, the numerical values ​​of the McNamara criterion were repeatedly specified by a group of researchers working under the leadership of Albert Wolstetter.

According to Andrei Sakharov, performed at the same time, for a nuclear strike with the corresponding damage of such a level, about 500 megaton-class nuclear warheads of the order or average 1250 – 1500 nuclear charges would suffice.

These criteria have not yet met the more “soft" concept of irreplaceable or unacceptable damage, which is based on models of the development of the economic and social situation in the state of a potential enemy after a nuclear strike on it.

A group of analysts led by Yevgeny Velikhov and Andrei made a significant contribution to the regulatory assessment of the minimum level of unacceptable damage (NU) for states that are objects of containment, structured according to a number of indicators of the relationship between the vulnerability of industries and the economy as a result of a nuclear strike. Kokoshin

In general, by the beginning of the 90s, as a result of studies of various aspects of the unacceptability of damage, organizations of the Ministry of Defense, the General Ministry and the Academy of Sciences of the USSR had developed approaches that adequately justify the criteria and indicators of NU of that level of development. It was they that were embodied in the 90s in the START-2 Treaty and the framework agreement under the START-3 Treaty. According to official statements by representatives of the Ministry of Defense and the General Staff of the Armed Forces, if START II was ratified by 2, it was planned to create an Strategic Missile Forces group of 2003-800 monoblock missiles, and maintain strategic sea-based forces at the level of 900-1700 warheads. Aviation the component of the nuclear triad, due to its limited significance, had significantly lower values. The political, financial and economic crisis in Russia, alas, has made its own adjustments.

Psychology and quantitative uncertainty

By the middle of 90, the concept of NU became increasingly transformed from fairly reasonable approaches in assessing the consequences of damage and even approximate, but still transparent methods for calculating the critical level of strategic nuclear forces in the direction of the psychological reaction of a potential enemy to the threat of a nuclear strike. As a result, damage was gradually considered unacceptable, the threat of causing which could stop the enemy from hostile actions. By the beginning of the 21st century, this concept became dominant in the main strategy of nuclear deterrence, which all nuclear powers proclaimed in words and the authors of the relevant publications did not question.

Of the foreign (mostly American) specialists who contributed to the problem of discussing elements of the general theory of deterrence, it makes sense to mention primarily Bernard Brody and Hermann Kahn. The name of the first one is associated mainly with the research of the “deterrence” category within the framework of the problems of the strategy of nuclear deterrence, the second one with the development of the theory of escalation of the nuclear conflict with the six-component classification of the “degree of deterrence”.

It is obvious that such a interpretation of the concept of NU has a big disadvantage associated with its quantitative uncertainty. As rightly noted in “War and Peace in Terms and Definitions”, published under the general editorship of Dmitry Rogozin, due to psychological differences in the mentality of the ruling elite and society of countries representing different civilizations (Western, Eastern Christian, Islamic, etc.) ), the level of NU for these states can also differ significantly. For example, in the Islamic world, the perception of unacceptable damage for them is largely due to the less vulnerable infrastructure of their economy, as well as a different religious and moral attitude of the elite and the population to war and peace.

The impossibility of formalizing the categories being discussed in conjunction with the support of the idea of ​​consistently achieving the “nuclear zero” led individual authors to think about the need to abandon the concept of NU and to use the approximate balance of response potentials as a criterion for restraining.

Until 2030, no change

Today and in the foreseeable future, a nuclear-free world is, alas, impossible.

Any proposals and initiatives relating to the necessity and feasibility of lowering the potential for nuclear confrontation between the United States and Russia in modern conditions are unacceptable. Logical and quite correct evidence of this assertion was cited by many authors at the beginning of the 2000s. It suffices to refer to the work “On future wars and nuclear deterrence” by Vyacheslav Kruglov, Mikhail Sosnovsky and Vladimir Sivolob, published in the Observer magazine's 3 number for 2003 a year. The article convincingly proves that the complete elimination of nuclear weapons is in the greatest extent in the strategic interests of the United States. This guarantees America the safe conduct of military conflicts with conventional weapons, including large-scale ones with the massive use of conventional weapons, the use of fire strikes and the achievement of victory in a “contactless nuclear-free” way. The only mistake of the authors is that the elimination of a significant backlog of Russia from the United States in the field of conventional (primarily strategic) weapons and the state of missile defense can be achieved in the next 10 – 15 years. In fact, over the past ten years since the publication of their work, this gap has not only not decreased, but has become even more tangible. The 2008 and 2009 years should obviously be considered the period when this lag reached a maximum. Understanding this circumstance was for the United States a motivating reason for the intensification of various initiatives to achieve a “global nuclear zero”.

Thus, the revision of the agreements in the direction of reducing the critical threshold of nuclear deterrence can be carried out only after achieving parity on conventional strategic weapons and other destabilizing factors, primarily of a counter-force nature.

The relevance of revising the concept of NU can arise only with a significant reduction in the scale of external threats and the presence of long-term assessments confirming this fact. But according to the available forecasts of the military-political situation up to 2030, the situation will remain extremely unstable and conflicting in all strategic areas. Therefore, the question of the expediency of revising the criterion under discussion may acquire practical significance not earlier than the specified period. Today the discussion about determining the agreed value of NU is practically fruitless.

From the point of view of theoretical positions, a reliable answer about the level of effectiveness of the mechanism of strategic deterrence based on subjective and uncertain criteria, naturally, cannot be obtained. But it is not required, since the effect of threats based on the use of subjectively unacceptable damage depends to a significant extent on the personal qualities and psychological aspects of decision-making by persons exercising the military-political leadership of the country - the potential aggressor.

Verbal Husk Disarmament Initiatives

Separate discussion requires the topic of the impact on the destabilizing elements on the NU, primarily of a counter-force nature. In conjunction with anti-missile systems and the emergence of a non-nuclear component of the US strategic counter-force potential, the criterion base for evaluating NU when planning a deterrent critical SNF threshold, at least in theoretical terms, should be clarified. Undoubtedly, an extensive missile defense system and a high level of potential of high-precision weapons of the United States represent a significant military and strategic problem for the Russian Federation. However, it should not be exaggerated as a direct military threat, as well as the possibility of the newly deployed US missile defense systems in terms of overestimated estimates of the likelihood of interception of nuclear response weapons. Moreover, there is no need to panicly react to any, often mythical, information about the "super-outstanding" capabilities of one or another development that has not yet reached the stage of successful flight design tests.

An adequate response by the leadership of the Russian Federation to a correctly evaluated creature is needed, rather than to the verbal husk of US disarmament initiatives, at which the threshold level guaranteed would remain, ensuring potential nuclear deterrence in the context of the US striving to maintain geopolitical dominance in modern conditions.

To some experts, this husk seems to be manna from heaven. An example of this is the article “Transformation of Strategic Stability” by Vladimir Dvorkin in the World Economy and International Relations magazine's 8 No. for 2013 year. Skillfully operating with facts, concepts and knowledge, this really highly qualified specialist diligently draws the wings of an American little angel, obviously suffering from a misunderstanding of his good intentions by the Russian bear. Calling for the exchange of some technologies, Dworkin states that it is necessary to break up with the mutual nuclear deterrence of the two most powerful nuclear states. How this fabulously good state is being dealt with those who are unable to restrain him from "good" actions, we have seen with the example of Yugoslavia, Libya, and Iraq. Still a bit - and Syria, too. By the way, in the article mentioned, Dvorkin is trying and cannot explain the meaning of targeting the 80 of US nuclear warheads to Moscow (he estimates that seven to eight would suffice). This is just beyond the threshold of common sense, but it explains very well the psychology of the American angel, his unparalleled love for the exchange of technology. One of the "partners" of the USSR in 1941 was going to make a lake on the spot of Moscow - these 80 warheads are also capable of doing the same.

The objectivity of the assessments of actions of foreign "partners" by the top military-political leadership of our country is confirmed by the presence of SLBMs and ground-based ICBMs at different stages of development, production and deployment. These include “Sineva”, “Bulava-30”, “Yars-M” and, finally, “Sarmat”, planned to replace the legendary “Satan” (“Voivode” - the P-36X2 missile system, which was adopted by Soviet strategic missile forces back in August 1988 year). I would like to emphasize that the creation and deployment of these complexes, and not the resetting of Russia's nuclear potential, will serve the cause of preserving strategic stability.
Author:
Originator:
http://vpk-news.ru/
109 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. I do not care
    I do not care 31 January 2014 18: 24
    +26
    I am for 100 percent rejection of nuclear weapons. US unilaterally laughing
    1. Papakiko
      Papakiko 31 January 2014 18: 27
      +4
      Quote: me by
      I am for 100 percent rejection of nuclear weapons. US unilaterally

      So they will appoint another guardian of "democracy".
      Australia for example or New Zealand.
      It is necessary to conduct a dialogue with wolves only from the position of 1000% punishment for any misconduct.
      1. jjj
        jjj 31 January 2014 18: 37
        +13
        Our nuclear weapons must be multifaceted: in space, in the sky, on water, under water, underground, on the ground - in trains, cars, containers. Big and small. And enough to be enough for all the friends who are taken and taken to the museum
        1. alone
          alone 31 January 2014 18: 55
          -1
          It would be better if everyone with nuclear weapons abandons it. But this is a utopia. There are several possessing countries in the world who will not do this under any pretext.
          1. Yura
            Yura 31 January 2014 19: 19
            +8
            Quote: lonely
            It would be better if everyone with a nuclear weapon abandons it

            Lonely, dear, just imagine that tomorrow no one will have nuclear weapons, and how many wars on earth will begin after tomorrow, which is why:
            Quote: lonely
            In the world there are several possessing countries that will not do this under any pretext.
            1. ty60
              ty60 31 January 2014 20: 56
              +2
              Open wars are now between those without nuclear arsenals. S.M. statistics. As a deterrence factor, it will remain relevant. If we can create a replacement for SATANE, which is especially mobile, like Topol. Yes, and it’s time to fill the mugs of Bulava’s manufacturers. Are they actually Russian citizens?
              1. AVV
                AVV 31 January 2014 22: 48
                +1
                Quote: ty60
                create a replacement for Satan — especially movable like Poplar.

                Sarmat and even on the railway platform, this is original !!! And for America, the end of a quiet life, and they deserve it !!!
            2. alone
              alone 31 January 2014 22: 07
              +2
              Yuri. Well, I wrote that this is utopia))) for example, India and Pakistan were tacitly allowed to have nuclear weapons so that these countries would forever forget to fight with each other. Yao currently functions as a deterrent weapon. Not even that. not interested, but indispensable as a deterrent factor)). hi
              1. Yura
                Yura 31 January 2014 22: 56
                0
                Quote: lonely
                Yuri. Well, I wrote that this is utopia)))

                Yes, I actually wrote a post in support of your comment, I just tried to reveal yours:
                In the world there are several possessing countries that will not do this under any pretext.
                that is why they won’t do this, and your top post and this one I agree with them, moreover, I also think the same.
              2. VADEL
                VADEL 1 February 2014 00: 57
                0
                Quote: lonely
                but as a deterrent, it’s indispensable))

                "BUT the stick will shoot once," say the peoples. And there are no factors and there will be no artifactors.
                1. alone
                  alone 1 February 2014 01: 01
                  0
                  Quote: VADEL
                  "BUT the stick will shoot once," say the peoples. And there are no factors and there will be no artifactors.


                  God forbid, of course) Everyone wants to live, so we hope that this does not happen.
          2. zart_arn
            zart_arn 31 January 2014 19: 24
            +5
            Quote: lonely
            It would be better if everyone with nuclear weapons abandons it. But this is a utopia. There are several possessing countries in the world who will not do this under any pretext.

            It would not be better, at least at the current level of mentality of earthlings. Nuclear weapons are the only weapons in the world (in the sense of not war). Its accidental use is practically excluded, and its presence is sobering the exuberant heads of many.
          3. Firstvanguard
            Firstvanguard 31 January 2014 19: 42
            +11
            It would be better if everyone with a nuclear weapon abandons it.
            Are you out of the blue ?? !! belay Should this happen, NATA will begin the invasion of Russia on the same day. You can be sure.
            I have always said that a constructive dialogue with the 3,14ndos and the bourgeois is possible only through the sight of the atomic berdana. Tsyzylizovannaya geyropa and her miscarriage of the United States for centuries exterminated entire nations and continue to do so, all that stops them in the world today is nuclear weapons, hence the tantrums and drooling when the country does not possess nuclear weapons, trying to get it. Have you ever thought that a state calling for nuclear disarmament has a greater potential than all the others combined? What is the largest US nuclear test in TNT equivalent? What moral (not to mention all other aspects) right at least to open their mouth on this issue ?! I personally remember very well which power was the only one in the world that used nuclear weapons against a defeated enemy!
            1. alone
              alone 31 January 2014 22: 09
              +2
              Quote: Firstvanguard
              Are you out of the blue ??!


              What, it was hard to read further?))
              1. Firstvanguard
                Firstvanguard 1 February 2014 00: 09
                0
                What, it was hard to read further?))

                I read everything, the point is not in the presence or absence of nuclear weapons, and not even in the fact that some countries will never refuse it. And the fact is that these hmm .. subjects, under any sauce, will not refuse to use force as such. soldier
                Did not want to hurt drinks I am in general for a single humanity, only in this case progress and development are possible.
            2. ty60
              ty60 31 January 2014 22: 37
              0
              We are in the know. Lawyers are asking the same question: who benefits?
          4. Setrac
            Setrac 31 January 2014 21: 50
            0
            Quote: lonely
            It would be better if everyone with a nuclear weapon abandons it.

            Enemy agents cast their voice!
            1. alone
              alone 31 January 2014 22: 10
              +2
              Quote: Setrac
              Enemy agents cast their voice!

              They give a voice like you! Choose an expression!
              1. Setrac
                Setrac 31 January 2014 22: 16
                +2
                Quote: lonely
                They give a voice like you! Choose an expression!

                You need to determine your attitude to Russia, friend or enemy!
                1. alone
                  alone 31 January 2014 22: 25
                  +1
                  Yes? Azerbaijan and Russia are hostile countries? Maybe we broke off diplomatic relations? Or maybe the Russian language is banned in my country? Or maybe all Russians were deported from Azerbaijan? And Azerbaijanis were deported from Russia? Or maybe we captured part of Russia? What specifically are you blaming us for ?

                  P.S.
                  1. Setrac
                    Setrac 31 January 2014 22: 30
                    0
                    Quote: lonely
                    Yes? Azerbaijan and Russia are hostile countries? Maybe we broke off diplomatic relations? Or maybe the Russian language is banned in my country? Or maybe all Russians were deported from Azerbaijan? And Azerbaijanis were deported from Russia? Or maybe we captured part of Russia? What specifically are you blaming us for ?

                    P.S.

                    Why do you support the disarmament of Russia?
                    And let us (Russians) support the unilateral initiative of Armenia to disarm the Azerbaijani army? This has already happened and therefore you do not like Russia?
                    And those who plus you want a third world in Russia.
                    I’ll open my eyes to you, nuclear weapons are not weapons of mutual deterrence! Nuclear weapons are weapons of deterrence to Europe, the United States and China from an attack on Russia.
                    1. alone
                      alone 31 January 2014 22: 46
                      +2
                      Quote: Setrac
                      Why do you support the disarmament of Russia?


                      Here is my comment written
                      It would be better if everyone with nuclear weapons abandons it. But this is a utopia. There are several possessing countries in the world who will not do this under any pretext.


                      Where is it written that I propose to disarm Russia? You do not know how to read Russian? I wrote that this is utopia. And the first who refuses to do this will not be Russia, but the United States.

                      If you have trouble reading I'm not to blame. Before you write insults
                      could ask what I wanted to say.

                      Quote: Setrac
                      let us (Russians) support the unilateral initiative of Armenia to disarm the Azerbaijani army?


                      Well, let's support)) you will lose billions of dollars in contracts. Because weapons are mostly bought from Russia. Let me ask a question: If Russia would consider us an enemy, would they sell us so much weapons? pay who? Armenia or you?

                      You can write anything. But not everyone is destined to think about the consequences !!
                      1. Setrac
                        Setrac 31 January 2014 22: 55
                        +1
                        Quote: lonely
                        Where is it written that I propose to disarm Russia? You do not know how to read Russian?

                        All write THIS, hiding behind their own peacefulness, and these are the most "peace-loving" countries - the USA, Britain, Germany, Japan. Like we are not against Russia, "read my words" and so on, we are simply fighting for world peace, but this supposedly abstract "fight for peace" is directed against Russia.
                        With such seemingly innocent phrases you support our enemies, I will pay attention to OUR GENERAL ENEMIES.

                        Quote: lonely
                        Well, let's support)) lose billions of dollars in contracts.

                        Russia gave fifteen billion Baku rubles to Ukraine only to delay the inevitable conflict with the West .........................deleted by moderator Apollo

                        Quote: lonely
                        Let me ask you a question: If Russia would consider us an enemy, would they sell us so much weapons?

                        I do not ask who Russia considers Azerbaijan, a question for you personally, on whose side are you?

                        Quote: lonely
                        You can write anything. But not everyone is destined to think about the consequences !!

                        So think about your own words, of course your words are a trifle, but this trifle is a piggy bank of the West.
                      2. alone
                        alone 31 January 2014 23: 34
                        -2
                        Quote: Setrac
                        I do not ask who Russia considers Azerbaijan, a question for you personally, on whose side are you?


                        I am on the side of Azerbaijan.

                        Quote: Setrac
                        and you here about some losses from contracts bleat.

                        ...........................deleted by moderator Apollo (I warned about expressions!)
                      3. Setrac
                        Setrac 1 February 2014 15: 25
                        0
                        Quote: lonely
                        I am on the side of Azerbaijan.

                        Cheap excuses, do not evade, say as a man. Which side are you on?
                        In the coming redivision of the world, Azerbaijan WILL NOT BE an independent force, but will join some of the top countries. For some reason, I’m sure that Azerbaijan will be on the side of Russia, like Armenia, and make peace, there’s no getting anywhere.
                        The question is how do you see Azerbaijan’s place in the future world, on the side of Russia, or on the side of the USA, or maybe China?
                      4. alone
                        alone 2 February 2014 00: 20
                        0
                        I do not evade. I don’t intend to fight for you against America or against China. I also do not intend to fight for the United States and China against you. In general, I think fighting for someone’s interests is a senseless undertaking. I will fight for my country, I took the oath of allegiance for my country. I don’t intend to be a mercenary for both of them.
                        Azerbaijan’s place is uniquely secured by a signature in the Non-Aligned Movement. And I can definitely tell you only one thing. Through Azerbaijan, the enemies of Russia will not attack Russia. We won’t give them a bridgehead.
                        Quote: Setrac
                        In the coming redivision of the world, Azerbaijan WILL NOT BE an independent force, but will join some of the top countries. For some reason, I’m sure that Azerbaijan will be on the side of Russia, like Armenia, and make peace, there’s no getting anywhere.

                        I can’t say anything about the Armenian account. The conflict with them does not allow me to say anything about it. Only someone who is the direct inspirer of the redistribution can be sure of anything. Unfortunately or to joy, you are to people like me, don't relate. so your confidence is just a guess.
                      5. Setrac
                        Setrac 2 February 2014 14: 07
                        0
                        Quote: lonely
                        I do not evade. I do not intend to fight for you against America or against China.

                        And you fight for yourself. And then your "pride" allows you to trade oil under the protection of Russian nuclear missiles. This is the problem of the entire former USSR and the socialist countries - you think that the fight of Russia against the United States and the end company is not YOUR fight, but you are mistaken, or maybe you are just a coward.
                        Quote: lonely
                        Azerbaijan’s place is uniquely secured by a signature in the non-aligned movement.

                        Azerbaijan is not so strong that country leaders respect its signature in the agreement.
                        Quote: lonely
                        And I can definitely tell you only one thing - Through Azerbaijan, the enemies of Russia will not attack Russia. We won’t give them a bridgehead.

                        According to the principle "from a thin sheep, even a tuft of wool."
                      6. alone
                        alone 3 February 2014 00: 36
                        +1
                        Quote: Setrac
                        Azerbaijan is not so strong that country leaders respect its signature in the agreement.


                        Countries are leaders)) I have enough words from the GDP itself. "It's time to accept Azerbaijan as it is and build relations based on this fact!" Do you know more than GDP? Or do you consider yourself smarter than your president? By the way, our countries are the only countries in the CIS, which do not have any debts with each other. Everything is decided according to the principle "Money in the morning, chairs in the evening."

                        And you fight for yourself. And then your "pride" allows you to trade oil under the protection of Russian nuclear missiles. This is the problem of the entire former USSR and the socialist countries - you think that the fight of Russia against the United States and the end company is not YOUR fight, but you are mistaken, or maybe you are just a coward.


                        The struggle for supremacy over the world is not my struggle. By embarking on such a struggle, you are on a par with the Americans. And if you want to confront the Americans in this struggle, reduce the tone of the talk about forcibly joining other republics in your ranks, then I’ll think about helping you in this struggle or not. And yet, like you and your kind, you can’t get used to the idea that without a Russia a small country can sell oil and gas and defend its interests. Yes, it’s hard to get used to it, but you will have to.
                        In 1993, we already offered your drunk EBN at half the oil. he refused a hangover. We are not to blame for that, EBN did not want to deal with us. The train left, and left through the fault of your inadequacies.

                        According to the principle "from a thin sheep even a tuft of wool"


                        It’s all the same better than laughing at your face, and plotting behind your back. And from a military-operational point of view, it’s even very good. It frees the whole army from unnecessary expectations that suddenly the enemy will come to us from here. But, unfortunately, even after that , instead of at least thanks for that, I got boorish rudeness in response !!
                        a conversation with such a rude and a boor, I consider it a useless affair. The conversation is over. You are free, like a bird in flight, like a fly in a helicopter !!
            2. Cetegg
              Cetegg 1 February 2014 05: 48
              0
              With such "friends" as Azerbaijan, there is no need for enemies! The Khojaly massacre in which 100-115 Azerbaijanis were killed and about 8 hundred were arrested, the day of the genocide and a national holiday! And the fact that in the course of 90-91 years on the territory of YOUR republic were killed about 35-36 thousand peaceful Russian-speaking population, I'm not talking about the Armenians, you somehow so modestly forget!
            3. alone
              alone 1 February 2014 11: 58
              +1
              Here on the site there are Russians who were born and raised in Azerbaijan. Ask them. Can you provide facts about the murder of 36 thousand Russian-speaking population? What nonsense are you writing here? I forget that, what was missing. Russian by the way then live.
              In the Khojaly massacre in one night, 613 people were killed, thousands wounded and taken hostage, 250 are still missing. Mostly these people were civilians. The day of genocide cannot be a holiday. You are inadequate, illogical, and still are a liar and a provocateur.
            4. Cetegg
              Cetegg 1 February 2014 15: 29
              -1
              Facts ?!) open an internet browser and enter in the search 2 queries "Khojaly massacre" and "genocide in Azerbaijan", and then read on ... PS I can add links with data here too! do I need it ?!) PPS about the holiday, I just put it wrong, the day of YOUR national mourning.
            5. alone
              alone 2 February 2014 00: 35
              -1
              Quote: Cetegg
              Facts ?!) open an internet browser and enter in the search 2 queries "Khojaly massacre" and "genocide in Azerbaijan", and then read on ... PS I can add links with data here too! do I need it ?!) PPS about the holiday, I just put it wrong, the day of YOUR national mourning.


              Well, I read everything you said. Half of the resources are Armenian, in the other half there is someone with a "characteristic" Russian surname, Alexander Safarov! belay talks about the horrors of the Russian genocide))) and the rest of the witnesses are designated as the so-called, ai, bv. I tell you again, there are Russian people on the site who lived in Azerbaijan and, by the will of fate, left the republic for various reasons. I can name nicknames (Very Old, Hedgehog). Ask them all. Get comprehensive information.
              P.S. In 1988-1991, rumors persisted in Azerbaijan that thousands of Azerbaijanis were killed in the Soviet Army. There were people who described the horrors in the military with a foam at the mouth and began to stutter during a detailed survey. Now, I’m obligated Speaking of facts, I mean the facts of the investigative bodies of the USSR and Russia. it cannot be that people were killed, but there are no facts in the prosecutor's office of the USSR and Russia.
            6. Cetegg
              Cetegg 2 February 2014 02: 15
              0
              and many official investigations have been carried out regarding the death of the Russian-speaking population in chiasr ?! Or are all the articles about the genocide of Russians in Chechnya also the intrigues of Armenians and Safarov?) I had a colleague to whom the good uncles of the ayzer with akshkas came home and "very expensively" "for good" offered to buy their apartment in the center of Baku. the man was worthy and there was no point in lying to him! and this is not an isolated case!
            7. alone
              alone 2 February 2014 12: 50
              -1
              Quote: Cetegg
              and a lot of official investigations were carried out about the death of the Russian-speaking population in Chiasser ?!

              CHIASSR, what is the territory of Azerbaijan? In what year did uncles with akshki lead your friend and offered him to sell an apartment?)) I can also quote from my friends how they cut into Azerbaijanis, say in Belgorod. FACTS IN A STUDIO! Documentary. Here are not small children sit. FACTS. I am not interested in your arguments ONE GRANDMA SAID. I have such a feeling that I am dealing with a schoolboy who knows very little history, geography and other sciences.
            8. Cetegg
              Cetegg 2 February 2014 15: 24
              -1
              I’m talking about Thomas, you’re talking about Yerema!) I cited the Checheno-Soviet Socialist Republic as an example of the fact that during the period of the collapse of the USSR, there were really no cases or investigations started! I can provide data on how Azerbaijanis slaughtered Russians in the territory of the Russian Federation, however you watch TV anyway, you saw it yourself. I also did not see the facts and evidence from you that refute me, except for your personal conclusions and emotions that are to blame for everything: Armenians, Safarov and my school age) PS I have the feeling that I am dealing with a school student who is not only a bad student, but also poorly raised! I am taking my leave for the sim, I see no reason to continue the dialogue!
            9. alone
              alone 2 February 2014 15: 53
              -2
              Of course, I’m telling you about the documentary facts that you must provide in order to substantiate the accusation of the 36 thousand Russians who were stabbed to death in Azerbaijan. But you don’t have any facts and can’t have them. Only fantasies and conjectures, stories of some pseudo-acquaintances and dubious sites that are already clear to whom they belong.
              Quote: Cetegg
              I also did not see the facts and evidence from you refuting me, except for your personal conclusions and emotions that are to blame for everything: Armenians, Safarov and my school age)

              Are you alright? You accuse us of the murder of 36 thousand Russians and demand that I refute the facts)) that you should have exposed facts where it was clearly and black and white that these people were killed. Moreover, they were killed only because they were Russians.

              Want some advice. Sometimes Snack. It helps.
            10. Cetegg
              Cetegg 2 February 2014 16: 10
              -1
              I personally do not accuse you of anything! I don't drink alcohol at all! I no longer intend to argue with you, for the simple reason that it is useless, you attribute any of my arguments to the category of fertilizers, and your words (not confirmed) should be regarded by me as a revelation from above! Best wishes to you! Want advice. when "FSUs" smoke, eat later, and better not smoke at all! it helps too!
            11. alone
              alone 2 February 2014 16: 52
              +1
              But all the same, the facts were not foreseeable anymore. Balabolstvo is a tool of the trolls!)) And about it, leave it to yourself. I do not smoke at all.
            12. Cetegg
              Cetegg 2 February 2014 16: 59
              -1
              they were just not all you were satisfied with! There is such a proverb "At least a piss in his eyes, but he is everything, God's dew!"))) PS balabolism is a tool of trolls!
            13. alone
              alone 2 February 2014 17: 03
              -1
              I repeat the Armenian sites and links for facts I do not think, as well as forum conversations.

              There is an archive of the Prosecutor's Office. Real cases. You are talking about 36000 dead. Present 20 criminal cases and sentences, I will consider this a fact. Just do not try to put the facts of murders committed by Azerbaijanis in Russia here. It does not roll.
              we are talking about the beginning of the 0s.
  2. smersh70
    smersh70 2 February 2014 00: 46
    0
    Quote: Cetegg
    israelis
    learn to write correctly, I probably went to school.
    Quote: Cetegg
    And the fact that in the course of 90-91 in the territory of YOUR republic about 35-36 thousand civilians were killed

    why don’t you smoke winked don't want or ended belay
    Quote: Cetegg
    about 8 hundred are arrested,
    how can women and children living in their home be arrested. What are you, comrade, about the cold outside, get out, ventilate .....
  3. Cetegg
    Cetegg 2 February 2014 02: 08
    0
    My dear, you walked over the campaign and froze your head ?!) ask uv. Mr. Lonely, how many were reportedly arrested!)
  4. Cetegg
    Cetegg 2 February 2014 03: 10
    0
    SW.smersh70, you either cite facts as Mr. Lonely, or sprout our cute debate and save me from reading your not very intelligible comments, which, apart from a grin, do not cause another reaction) all the best)))
  5. smersh70
    smersh70 2 February 2014 03: 26
    -1
    Quote: Cetegg
    SW.smersh70, you either cite facts as Mr. Lonely,

    Yes, he already answered you, and besides, after reading your comments it immediately becomes clear that you do not own either the chronology or the history of the conflict. And read Wikipedia less at night. It hurts your health hi
  6. smersh70
    smersh70 2 February 2014 03: 23
    -1
    Quote: Cetegg
    how many were reportedly arrested!)
    they don’t arrest in war, they take prisoner in war
  7. Cetegg
    Cetegg 2 February 2014 15: 12
    0
    Quote: smersh70
    Quote: Cetegg
    how many were reportedly arrested!)
    they don’t arrest in war, they take prisoner in war

    That is, in your opinion, it turns out that Azerbaijan was at war with the Soviet Union ?!))) To understand you become harder and harder!) Skip our argument with the Lonely, go in peace! you carry such nonsense that it’s not a desire to answer him!
  8. smersh70
    smersh70 2 February 2014 16: 51
    -1
    Quote: Cetegg
    was Azerbaijan at war with the Soviet Union?

    I'm talking about Khojaly, dear,
  9. alone
    alone 2 February 2014 16: 53
    0
    Quote: Cetegg
    That is, in your opinion, it turns out that Azerbaijan was at war with the Soviet Union ?!)))


    In the endorsement of the Khojaly events, in 1992, the USSR was no longer there.
  • smersh70
    smersh70 2 February 2014 00: 50
    +2
    Quote: Setrac
    let us (Russians) support the unilateral initiative of Armenia to disarm the Azerbaijani army? This has already happened and therefore you do not like Russia?
    I’d get into an argument with you, but cigarettes end up on the street half a meter of snow, reluctance to follow them ... bully .
  • I do not care
    I do not care 31 January 2014 19: 26
    0
    papakino laughing what if the communists win there?
    1. Firstvanguard
      Firstvanguard 31 January 2014 19: 46
      +1
      What should they point out, in the world there are several states actually occupied by the USA. Where is the certainty that at Amer’s bases, well, let's say in japania netuti core component?
  • Basarev
    Basarev 31 January 2014 20: 42
    +1
    Only thermobaric dialogue is possible with this flock. Personally, I prefer to see the American only in the crosshairs of the sight and nothing else.
  • Geisenberg
    Geisenberg 31 January 2014 22: 35
    0
    Quote: me by
    I am for 100 percent rejection of nuclear weapons. US unilaterally laughing


    Yes, let it be. Let them keep it - they cannot use it all the same, but they spend money. That’s the trick of this weapon is that after the first shot, a guaranteed cabin is attacked. So all this talk about reduction is a joke about how a scorpion swam across the river on the back of a rat.
  • StolzSS
    StolzSS 1 February 2014 08: 41
    0
    Well, after they give up nuclear weapons in a one-way manner, we will also reduce our nuclear weapons to 500 pieces hehe hehe and aim them at Brussels as a breeding ground for terrorists hi
  • vlad0
    vlad0 31 January 2014 18: 25
    +8
    Why is everyone trying to disarm Russia? And they politely "forget" about Britov, France, God forbid touching Israel, India, Pakistan, and, of course, China, whose numbers of nuclear warheads are growing exponentially. And the number of carriers in the United States is much higher than ours.
    And if they are not going to attack us, then who cares if we have 10 BGs, or 5000. Well, if there are "views" on us ...
    No, "drag liberals"! Our triad is the best defense against your democracy !!!
    1. Ingvar 72
      Ingvar 72 31 January 2014 18: 30
      +5
      Quote: vlad0
      Why is everyone trying to disarm Russia?

      Well, imagine a common chamber where all the inhabitants are trying to convince the newcomer that it’s not Honduras once. Their actions have a certain meaning. laughing
    2. Heccrbq.3
      Heccrbq.3 31 January 2014 18: 44
      .
      There is essentially no triad, only a few submarines (the locals will name the exact number), strategic bombers? Don’t tell me, they’re all under round-the-clock surveillance from space in the first place. Mine remains. Well, patriots shout good cheers. (Your beloved subversive sawed BZHRK, the only which scared the United States.) A dozen SS-20 will be able to intercept, not to mention poplars with their flat trajectory.
      1. old rocket man
        old rocket man 31 January 2014 19: 17
        +7
        Quote: Heccrbq.3
        A dozen SS-20s will be able to intercept, not to mention poplars with their flat trajectory.


        Well, firstly, the SS-20 is far from a dozen, but the relatively "flat" trajectory of the Topol is just more difficult to intercept hi
        1. ty60
          ty60 31 January 2014 22: 40
          0
          Opinions coincide
      2. I do not care
        I do not care 31 January 2014 19: 30
        -1
        let's count-3 submarines -12 missiles-14 warheads in each- mocked?
        1. igor36
          igor36 31 January 2014 20: 45
          +5
          in service 7 RPKSN project 667. Each of 16 missiles carrying from 3 to 10 warheads. This amount is enough to translate the USA + NATO + China into the Stone Age. Now you can laugh.
      3. INTER
        INTER 31 January 2014 21: 14
        +1
        Quote: Heccrbq.3
        There is essentially no triad, only a few submarines (the locals will name the exact number), strategic bombers? Don’t tell me, they’re all under round-the-clock surveillance from space in the first place. Mine remains. Well, patriots shout good cheers. (Your beloved subversive sawed BZHRK, the only which scared the United States.) A dozen SS-20 will be able to intercept, not to mention poplars with their flat trajectory.

        So why then the same illustrious star-striped didn’t catch a submarine of a pike project that had been photographing US attractions for a month
        1. Boa kaa
          Boa kaa 31 January 2014 22: 50
          +1
          Quote: INTER
          So why then the same illustrious star-striped didn’t catch a submarine of a pike project that had been photographing US attractions for a month

          Probably because she was with the CBRC, able to comb the Atlantic coast of 3,14ndosia.
      4. avg
        avg 31 January 2014 22: 11
        +2
        Quote: Heccrbq.3
        There is essentially no triad, only a few submarines (the locals will name the exact number), strategic bombers? Don’t tell me, they’re all under round-the-clock surveillance from space in the first place. Mine remains. Well, patriots shout good cheers. (Your beloved subversive sawed BZHRK, the only which scared the United States.) A dozen SS-20 will be able to intercept, not to mention poplars with their flat trajectory.


        From the fable "Pike and the Cat" by I. A. Krylov
        Moral fable:
        The trouble is, if the cobbler starts the cakes,
        And the boots stitch the pastry,
        And things won’t work out.
        Yes, and a hundredfold
        What who loves to take someone else’s craft,
        He forever others stubborn and foolish:
        It’s better to ruin everything,
        And glad soon
        The laughing stock of becoming light
        Than honest and knowledgeable people
        Ask il for advice.

        In the army they say easier - keep silent, you will marry a smart one.
      5. Boa kaa
        Boa kaa 31 January 2014 22: 46
        +1
        Quote: Heccrbq.3
        submarines a few units (

        Quote: me by
        let's count-

        Давай! пр.941УМ-1(20х6)=120;
        пр.667БДР-4(16х3)=192;
        пр.667БДРМ-6(16х4)=384;
        пр.955 -2(16х6)= 192.
        Total: 13 carriers, 68 PU SLBMs, 888 (!) Battle blocks.
        Guaranteed overcoming a system built on the basis of interceptors such as THAAD and SM-3 ... can be achieved by attacking combat units of 900 units, installed on no more than 400-500 carriers, even if they are likely to be intercepted by 0,9.

        Well how? Is the All-Polymer, impressive?
        If not, then wait a couple of years, when "Boreyev" will become more or less, the Strategic Missile Forces will be delivered to the "Sarmat" base, the BZHRK will pull up from the "siding."
  • konvalval
    konvalval 31 January 2014 18: 39
    +4
    Nuclear disarmament is a beautiful, kind fairy tale. No one in the near future will go for it. Around the world, the degree of aggressiveness is growing, many countries only dream of getting nuclear weapons. Terrorism is growing, terrorists dream of low-power nuclear weapons. So, the only way out is to build up your nuclear potential.
    1. I do not care
      I do not care 31 January 2014 19: 32
      +1
      do not increase, improve
      1. Basarev
        Basarev 31 January 2014 20: 45
        +1
        It is also necessary to increase. The more atom we have, the safer in the world.
  • Arh
    Arh 31 January 2014 18: 47
    +1
    Someday the WORLD will be without nuclear weapons! ! ! )))
    1. Bosk
      Bosk 31 January 2014 18: 50
      +4
      But while the WORLD exists thanks to nuclear weapons and unfortunately I must admit that thanks to it, this WORLD can cease to exist. Here is a controversial situation is drawn.
      1. Arh
        Arh 31 January 2014 19: 49
        -1
        Hee, you can not write to me how it exists and what you do not care for me! I for Peace will be without nuclear weapons! ! ! )))
        1. Bosk
          Bosk 1 February 2014 02: 14
          0
          Quote: Arh
          Hee, you can not write to me how it exists and what you do not care for me! I for Peace will be without nuclear weapons! ! ! )))

          Dear .. but somehow it’s impossible to be coarser ?, but somehow the flight of the mind is not felt ...
      2. ty60
        ty60 31 January 2014 22: 41
        0
        Unity of Opposites
    2. I do not care
      I do not care 31 January 2014 19: 33
      +1
      laughing yeah, like napalm -1 glass on 200 sq kilometers
    3. Firstvanguard
      Firstvanguard 31 January 2014 19: 51
      +4
      Someday the WORLD will be without nuclear weapons! ! ! )))

      It will be, when gamma laser rifles, spatial destructors and emitters of antimatter will be adopted. Who the fuck will need this nuclear junk wassat
      1. Arh
        Arh 31 January 2014 20: 08
        0
        Then ush will be PEACE! ! ! )))
      2. ty60
        ty60 31 January 2014 22: 43
        0
        my friend, you are not the son of Strugatsky?
        1. Arh
          Arh 31 January 2014 22: 54
          -1
          How much in this sound: "my friend"! ! ! )))
        2. Firstvanguard
          Firstvanguard 1 February 2014 00: 19
          0
          I consider such an assumption for a compliment, but alas, I am not related to the talented science fiction brothers the Strugatsky brothers request
  • Cetegg
    Cetegg 31 January 2014 18: 50
    0
    The biggest mistake was that they cut the BZHRK, it was very difficult to track them! and all sorts of mines and poplars look very beautiful from satellites!) Urgently saturate the troops cc and return to the composition of the Ministry of Defense with new technologies!
    1. Trofimov Andrey
      Trofimov Andrey 31 January 2014 19: 09
      +2
      On the Peregrine Falcons!
    2. niki233
      niki233 31 January 2014 19: 30
      -1
      I wonder who you minus winked
    3. old rocket man
      old rocket man 31 January 2014 19: 35
      +7
      Quote: Cetegg
      and all sorts of mines and poplars look very beautiful from satellites!



      If you do not understand the concept of combat use of the Strategic Missile Forces, it is better not to write any nonsense.
      Firstly, the launch of the first stage of ICBMs occurs immediately after the discovery of mass launches of the enemy.
      Secondly, for the guaranteed destruction of the ICBM mine, 2-3 warheads are required, and this is not a renewable ammunition.
      Thirdly, the speed of the march of the "Topol", which you do not like so much, allows them to leave the area of ​​detection during the flight time of American missiles, and a bullet across the squares will not be enough not only for ICBMs, but even for "Tomahawks"
      1. Cetegg
        Cetegg 31 January 2014 22: 00
        -1
        Well, in your "expert" opinion, which is better than poplar or BZHRK ?!)
    4. I do not care
      I do not care 31 January 2014 19: 38
      +3
      it’s almost impossible to break through a mine even with a direct hit of a head with nuclear weapons — anyone in
      will support
      1. ty60
        ty60 31 January 2014 22: 45
        -1
        38 km to the nearest mine
      2. Boa kaa
        Boa kaa 31 January 2014 23: 06
        +2
        Quote: me by
        it’s almost impossible to break through a mine even by directly hitting a head with nuclear weapons

        "Blessed is he who believes, for their kingdom is the Lord's ..."(C)
        Volodya, do you have any idea the size of the crater from an underground (buried) nuclear explosion of a nuclear warhead with a capacity of 50-150 Kt with a "direct hit?"
        Quote: me by
        who in the subject support

        The video does not cling, otherwise they would just watch - and immediately would be "in the subject."
        1. Rus2012
          Rus2012 1 February 2014 00: 09
          +1
          Quote: Boa constrictor KAA
          Volodya, do you have any idea the size of the crater from an underground (buried) nuclear explosion of a nuclear warhead with a capacity of 50-150 Kt with a "direct hit?"

          ... so I don't want to rummage around and pull out the calculations of the respected Ascetic about the underground nuclear explosive, but approximately from memory - the YAGC cannot penetrate especially deeply, because it will have time to self-destruct before detonation. But the so-called. "Penetrating" BBs - as a rule, they can deepen up to 40-50 meters of unreinforced soil, while they represent something monolithic-armor-piercing solid, such as tungsten arrows ...
          Underground nuclear explosions are done by pre-drilling wells and laying charges.
          Nevertheless, the direct hit of modern warheads with ground detonation, a miss radius of less than 50 meters, is guaranteed to disable mine complexes ...
          BUT ... proceed from the fact that by this moment the mine should already be empty ...
      3. Cetegg
        Cetegg 1 February 2014 05: 32
        0
        complete nonsense!) my friend must afford what an explosion is 100-150 kilotons!) What a second hit is needed ?!) and the nonsense about the fact that poplar leaves its 50 km per hour from the affected area some 475-500 kiloton warheads I don’t even comment I want!) secrecy, this is one of the most important criteria for nuclear weapons, it was not for nothing that the United States insisted that we should cut all the BZHRK in the first place! PS about the fact that poplars and mines should already be shooting, no need to trend, we already overslept at the beginning of the war once in 41!) I do not say poplars are rubbish. you just need to focus on subtle carriers, which are BZHRK, PLRB and others like them!
  • polkovnik manuch
    polkovnik manuch 31 January 2014 18: 54
    +2
    "You can't understand Russia with your mind, you can't measure it with a common yardstick, it’s special to become, you can only believe in Russia!" Gentlemen Geyropeytsy and Uncle SAM like them - stop shitting, calm down, we, as before, are for world peace, but we are not going to hand over the armored train for scrap.
  • delfinN
    delfinN 31 January 2014 19: 01
    +7
    The author should re-read Otto von Bismarck:
    Bismarck, as well as Churchill, is credited with the famous saying: Russians harness for a long time, but go quickly

    Never plot against Russia, for it will respond to any of your tricks with its unpredictable stupidity.

    Do not hope that once using the weakness of Russia, you will receive dividends forever. Russians always come for their money. And when they come - do not rely on the Jesuit agreements that you have signed, supposedly justifying you. They are not worth the paper on which they are written. Therefore, it is worth playing with the Russians honestly, or not at all.

    Even the most favorable outcome of the war will never lead to the decomposition of the main power of Russia, which is based on millions of Russians themselves ... These latter, even if they are dismembered by international treatises, are just as quickly reconnected with each other as particles of a cut piece of mercury. This is an indestructible state of the Russian nation, strong in its climate, its spaces and limited needs.

    Never believe Russian, for Russians do not even believe in themselves (It is said before the beginning of the Berlin Congress of 1878).

    Preventive war against Russia - suicide due to fear of death.
    Russia is dangerous by the meagerness of its needs.
    Exact quote: Wer einen Pr ventivkrieg gegen das riesige Zarenreich vom Zaun breche, begehe, mokierte er sich, nur zu leicht Selbstmord aus Furcht vor dem Tod .
    Rough translation: One who unleashes a preventive war against the vast Tsarist Empire puts himself in an awkward position, as he chooses the simplest method of `` suicide before the fear of death. ''
  • Power
    Power 31 January 2014 19: 04
    -5
    Thanks to the efforts of the Chubais and Comrades, practically nothing remained of the military-industrial complex. There are no design bureaus, pilot plants, no entire industries. There is no cadre of engineers, workers, machine tools. Thanks to the efforts of the Prokhorovs, there are no more strategic materials.
    How many maces do we do? 15 years old and she never learned how to fly properly. And not only the Mace.
    1. SRC P-15
      SRC P-15 31 January 2014 19: 35
      +6
      Quote: Strength
      How many maces do we do? 15 years old and she never learned how to fly properly. And not only the Mace.

      Or maybe she is taught to fly, just, not how it should, but how not? (In the sense that the more unpredictable the better)
    2. Lyokhin63
      Lyokhin63 31 January 2014 21: 00
      +4
      Quote: Strength
      Through the efforts of "Chubais and Comrades"

      Quote: Strength
      no, some strategic materials.

      That is yes. This side I agree with you.
      The other side
      Quote: Strength
      How many maces do we do? 15 years old and she never learned how to fly properly.

      Quote: Strength
      there is practically nothing left of the military-industrial complex.

      Learn and bring to the serial, do not tssyte. And from the military-industrial complex not only remained, but continues. Here are young smart guys, techies and by nature and by education. And around "Bulava" anyway too. No matter what. There are such "rams" who want to realize themselves not by the amount of personal dough, but by the benefits of society. Minus you for pessimism.
  • siberalt
    siberalt 31 January 2014 19: 21
    +7
    Medved helped to zero out Libya. Became a "handshake". With Serdyukov
    would have nullified South Ossetia, but they didn’t. I would also reset the nuclear weapons, re-elect him for a second term. Nuclear weapons are an impressive and integral part of Russian sovereignty. On that stand.
    1. Boa kaa
      Boa kaa 31 January 2014 23: 35
      +2
      Quote: siberalt
      it is an impressive and integral part of Russian sovereignty.

      Oleg, for your position set +! But, nuclear weapons is a means of maintaining the state sovereignty of Russia.
      “The sovereignty of Russia is expressed in the sphere of exclusive rights (prerogatives) assigned to it by the Constitution of the Russian Federation. These include: recognition of the supremacy of federal law over the law of subjects of the Federation (unity of legal space); the inviolability of the borders of the Russian Federation and its territorial integrity; unity of economic space, fiscal, banking and monetary systems; the presence of a single Armed Forces; the right of the state to protect its sovereignty and rights of citizens, including the right to defense, the conduct of hostilities, the imposition of a state of emergency; the right to protect national interests and the interests of citizens outside (international politics and related foreign economic and foreign policy activities); recognition of the state monopoly on the management of the most important sectors of the national economy, on the main strategic natural resources, production and goods "(Explanatory Dictionary).
  • The comment was deleted.
  • shelva
    shelva 31 January 2014 19: 43
    +1
    It is not necessary to equalize with the Americans alone, with all NATO countries, because - one gang. As long as there is a backlog in alternative types of weapons, we can’t give up nuclear weapons. Let the mattresses themselves zero out.
    1. PPL
      PPL 1 February 2014 01: 37
      0
      ... because - one gang.
      Experience shows that negotiating with America is more expensive. America, like a card cheater - every time strives to change the rules of the game. If they don’t want to love us, then they’d better be afraid! angry
    2. PPL
      PPL 1 February 2014 01: 37
      0
      ... because - one gang.
      Experience shows that negotiating with America is more expensive. America, like a card cheater - every time strives to change the rules of the game. If they don’t want to love us, then they’d better be afraid! angry
  • igor-pchelkin
    igor-pchelkin 31 January 2014 19: 46
    +4
    Let the SNF be. But they did not save the USSR. Physical weapons have been replaced by information weapons that do not destroy material objects. They hit our minds. And very successful.
    1. Boa kaa
      Boa kaa 31 January 2014 23: 38
      +1
      Quote: igor-pchelkin
      Let the SNF be. But they did not save the USSR.

      But Yuserov and his comrades were saved from direct intervention and invasion. I hope this will continue to be so.
  • vo.dum
    vo.dum 31 January 2014 19: 48
    +3
    For Russia, nuclear weapons are the cheapest and least expensive weapons if we want to be reckoned with us ... is a guarantee ... but we need to create weapons on other physical principles so as not to lag behind ... Therefore, so far only the improvement and increase of the existing power ...
  • SkiF_RnD
    SkiF_RnD 31 January 2014 20: 13
    +1
    The USA is an empire at risk of losing its leading position in the world. Moreover, it is this "empire" that has the most powerful armed forces. There is nothing more dangerous than taking advice from the Yankees now. All that is necessary is to politely respond to all new provocations, trade in hydrocarbons and rearm. ICBMs, MRBMs, KRs, nuclear submarines, and everything else that we need. The main thing is not to be led by provocations. The national question, Ukraine, dependence on raw materials, corruption, and so on, and so on - all these are red rags for the "all-propals". The main thing now is not to forget who wishes us harm more than anyone else, who is our enemy. Do not leave problems for later, but do not put the cart in front of the horse. The main thing today (and always) is the strength and independence of Russia.
  • xomaNN
    xomaNN 31 January 2014 20: 23
    +3
    The fact that the leadership of the Russian Federation correctly understands the alignment of forces, where a militarily powerful nuclear Russia will not allow the "pseudo-partners of the West" to dictate conditions, is clearly seen on the example of Ukraine. All petty Europeans, even worthless Lithuania (!), Allow themselves not only to give us ultimatums, but even come to Kiev with an inspection. Check how they are obeyed lol
    1. ty60
      ty60 31 January 2014 22: 51
      0
      Offer them in the form of ss20 lick
  • Power
    Power 31 January 2014 20: 40
    +1
    How is an optimist different from a pessimist? The second knows more. We spent twenty years working as a hobbyist, now we have to work. It is difficult and no one will give Russia much time. Judging by the behavior of the government, everyone there is tailored for "personal enrichment." Is she a country? And this is not their country for a long time, this is their feeder.
    1. Bosk
      Bosk 31 January 2014 21: 23
      +2
      Then I must disagree, the pessimist believes that everything wakes up badly, and the optimist believes that it wakes up even worse!
      1. Setrac
        Setrac 31 January 2014 22: 06
        +2
        Quote: Bosk
        Then I must disagree, the pessimist believes that everything wakes up badly, and the optimist believes that it wakes up even worse!

        In original:
        pessimists believe that everything can be bad and worse, but optimists I know - maybe.
  • The comment was deleted.
  • stayer
    stayer 31 January 2014 21: 09
    +1
    I read the article. I think the American traders can count their money. They seem to be about to expire almost 80% of nuclear weapons. Replacement, and even more new, will fly a pretty penny. They’re probably looking for ways, they say the Russians will remove their nuclear weapons and we will throw out the junk, and the newest ultraprecise systems, fleet, aviation and powerful missile defense will remain. Well it is, thoughts aloud.

    But it’s not clear why the Americans consider their (and our) strengths only in mutual confrontation? Why do not take into account other countries, such as China or other owners of nuclear weapons? After all, Russia (and them too) can be struck from other countries. How to sober violent heads in these countries?
  • old rocket man
    old rocket man 31 January 2014 21: 50
    0
    Quote: stayer
    But it’s not clear why the Americans consider their (and our) strengths only in mutual confrontation?


    You see, their problems are of little interest to them, so their initiatives should be "purple" for us.
    And as for the upgrade of nuclear weapons, you’re right, not only expensive, they still don’t have time in time, you need to build new reactors additionally, and this is even cheaper, but money is not enough.
  • Al_lexx
    Al_lexx 31 January 2014 21: 56
    0
    IMHO, key phrase:
    The ideas of nuclear zero resonate with a certain part of society, which does not particularly burden itself with an analysis of the consequences of such a military-political decision.
  • DPN
    DPN 31 January 2014 22: 27
    +1
    Until more powerful weapons appear, there can be no talk of any nuclear disarmament. It’s just soothing talk for the nations.
  • tellurium
    tellurium 31 January 2014 23: 12
    +1
    And I would just revive the production of RS-20. 300 pieces we will make and 50 years of peaceful life, at least, we will provide. There is an information war, so let's call this rocket "Voevoda" or "Black Lightning", and Satan is the United States.
    1. Power
      Power 31 January 2014 23: 31
      0
      Eurasia is not here. Let's call it "Shaitan-kirdyk" In the sense of "kirdyk" to America
    2. Boa kaa
      Boa kaa 31 January 2014 23: 51
      +3
      Quote: tellurium
      And I would just revive the production of the PC-20

      The train left ... together with the military-industrial complex of Ukraine and other republics of the Union. (In total, more than 650 industrial enterprises of the Union were involved in the cooperation). The rocket is good, but heavy. Therefore, "Sarmat" will be 2 times lighter (about 100 tons), on the basis of Russian components and components, while maintaining the performance characteristics of the R36M2.
  • Valdik
    Valdik 31 January 2014 23: 12
    +1
    Everyone already understands that our army only holds onto a nuclear shield. And then, the shield is old, Soviet ...
  • luka095
    luka095 31 January 2014 23: 30
    +1
    Article "plus". In today's world, strategic stability is impossible without Russia's modern strategic nuclear forces. As for V. Dvorkin, he essentially became a conductor of the American point of view after retiring from the post of head of the 4th Central Research Institute of the Ministry of Defense and treatment in the United States. Articles by a retired expert general on topics related to strategic nuclear forces are constantly being published and practically lobby for the American approach.
  • pvv113
    pvv113 1 February 2014 00: 22
    +7
    Quote: siberalt
    Medved helped to zero out Libya. Became a "handshake". With Serdyukov
    would have nullified South Ossetia, but they didn’t. I would also reset the nuclear weapons, re-elect him for a second term. Nuclear weapons are an impressive and integral part of Russian sovereignty. On that stand.
    Before him, Gorbaty and Yeltsin tried, thanks for not having time. Strengthening strategic nuclear forces in all areas of the nuclear triad is a guarantee of our peace of mind and a restraining force for the carriers of the pin dosov shit democracy.
    1. PPL
      PPL 1 February 2014 01: 44
      0
      Then start the countdown from Brezhnev.
      Negotiations between the USSR and the USA in order to limit nuclear stockpiles began in 1969 in Helsinki. As a result, two agreements were signed: OSV-I (1972) and OSV-II (1979)
    2. PPL
      PPL 1 February 2014 01: 44
      0
      Then start the countdown from Brezhnev.
      Negotiations between the USSR and the USA in order to limit nuclear stockpiles began in 1969 in Helsinki. As a result, two agreements were signed: OSV-I (1972) and OSV-II (1979)
  • Volkhov
    Volkhov 1 February 2014 00: 41
    0
    Most comment on strategic missiles, but they are now confused and seem not to be dangerous, but the Americans will reactivate the Davy Croquet from warehouses - this is a nuclear recoil-free 2 kT with a firing range of 2 ... 3 km and in a jeep - there are no wizards from space will have time ...
    Correct Ukrainians decided to stop crime with "Bumblebees" ... http://news.rambler.ru/23397704/ ... so far they are lagging behind America, but the metropolis can help.
  • Boa kaa
    Boa kaa 1 February 2014 00: 45
    +3
    “As of January 2012 of the year in the strategic nuclear forces of the Russian Federation was 467 strategic carriers capable of carrying 2530 nuclear charges (warheads). The USA had 2012 carriers and 932 warheads in January 5113, which is approximately 2 times more than in Russia ”
    An interesting picture is obtained: The Russians, who have been fighting for nuclear disarmament all their life, refuse to reduce their nuclear weapons! Our enemies will play this, spinning the next round of psychological warfare. And what is the matter? USERS need to enter the framework of the START-2 treaty, reduce their strategic nuclear forces by 50%, and on the contrary, increase them! So let them fulfill the previously adopted agreements! This is in 1's.
    W-2's, In addition to the USA and the Russian Federation, there are countries such as the PRC, Great Britain, France, India, Pakistan, the DPRK (Israel by default) and a dozen more potential owners of nuclear weapons. Where is the guarantee that for the sake of any ambitions, China will not want to expand its “living space” at the expense of its northern neighbor? We don’t have a “rubber bomb” yet; only WMD or weapons based on new physical principles can stop the hordes of tangerines. At the same time, attempts to create a counterbalance to China in the person of India run into a rapprochement between the PRC and Pakkistan, its worst enemy. The Europeans themselves will not fight, but if the "Big Bad Boom" happens, then they will be on the side of the Yankees. The Atlantic Charter of Article 5 obliges.
    B-3-them, The Russian Federation (the fifth economy of the world) is not the USSR (the second economy is 85% of the US economy!), So we can not do anything serious in the economic confrontation with the West. We cut off energy - we get embaro, and Qatar or the SA will happily take our place. And in the absence of nuclear weapons, we will not be able to do anything to them, even to threaten real punishment.
    B-4's, The Middle East died down for a while, until Iran entered the nuclear club in a clear order, like Pakistan and the DPRK. Israel understands all the detriment to itself of this step. Therefore, she will not look at it calmly, which means war! Without possession of nuclear weapons, we will not be able to say our significant word here, to defend our nat. interests. And so you can list for a long time.
    One thing is clear: it is too early to give up the big stick for a number of reasons. We will have an annihilation weapon - we will abandon the anachronism of nuclear weapons. Until then, it's too early! This is understood by all sane people, with the exception of the "liberals" - the sent Cossacks who work out the YuSerov grants. IMHO.
    1. Alex Danilov
      Alex Danilov 1 February 2014 07: 02
      +2
      Early? Yes, you should never give up nuclear weapons at all! Moreover, to find and make weapons millions of times stronger than yao. Only a sucker, du cancer and a complete nerd will disarm, surrender weapons, an army and put his head to the clipping. Down.
  • valokordin
    valokordin 1 February 2014 01: 33
    +2
    Talking about nuclear disarmament in relation to Russia is fundamentally harmful. Without nuclear weapons, we are not able to ensure our security. NF must constantly improve and accumulate to the necessary limits. All who talk about disarmament in Russia are its enemies as such, as are the liberals bought by the Americans.
    1. Alex Danilov
      Alex Danilov 1 February 2014 07: 04
      0
      And so it is.
  • Alex Danilov
    Alex Danilov 1 February 2014 07: 00
    0
    No one will ever give up any weapon. The arms race has always been, is and will be. What is disarmament? Why are you bleached too much? This will never happen. Or will they again have you for suckers when, under Gorbachev and Yeltsin, they disarmed almost the whole of Russia. No, how can such suckers be ??
    1. Boa kaa
      Boa kaa 1 February 2014 12: 15
      +1
      Quote: Alex Danilov
      The arms race has always been, is and will be. What is disarmament? Why are you bleached too much? This will never happen.

      These questions worried thinkers of all time. When K. Marx was asked the question: When will the wars end? - He answered: 1. When communism triumphs on earth, wars will become meaningless; 2. When the power and destructive power of weapons will threaten the existence of mankind itself.
      Well, apparently the first one we will not see soon, and our grandchildren are unlikely to see it, but humanity has come close to the second point.
      Following the 2-th law of dialectics (struggle and unity of opposites), nuclear weapons in a strange way carries the functions of a) destroying all life during its use and b) maintaining peace (a state of non-war) on Earth due to fear of its mass use (nuclear winter).
      There is much talk now about anti-matter, dark matter, and other breakthrough discoveries in science. Science fiction talk about creating an annihilation bomb, splitting dark matter, capable of turning the planet into a black hole or an explosion in excess of a new one. This is where there will be real horrors and zero chances for the survival of all of humanity as a species of intelligent creatures. It remains to rely on a higher mind: human and universal! Otherwise, for sure - krants.