Military Review

"Pure" thermonuclear weapons: myth or reality?

70

Thermonuclear weapon a new generation can dramatically reduce the threshold of applicability of nuclear weapons and upset the current strategic balance


In July, the Israeli army used the so-called anti-bunker bombs during operations against militants of the Lebanese Hezbollah movement. At the same time, traces of enriched uranium were found in soil samples taken from bomb craters. At the same time, it was found that the radioactive decay of fission fragments was not accompanied by gamma radiation and the formation of the cesium isotope 2006, and the level of radiation, high inside the craters, at a distance of several meters from them was reduced by about half.

The possibility is not excluded that in South Lebanon Israel used nuclear weapons (NW) of a new generation. It could be delivered to Israel from the United States specifically for its testing in combat conditions. Experts also suggest that such weapons have already been used in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The absence of explosion products with a long period of disintegration, as well as an insignificant radioactive contamination of the area, suggest that so-called “clean” thermonuclear ammunition could be used in southern Lebanon.

It is known that the existing thermonuclear charges do not provide a noticeable localization (both in time and in area) of the scale of radioactive contamination of the environment, since the work of their secondary site is initiated by the fission reaction of heavy nuclei, the result of which is the long-term radioactive contamination of the area.

Until now, it was the latter circumstance that guaranteed a high threshold for the use of any types of current nuclear weapons, including small and ultra-low-power nuclear weapons. Now, if the results of independent examinations correspond to reality, we can speak about the emergence of new thermonuclear ammunition, the presence of which in service sharply reduces the psychological threshold of applicability of nuclear weapons.

At the same time, “pure” thermonuclear ammunition does not currently fall under the restrictions of any of the existing international treaties and formally, under the conditions of its use, are at the same level as conventional high-precision weapons (WTO), significantly exceeding the latter in destructive power.

Among specialists, there is not yet a single point of view on how far the United States and other leading foreign countries have progressed in the process of developing "pure" thermonuclear ammunition.

Meanwhile, indirect evidence that in the conditions of strict secrecy work on their creation is already underway in the United States, are the results of practical activities of the current US administration to reform its strategic offensive forces (SNS).

The plans to create a new generation of thermonuclear ammunition are also evidenced by the efforts being made by the UK to change the existing structure of their strategic nuclear forces (SNF) and to deploy a new research infrastructure to study the problems of thermonuclear fusion.

The American leadership was the first among the leading foreign countries to realize that both the current “dirty” strategic nuclear weapons and the conventional WTO, which was much talked about during the discussions about the need to move to the concept of “non-nuclear deterrence” as soon as possible, do not allow imposed on strategic forces.

First of all, this concerns the guaranteed destruction of strategic highly protected and deeply deeper targets (FARC) of the enemy, as well as the neutralization of the chemical and biological components of weapons of mass destruction (WMD).

New American Nuclear Strategy

An analysis of the new nuclear strategy adopted in 2002 of the USA shows that the “clean” thermonuclear weapon plays the role of the cornerstone of the promising American strategic triad.

"Pure" thermonuclear weapons: myth or reality?
It also fits very clearly into the concept of "preventive" nuclear strikes, recently adopted by the United States, in accordance with which the US military received the right to use nuclear weapons even in peacetime.

The main provisions of the new US nuclear strategy are set out in the Nuclear Posture Review; hereinafter referred to as the “Review ...” for short, presented to the US Congress 2002 in January.

In this concept paper, the need to develop and adopt a new generation of nuclear weapons is justified as follows.

"... A modern nuclear arsenal, still reflecting the needs of the cold war period, is characterized by low firing accuracy, limited re-targeting capabilities, high power of nuclear warhead charging devices, mine-based, ground-based and sea-based ballistic missiles with individual targeting, low-level ability to hit buried goals, "therefore" ... a nuclear strategy based solely on the capabilities of strategic offensive nuclear forces cannot s deterrence of potential enemies, which the United States will face in the XXI century. "

Further, in the "Review ..." the basic requirements for nuclear weapons of a new generation are formulated: "... giving modern nuclear forces new capabilities should ensure: defeat of threatening objects, such as highly protected and buried targets, carriers of chemical and biological weapons; detection and destruction of mobile and mobile targets; improving the accuracy of fire; limiting collateral damage in the use of nuclear weapons. "

The "Review ..." also states that "the provision of such capabilities through intensive research and development and the deployment of new weapon systems is an imperative requirement when creating a new triad."

As can be seen, in the presented concept of the development of US nuclear forces, one of the key requirements for new types of nuclear weapons is the limitation of collateral damage in their application.

Since the fusion reaction in "pure" thermonuclear munitions must be initiated by an energy source, an alternative to fission reactions, the key point of their development is the replacement of the existing atomic "fuse" with a powerful and compact "detonator".

At the same time, the latter should have energy sufficient to initiate a fusion reaction, and in terms of its weight and size characteristics “fit” into the head parts of the existing delivery systems.

It can be expected that the main damaging factors of the new nuclear weapons will be instantaneous gamma-neutron radiation, a shock wave, and also light radiation. In this case, penetrating radiation, which is a consequence of the radioactive decay of fission fragments, will be relatively insignificant.

Some experts believe that, first of all, new thermonuclear weapons will be used to equip high-precision guided missiles and bombs. Moreover, its capacity can be varied from units to hundreds or more tons of TNT equivalent.

This will allow the use of "clean" thermonuclear weapons to selectively destroy enemy targets located both in open areas (including mobile ballistic missile systems) and airborne defense centers without fear of long-term radioactive contamination of the ground.

In connection with the absence of radioactive fallout, land units will be able to operate in the territory subjected to nuclear weapons strikes, according to estimates, already in 48 hours.

When new types of ammunition are used to destroy the VZSZTS, including the storage of nuclear, chemical and biological weapons, neutron and gamma radiation, arising directly at the time of the explosion, will be almost completely absorbed by the layers of soil adjacent to the explosion site.

According to expert estimates, for the destruction of meters at a depth of more than 300 meters, the RFZZZ will need to create thermonuclear ammunition with a capacity of the order of 100 CT or more.

According to American experts, the use of "clean" thermonuclear ammunition as combat parts of antimissiles (PRM) should also significantly increase the effectiveness of the national missile defense system being created.

It is expected that such munitions will have sufficiently large destructive capabilities to guarantee neutralization of enemy ballistic missile warheads equipped with WMD. At the same time, undermining the CW PR over its territory, even at low altitude, will not lead to a significant radioactive contamination of the environment.

The new structure of the American strategic forces

Let us now consider in more detail those changes that should occur directly in the structure of the American SNA.

Currently, the US SNA triad consists of intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs), nuclear ballistic missile submarines (SSBNs) and strategic bomber aircraft aviation (SBA), which are armed with about 6000 "dirty" nuclear warheads (YBZ).

The new American nuclear strategy involves the creation of a qualitatively different strategic triad instead, which will include:
  • nuclear and non-nuclear strategic offensive weapons;
  • active and passive strategic defensive weapons;
  • updated military, research and industrial infrastructure.

The listed components of the new triad must be integrated into a single whole by an improved system of communications, control, intelligence and adaptive planning.

The first (shock) component of the new strategic triad, in turn, will consist of two small triads: the triad of forces of "global strikes" and the old triad of reduced number of SNA.

Global strike forces are planned to be deployed on the basis of SBA aircraft (including part of the current aviation component of the US SNA), multi-purpose nuclear submarines (APL) and surface ship carriers of sea-based cruise missiles (SLCMs), as well as parts of the ICBM and SLBMs from the SNA.

It is expected that in the arsenal of the "global strike" forces the WTO will consist of both conventional and nuclear ("pure" nuclear weapons) equipment.

The existing triad of the SNA under the Treaty on the Reduction of Strategic Offensive Potentials will undergo a radical reduction. By 2012, 17002200 operational deployed nuclear warheads will be on its armament. The remaining YABZ will be transferred to active or passive reserve.

The operational management of both of the shock components of the new strategic triad is currently entrusted to the United Strategic Command (USC) of the US Armed Forces.

Based on the tasks assigned to USC USCF and the United Command (US) forces of the US Armed Forces in the forward zones, it can be assumed that the forces of "global strikes" will be used for operational pre-emptive strikes against strategic enemy targets at any point on the globe, as well as for combat operations in regional conflicts.

The nuclear forces of the old triad of the SNS, in service of which the existing types of strategic nuclear weapons will remain, will continue to fulfill the tasks of strategic nuclear deterrence. In the event of a radical change in the military-political situation, they will be used to inflict "anti-force" or "anti-value" nuclear-missile strikes on the most important strategic targets of the enemy, which primarily considers Russia and China.

The second component of the US strategic triad will also consist of two components: shock (active) forces intended for operational destruction of enemy missile systems in their positional areas, as well as missile defense forces to intercept launched ballistic missiles and their warheads (passive forces).

In 2003, the United States denounced the Treaty on the Limitation of Anti-Ballistic Missile Systems. This circumstance allows them to proceed to the unlimited development, testing and deployment of anti-missile systems of any class with the placement of their components both in the United States and abroad.

The new thermonuclear munition fits well into the plans for the creation of the third component of the American strategic triad, the renewed defense infrastructure.

According to the plans of the American leadership, it is called upon to promptly carry out the development, testing, production and adoption of promising offensive and defensive systems, including nuclear ones, in response to any emerging threats.

At present, a powerful testing base has been deployed in the USA to study the problem of thermonuclear fusion in three different directions. There is no doubt that this base will be used not only in the interests of the industrial development of thermonuclear energy, but also for the creation of new thermonuclear charges.

So, in the Livermore Laboratory. Lawrence (California) to simulate nuclear tests created the world's most powerful laser thermonuclear facility (LTU) NIF (National Ignition Facility), capable of realizing the temperatures and pressures observed in nature only in the center of stars. The total cost of the installation is estimated to be 2008 3,3 billion.

For the same purpose, the Los Alamos National Laboratory (NewMexico) and the Air Force Research Laboratory (Kirtland Air Force Base) use the Magnetized Target Fusion (MTF) unit.

In order to study the physical processes with high energy density in the national laboratory "Sandia" (Albuquerque) a powerful generator of electrical impulses, the so-called "Zmachine", is being upgraded.

Creating new types of nuclear weapons is impossible without nuclear testing. For this reason, the Bushamordi administration refused to re-nominate the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty to the US Senate for ratification.

Thus, being outside the legal field of this treaty, the United States has provided itself with the opportunity to implement any nuclear testing program at any time convenient for itself.

In parallel with the conduct of scientific research, the United States is actively pursuing measures to reduce from 36 to 12 months the readiness of the test site in Nevada to resume underground nuclear explosions.

Preventive Nuclear Strike Strategy

In 2005, the United States made important changes to its use of nuclear weapons strategy.

In accordance with the concept of "preventive strikes," better known as the "Bush Doctrine," the US armed forces received the right to deliver preventive nuclear strikes to countries in peacetime that could threaten the national security of the United States or its allies.

It should be particularly emphasized that this doctrine also provides for the possibility of returning to the US Navy (primarily to surface combat ships and submarines) the carriers of tactical nuclear weapons shot in 1991.

It should be added that in the United States, the deployment of a strategic Ohio-class attack system based on nuclear submarines (SSGNs) equipped with Block IV Tomahawk cruise missiles, which are the best means of delivery to the targets of the new nuclear facility, is almost complete.

According to its tactical and technical characteristics, the Slave-to-Militar-Smelter "Tomahawk" Block IV is the most advanced cruise missile of this class. The maximum range of its flight now is 2800 km. The rocket is capable of patrolling around the target for 2 hours for its search or supplementary exploration. By equipping the SLCM with a satellite communication channel, it is also possible to retarget the rocket in flight.

Up to each of the Ohrio-type SSGNs up to 154 SLCMs can be placed on each.

In 2006, the United Kingdom (following the United States) began a cardinal review of its nuclear deterrence doctrine.

At present, the UK's strategic nuclear forces are made up of four Vanguard submarines, each of which is equipped with 16 ballistic Trident 2 missiles with split warheads. The current nuclear forces of Great Britain seem to be an outdated model of confronting modern nuclear threats and more in keeping with the realities of the Cold War than today. An alternative to the existing Vanguard system will be a weapons system deployed on the basis of submarines equipped with nuclear cruise missiles. It is emphasized that in the interests of complying with the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, warheads for cruise missiles must be developed by the UK independently, and not obtained from the United States.

The UK has already started refitting its multi-purpose submarines into carriers of the Tomahawk SLCM Block IV modified.

The submarine "Trafalgar" was the first boat in the British Navy, capable of launching data missiles. On the boat were installed the latest fire control system SLCM "Tomahawk" (TTWCS), developed by the American company "LockheedMartin", and two-way satellite communication system TSN (Tomahawk Strike Network), designed to retarget the SLCM of this modification in flight.

The presented version of the development of the strategic nuclear forces of the UK is not something new. Back in the middle of 1970x. The British Department of Defense has been studying the issue of adopting US Tomahawk-type SLCMs with nuclear equipment into their armaments. However, in 1979, for a number of reasons, the British government rejected this option in favor of the current Vangard-type SSBNs with the Trident2 SLBMs.

In parallel with the development of the nuclear doctrine of nuclear deterrence in the UK, a number of nuclear infrastructure development programs are underway, which may be required to create nuclear weapons designed to equip the new component of the British strategic nuclear forces.

At the same time, the United Kingdom (like the United States) is concentrating its efforts on creating a test base aimed at studying the problem of thermonuclear fusion. In this regard, it is expected that after the United States "clean" thermonuclear ammunition will appear soon in service with the updated British SNFs.

In the summer of 2005, at a meeting of the ad hoc committee on defense of the House of Commons of the British Parliament, it was announced that the research center for the development of nuclear weapons in the UK would be expanded. In the city of Aldermaston (Berkshire), construction of a LUT worth about one billion pounds sterling has begun and an additional job application has been announced for this center for 2008 of more than 1 thousand specialists.

According to the press, after the launch of the new LTU Orion, it should ensure the reconstruction of the physical processes occurring in the nuclear reaction conditions. Without going beyond the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty, to which the United Kingdom is a party, the LUT will also be used to test elements of the nuclear weaponized missile complexes being developed.

Thus, it can be assumed that in the near future, the UK will focus on creating a new strategic nuclear "dyad", which will consist of four VANGARD-type SSBNs with the Trident 2 SLBMs and several Trafalgar-type SSGNs equipped with Tomahawk SLCMs. with "clean" thermonuclear ammunition.

SSGNs of the Vanguard type will be in service with the updated British SNF, at least until 20202025, when the life span of the Trident2 ballistic missiles expires.

It is estimated that the UK could spend around 20 billion pounds on the creation of a new strategic "dyad".

In conclusion, one should pay attention to one important circumstance. In the case of the successful development of nuclear weapons of a new generation, the United States and the United Kingdom acquire significant military-technical superiority in the field of strategic weapons. The current "dirty" strategic nuclear weapons, by and large, becomes unnecessary for them.

In this regard, it is necessary to be prepared for the fact that the United States and Great Britain, relying on the thesis about the threat of world civilization from the side of "dirty" nuclear weapons, can take the initiative to ban it all. At the same time, only “pure” thermonuclear weapons, in which ~ 99% energy should be released in fusion reactions, will have to remain in service with nuclear countries.

It is clear that thermonuclear ammunition, which is now the basis of the strategic weapons of the nuclear powers, will not meet such high requirements.

Thus, using controlled international organizations, the United States and the United Kingdom can put a kind of scientific and technological barrier before the other members of the nuclear club. It may be, for example, international obligations on the development and adoption for service of exclusively thermonuclear warheads with fragmentation activity of less than one percent.

This will require from the other nuclear states the urgent creation of a powerful research, production and test base, huge financial and time costs.

At the same time, the existing military-technical groundwork in the field of "clean" thermonuclear weapons will allow the United States and Great Britain to acquire unilateral military-political advantages for quite a long time.

Thus:

  1. The United States and the United Kingdom are actively developing a new generation of nuclear weapons, the use of which allows for the limitation of collateral damage. In this regard, they have begun a fundamental reform of the structure and composition of their strategic nuclear forces, as well as the forms and methods of combat use of these forces.
  2. New nuclear weapons are outside the legal framework of all existing international treaties related to the development, testing, proliferation or use of nuclear weapons.
  3. The adoption of a new generation of nuclear weapons can significantly reduce the threshold for the use of nuclear weapons and virtually level the difference between them and the general-purpose WTO in terms of combat use.
  4. The Russian Federation urgently needs to take adequate measures to strengthen its domestic deterrent potential.


A source:
Information and analytical publication "Aerospace Defense", article "Clean" thermonuclear weapons: myth or reality? ". Published with the permission of the publisher.
Author: Alexander Kotomin, Colonel, Doctor of Technical Sciences, Senior Researcher, Deputy Head of the Department of the 2 Central Research Institute of the Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation
Valery Kretinin, State Prize Laureate of the Russian Federation, Honored Scientist of the Russian Federation, Doctor of Technical Sciences, Professor, full member of the Academy of Military Sciences, Leading Researcher at the 2 Central Research Institute of the Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation
Andrei Shushkov, lieutenant colonel, head of the laboratory of the 2 Central Research Institute of the Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation
Alexander KOTOMIN Colonel, Doctor of Technical Sciences, Senior Researcher, Deputy Head of the 2 Central Research Institute of the Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation Valery KRETININ State Prize Laureate of the Russian Federation, Honored Scientist of the Russian Federation, Doctor of Technical Sciences, Professor, full member of the Academy of Military Sciences, Leading Researcher of 2- Andrei SHUSHKOV Central Research Institute of the Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation Lieutenant Colonel, Head of the Laboratory of the 2 Central Research Institute of the Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation.
Originator:
http://army.lv
70 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. My address
    My address 29 June 2013 08: 22 New
    13
    The first paragraphs of the article are just fiction. As in a densely populated area, apply, although relatively weak, but a nuclear charge without significant consequences, incl. informational? Equ. with a capacity of several tons, it immediately attracts attention; in hundreds of kg it does not make sense.
    How to understand "instantaneous gamma neutron radiation" and at the same time "insignificant penetrating radiation"?
    There are other inconsistencies in the article. And that all serious nuclear states are looking for new means of war, so it is clear.
    1. Lee
      Lee 29 June 2013 16: 54 New
      +5
      It can be expected that the main damaging factors of the new nuclear weapons will be instantaneous gamma-neutron radiation, a shock wave, and also light radiation. In this case, penetrating radiation, which is a consequence of the radioactive decay of fission fragments, will be relatively insignificant.

      This is generally a masterpiece!
      1. cdrt
        cdrt 30 July 2013 17: 32 New
        0
        + 100500.
        Given these two mutually contradictory sentences (the penetrating radiation itself is caused by gamma and neutron flux), we can conclude that the author is an ignoramus who has picked up clever words but does not understand their meaning.
        DTN, professor, etc. - I do not believe.
        Even to me - not working as a physicist, this nonsense caught my eye.
    2. Ev58
      Ev58 6 September 2013 09: 34 New
      0
      I agree with your assessment. If the transients of the nuclear weapons, measured by ns, are not considered "instantaneous", then what are considered "long" or "not instantaneous"? The processes taking place at the time of any nuclear warhead, the main temporal characteristics and their dependence on the conditions of the application environment and the distance to the epicenter are quite well described in numerous scientific and technical publications available to a wide range of readers interested in problems. What is "minor" penetrating radiation? There are qualitative characteristics of power, particle flux density, etc. parameters characterizing a specific nuclear warhead of a particular warhead. In addition, and for no one it is a secret that the activation of materials containing a significant proportion of elements with a long half-life may become dominant after the use of nuclear weapons. Well, and (naturally) there can be no talk of any "humanity" in the use of nuclear weapons. We can speak of an increased yield of one or another component of the nuclear explosive.
  2. atalef
    atalef 29 June 2013 09: 30 New
    +4
    The article is simply nothing, a set of incomprehensible conclusions and conclusions. Without indicating in general what it is such a clean (and thermonuclear) weapon. On what principles it is built, it is indicated that it will be enriched uranium, but the products of a nuclear explosion (and even a thermonuclear one) will find far not only uranium, where lithium, zirconium, cesium, plutonium (because thermonuclear weapons are at least compact in this case) and without plutonium can not be made) these materials have a half-life of thousands of years and completely “burn” without traces of them they couldn’t. Even give further conclusions about the article — it was invented, facts sucked out of the finger, painted for the author’s sake and with a claim to sensation (judging by the title and first paragraph), minus article, the author should at least slightly turn on his head and filter what he read
  3. report4
    report4 29 June 2013 10: 01 New
    +8
    Again reprint of the April Fools' Day article from PopMech)? Remember when the "analytical resources" made a fuss from boobies about the "nuclear bullets"? Until now, reprints of that song appear on topsvar (PopMekh in the next issue wrote that the article is a duck) although that article was published back in 2004 ';)
    This is the same song .. pseudoscientific nonsense mixed with "type facts" and laid out as analytics. It is necessary to ban such authors, to permanently ban.
  4. mogus
    mogus 29 June 2013 10: 34 New
    +3
    well, that where they fought with amer’s weapons with depleted uranium, they announce an environmental disaster, this is understandable
    http://www.usinfo.ru/uran.htm
    http://nuclearno.ru/text.asp?9378
    http://www.km.ru/v-mire/2011/11/23/mirovaya-ekspansiya-ssha/bednuyu-liviyu-dobyu
    t-obednennym-uranom and beyond.
    But pure nuclear weapons ... nonsense
    1. Tektor
      Tektor 29 June 2013 12: 20 New
      +2
      "But pure nuclear weapons ... nonsense“Well, you know: there are two to not know your own story. Back in Brezhnev’s time, options were proposed for laying channels using“ clean ”nuclear charges with a decay fraction of transuranic components of less than 1%. Now, less than 40 years have passed since these technologies passed away ocean..
      1. mogus
        mogus 29 June 2013 14: 36 New
        +2
        not so easy
        http://konspektiruem.ru/news/Nauka-blizka-k-sozdaniju-novogo-tipa-ehkologicheski
        -chistyh-jadernyh-reakcii /
        http://world-pulse.ru/archives/194
  5. bootlegger
    bootlegger 29 June 2013 11: 53 New
    +1
    Everything is of course very interesting, but the meaning of this weapon is obvious again only in wars against the weakly armed Papuans, so that then the landing could freely capture the positions processed by this nuclear weapons.
    I strongly doubt that this weapon is cheaper than traditional nuclear weapons and I’m even sure of the opposite. What practical effect will it have in military operations against countries possessing nuclear weapons?
    As a preemptive nuclear strike weapon, it makes no sense.
    Is there really a naive hope that against the country that used such clean weapons there will be no conventional nuclear weapons used in response?
    To think so is how to disinfect a bayonet with alcohol before an attack and hope that the enemy, not having time to do the same, is embarrassed to stab you with his dirty bayonet laughing
    1. Letterksi
      Letterksi 29 June 2013 12: 58 New
      +1
      Everything is much simpler. For example, they fucked Russia with "clean" tomahawks. Our first takes a nuclear case and puts a finger to the big red button and ... remembers! Pancake! daughter went on an internship in the states! and the Fed central computer with my state dollar account will suffer ... dyke I’d better express the “big concern” to the states about their use of nuclear weapons against us than THIS RISK!
      1. bootlegger
        bootlegger 29 June 2013 15: 08 New
        +2
        Not a serious scenario. In the current situation, there are no daughters of a "godfather" there and is not foreseen. Even I would have been smart enough not to be delivered like that.
        And dollars! Why cling to them? Today it’s still like money, and tomorrow it’s almost paper. If he has something, then he’s surely in more reliable assets.
        What the Fed won’t know about anyone there, they will print a couple of trillion more foolishly and the whole pyramid will fall.
        China has never had iron eggs. Always a wallet was more important than politics. They scare them and the dump will go. The East is delicate, but where it is thin it breaks. And three trillion foreign exchange reserves are no joke ...
        So far, examples have shown the opposite. The United States is afraid even to stand up for its allies. They are used to living well and are afraid to risk their skins ...
        1. Mih1974
          Mih1974 26 March 2018 10: 03 New
          0
          I support, two examples - Turkey and now Naglia. If the Turks had already begun to line up completely "in line with Allah," our Dark Lord only postponed it for his guided reasons. That Naglia barking at Russia something slipping in her "it is almost a war", it was immediately "dying" from NATO - "the girls themselves, themselves." good tongue Simply put - in a couple of years it became clear that NATO is the "duty" of NATA to fight on the side of the United States and spend money on American weapons, but the USA does not owe anything to NATA. good
      2. Ivan Mechanic
        Ivan Mechanic 29 June 2013 22: 52 New
        +2
        No, it’s still much easier - a daughter in Russia, there’s no dollar bill in the United States. Let me crack the fat-assed men in full so that they would not further ruin the life of normal people ;-)
      3. alicante11
        alicante11 30 June 2013 06: 08 New
        +1
        "your", judging by the flag - is it Amer? If so, then everything is written correctly :).
    2. Nitup
      Nitup 29 June 2013 19: 19 New
      +4
      At the end of 2012, the Pentagon held a computer game, the results of which showed that as a result of an attack on a "large and highly developed country" using 3500-4000 precision weapons, its infrastructure will be almost completely destroyed within 6 hours and the state will lose its ability to resist. Obviously, if such a blow is inflicted on Russia, then the strategic aggressor’s forces will become the main goals of the aggressor. According to existing estimates in the United States, as a result of such an attack, 80-90% of our nuclear potential can be destroyed. At the same time, civilian casualties will be minimal. Western experts believe that although Russia still has the opportunity to retaliate against the aggressor, the military-political leadership of our country is unlikely to do this: after all, with the remaining funds, which, in turn, will be attempted by the global missile defense, we will not be able to cause unacceptable damage to the enemy, but in the event of a retaliatory nuclear strike we will suffer enormous losses. It is worth adding that in the unanimous opinion of Western experts, such an attack will be accompanied by a powerful outreach effect on the population of the victim country.

      This is not what I came up with. This is an excerpt from a speech by Dmitry Rogozin at yesterday's conference. And in such a scenario, pure nuclear weapons will by no means be amiss for Americans.
      1. bootlegger
        bootlegger 29 June 2013 21: 18 New
        +2
        Rogozin hawk MIC of the Russian Federation.
        And hawks always aggravated the situation in order to increase funding. This is his job. What did you expect from him?
        What he will say - "all calmly comrades." You can drive round dances and wait for the new year laughing
        1. Nitup
          Nitup 29 June 2013 21: 28 New
          0
          And Putin is also a defense industry hawk? He said the same thing recently
          1. bootlegger
            bootlegger 29 June 2013 23: 58 New
            0
            Well, maybe not just the military-industrial complex, but the hawk.
            He says everything correctly, but do not forget one thing. The USSR did not collapse due to a lack of weapons.
            We need a balance. Now we won’t surpass America, but we can tear ourselves up.
            1. Nitup
              Nitup 30 June 2013 00: 19 New
              +1
              Quote: bootlegger
              Well, maybe not just the military-industrial complex, but the hawk.
              He says everything correctly, but do not forget one thing. The USSR did not collapse due to a lack of weapons.
              We need a balance. Now we won’t surpass America, but we can tear ourselves up.

              The USSR collapsed due to the fact that it was consciously destroyed by Gorbachev with his team, and not because of an overabundance of weapons. Nobody sets the task to surpass America, but we must protect ourselves. These are serious things, not jokes. We cannot but respond to this. Otherwise it will be too late.
              1. bootlegger
                bootlegger 30 June 2013 10: 53 New
                -3
                Well, you just don’t tell me how this happened. I was 26 years old in 1991.
                Gorbachev was just a booby stupid one who could not be set up to manage a collective farm. He wanted to do something, but he really did not know.
                Nabolbasit a critical amount of errors and got out Borya, who had to seize the main power, and then spit.
                But China lives well for itself, without nuclear parity, and no one is going to bomb it. Although it’s nuclear weapons, it’s quite possible to suppress the first blow.
                I am not against arms, I just do not see the advantages that pure nuclear weapons will give us. The traditional, in defense, is much more effective.
                1. Nitup
                  Nitup 30 June 2013 13: 31 New
                  -3
                  I was three years old in 1991, but that did not stop me from understanding that Gorbachev and the corrupt central committee had deliberately destroyed the USSR. And there is a lot of evidence for this. And you are just a victim of propaganda. I am truly sorry for you.
                  1. bootlegger
                    bootlegger 30 June 2013 15: 11 New
                    +1
                    What corrupt top then? You do not understand the realities of those years.
                    You didn’t see the USSR, but undertake to talk about it. You had to feel it from the inside, and films about it would not help. Your whole understanding of that situation is a projection of the opinions of other people.
                    Why would Gorbachev sell to someone if he already had everything?
                    He was a 1-2 person in the world with the prospect of this status for life. Would you change the place of the head of the world superpower to a stupid Nobel?
                    Sometimes it’s useful to think on your own, and not to repeat other people's nonsense.
                    1. Nitup
                      Nitup 30 June 2013 15: 33 New
                      -2
                      But I do not say that Gorbachev, being the head of the USSR, sold out. He originally came there to destroy the USSR. And the CIA and MI6 helped him a lot in this. Yes, even in America he was given a reward for his victory in the Cold War. And he celebrates his birthday in London. Do not be so naive, thinking that some kind of booby-harassment, as you write, became the head of a superpower, this is unrealistic.
                      1. bootlegger
                        bootlegger 30 June 2013 17: 26 New
                        -1
                        I do not even know what to say..
                        You at least look at his speeches on the Internet. He chatted to everyone then, it was not clear what he was carrying. He simply shocked the country with an abundance of information that had fallen down, because he was not understood right away.
                        You underestimate the special services of the USSR of those times. Then everyone was under their cap. The CIA and MI-6, even if they had recruited him earlier, how to blackmail the first person of the country with this?
                        How to set conditions for the head of a superpower? Blackmail does not make sense ..
                      2. Nitup
                        Nitup 30 June 2013 18: 21 New
                        +1
                        I do not know all the working methods of the special services. He could have been recruited while he was still working in Stavropol, for example, and helping him to climb the ranks. For example, when Gorbachev was elected to the post of Secretary General, one member of the Politburo - Shcherbitsky was detained under various pretexts in the United States, and Gorbachev's main rival, Romanov, was "forgotten" to vote when he was on vacation. As a result, Gorbachev won with a difference of one vote.
                      3. bootlegger
                        bootlegger 30 June 2013 19: 01 New
                        -1
                        Are you serious or what?
                        Then there were several groups in the Politburo. Each moved its candidate.
                        What does the USA have to do with it? The fact that you are somehow connected with the USA has completely discredited.
                      4. Nitup
                        Nitup 30 June 2013 19: 42 New
                        +2
                        Who is connected with the USA?
                      5. dustycat
                        dustycat 30 June 2013 20: 25 New
                        +1
                        It all started with Khrushchev.
                        He is the first Anglo-Saxon influence agent.
                        Everything else is just a successfully implemented project.
                      6. bootlegger
                        bootlegger 30 June 2013 20: 33 New
                        -1
                        How simple everything is with you! Don't feel like rushing to conclusions?
                        Did Nikita organize the Caribbean crisis under the influence of the West?
            2. cdrt
              cdrt 30 July 2013 17: 51 New
              +1
              But I do not say that Gorbachev, being the head of the USSR, sold out. He originally came there to destroy the USSR. And the CIA and MI6 helped him a lot in this.

              1. He did not come to power himself, but was raised, fostered and put forward by Andropov. In other words, the very system of political power in the USSR
              2. The CIA and MI6 - if they helped (which I seriously doubt), then this is their work, we are also a movement of peace activists, the IRA did not support out of harm.
              3. The insults of the interlocutor bring you to a level below him.
            3. Gorchilin
              Gorchilin 30 July 2013 18: 36 New
              -1
              Approaching the personality of Gorbachev, you need to understand that it is simple.

              The man was the head of a superpower, today advertises chips and bags. Swift career!

              Most likely, the fool was used blindly, whispering the will through close faces. Who it was, whether it was a wife or someone else, does not even matter.

              Gorbachev, because, being the head of a superpower, he couldn’t even steal a couple of factories from himself. What different Deripaska is better there is a mystery, he is so bad that he couldn’t steal normally.

              A clear story with 2 checks per 100 thousand dollars from the leader of South Korea. Shpana and shred.

              Well, the reasons for the appearance in the upper echelons of a leader with canary intellect are surely curious.
      2. cdrt
        cdrt 30 July 2013 17: 48 New
        0
        Gorbachev himself, even a booby, was elected by the Politburo, the center of the regime’s governance.
        In other words, the regime itself, the political system itself.
        Despite all his mistakes, the MSG was in power and the core of power - the CPSU, the KGB, the Moscow Region, the military-industrial complex supported him.
        So ... completely share responsibility for the results and the figures of MO, and the former. party bonuses and KGB matches.
        Actually, only the GKChP-you rose, and those under such slogans that neither the people, nor the army, nor the KGB followed them ...
        Well, and as usual, the most cunning won ...
    3. cdrt
      cdrt 30 July 2013 17: 44 New
      -1
      The USSR collapsed due to the fact that it was consciously destroyed by Gorbachev with his team

      The description of the event is not an explanation. This is just taftology.
      Like - what happened to the (drowned) boat. - She drowned.
  • KERGUDU BIMBAR
    KERGUDU BIMBAR 30 June 2013 18: 42 New
    +1
    MUCH MORE SUCH BIRDS OF RUSSIA!
  • uwzek
    uwzek 2 July 2013 18: 15 New
    +1
    You would start by saying what Ragozin said. Who is he? Minister without portfolio? Vice Prime Minister, I’m sorry. The official state hawk, the counterweight - they have been using such stupid people for a long time ... 80-90% of America’s potential can be destroyed by North Korea ...
  • Mih1974
    Mih1974 26 March 2018 10: 07 New
    0
    Actually, for "sowing" these in the United States, Putin showed a "doomsday torpedo. Well, according to the joke, the Generals in the USSR zatsatsili to take into service" out of inhumanity. "
    Do you want to laugh at all? The joke is that if you detonate such a (for example) 100 megaton bomb off the coast of the USA, the wave will not only wash the hell out of America, but they will go the other way and “bury” Naglia and part of the European Atlantic coast, which bully (fanfare) - the same is in NATO. tongue wassat
  • Dimka off
    Dimka off 29 June 2013 11: 56 New
    +3
    if such a weapon really exists, it will untie the hands of the Americans in many ways.
  • Letterksi
    Letterksi 29 June 2013 12: 43 New
    -5
    The initiation of thermonuclear fusion is now being carried out by undermining a nuclear charge, which leads to environmental pollution by decay products. If the nuclear charge is replaced by another device, which is compact and can develop the high temperatures needed to start thermonuclear fusion, then it is quite possible to obtain a “clean” thermonuclear weapon. This munition really can vary in power over a wide range, but nuclear is impossible. In addition, deuterium and tritium are relatively cheap relative to uranium.

    Fun times are coming!

    And Russia now cares more about APEC and Sochi14 than about nuclear parity
    1. abc_alex
      abc_alex 29 June 2013 16: 19 New
      +5
      And of course you know what this device is? :) :) :)

      Wow, do you mean laser initiation?
      1. Letterksi
        Letterksi 29 June 2013 21: 24 New
        +3
        Of course I don’t know. The article and the American doctrine suggest that someone already knows. Probably not for nothing that they have been conducting experiments on tokamaks and stellarators for forty years to initiate thermonuclear fusion and study the behavior of plasma. During this time, it might be possible to obtain such a device as a by-product of the study of thermonuclear energy. If this article is written, then it is probably not simple, and the authorship is credible
        1. abc_alex
          abc_alex 2 July 2013 10: 30 New
          +2
          No one knows yet. In the USA, they learned how to initiate thermonuclear fusion with the help of monstrous energy consumption. At the same time, the masses of the substance are insignificant there and the dimensions of the installation are such that there is no talk of any portable version, much less scalable in power.

          All modern accelerators, as a rule, have such energy consumption that any side effect received on them is of purely fundamental significance :)

          Even an international thermonuclear project even requires a nuclear reactor to operate.

          The physics of the process is such that the fusion requires huge energy inputs to initiate. Do not think that it’s not because of the malice of the designers that hydrogen bombs are equipped with a nuclear initializer.

          The article is like a horror story. Moreover, with the capacities of modern heavy ML ammunition ...
    2. Letterksi
      Letterksi 30 June 2013 15: 39 New
      +6
      Whoever got me so many downsides probably didn’t like physics at school or this subject has not even begun lol
  • Sukharev
    Sukharev 29 June 2013 19: 19 New
    +2
    Hmm. At first I tried to reflect on what was written. I re-read several times the same tests in the hope of understanding the logical calculations. Then I realized that you should not take this article so seriously. It's a pity. The topic is largely interesting. Whoever saddles the first peaceful and military thermonuclear fusion will receive a great advantage. As far as I know from the peaceful dermo-poison, the Chinese are now ahead of all.
    1. Letterksi
      Letterksi 29 June 2013 21: 29 New
      +2
      The ITER project is ahead of the peaceful dermine venom. China is also involved in it
  • Ataman
    Ataman 29 June 2013 19: 56 New
    +1
    I never understood if the "Bulava" gets a potential enemy directly from the pier, then why are they even loaded onto boats and rolled across the sea. Whether the case is the latest Russian X-102 missile with a nuclear warhead and a launch range of up to 5500 km. Submarine Ave. 855 "Ash" can take on board 32 pieces. At the same time, the displacement of Ashen is half that of Borea, and therefore higher secrecy. It is on the “Ash trees" starting from the second boat that all the best practices in the field of secrecy are realized and the most advanced Russian ASG is established. These boats should be strolling along enemy shores.
    1. Nitup
      Nitup 29 June 2013 20: 32 New
      +4
      Quote: Ataman
      I never understood if the "Bulava" gets a potential enemy directly from the pier, then why are they even loaded onto boats and rolled across the sea. Whether the case is the latest Russian X-102 missile with a nuclear warhead and a launch range of up to 5500 km. Submarine Ave. 855 "Ash" can take on board 32 pieces. At the same time, the displacement of Ashen is half that of Borea, and therefore higher secrecy. It is on the “Ash trees" starting from the second boat that all the best practices in the field of secrecy are realized and the most advanced Russian ASG is established. These boats should be strolling along enemy shores.

      The X-102 is still a subsonic missile and it is easier to intercept it than a Bulava warhead. And one Borea carries 16 Clubs with 96 individually guided warheads. And they are rolled across the sea to ensure stealth and uncertainty for the enemy and the inability to hit boats on the first strike.
      1. Ataman
        Ataman 29 June 2013 21: 02 New
        +1
        I think that at a price the cost of one Borea with 16 Maces is comparable to three Ashes. Total we have 96 and 96 warheads. The stealth and uncertainty for the adversary for the three Ashes is an order of magnitude higher than one of Borea. The lower subsonic speed of the X-102 is compensated by the disproportionately greater stealth of their launch, low altitude and stealth technologies.
        Total, for tracking 8 Boreev, you need 8 Virginia and 8 torpedoes to destroy. And for the Ashes ... And figs you will find them. The fact that the adversaries have learned to track our large SSBNs is judged by this wonderful article: www.murders.ru/Kyrs-ss-sk.html
        1. Nitup
          Nitup 29 June 2013 21: 43 New
          +1
          According to open data, Northwind is half the price of Ashen. Even with all missiles, it will not be more expensive than Ashen with all the weapons on board. Mace has a launch range of at least 8000 km, which means you don’t have to swim so close to the United States. And the Ash-trees are likely to be equipped with the X-101, and not the X-102, because we need missiles with the usual equipment.
          1. Ataman
            Ataman 29 June 2013 23: 16 New
            +3
            This is not the cost of Ashen twice as much, but the cost of R&D is the vast majority of the cost of the lead boat. And Borea has 9 billion rubles. demanded R&D and 14 billion rubles. the building itself. This is because the boat inherited almost the entire fore and aft parts from Project 971, and those that were already finished from unfinished boats.
            The fact that a modern boat for launching 36 ton rockets and twice as much displacement is cheaper in production than a system for launching 6 ton rockets will never believe. And if the cost is comparable, then one of the systems is junk.
            The distance between Moscow and New York is 7517 km. This means that the Bulava can be fired directly from the Moscow Institute of Heat Engineering.
            X-101 and X-102 are the same missile, only with a different warhead, it is still unknown what exactly they will equip. But do we need missiles with conventional nuclear equipment?
            1. Nitup
              Nitup 29 June 2013 23: 48 New
              0
              Well, where does the distance from Moscow to New York? The main advantage of the Premier League is stealth. and I know about the warheads, therefore, I wrote that the X-101s will have an ordinary warhead on the Ash-trees, because this is a non-strategic submarine.
              1. Ataman
                Ataman 30 June 2013 11: 55 New
                +1
                I will explain, where does the distance.
                The enemy is developing a FIRST strike weapon. The military and industrial complex of Russia is located inland. They will shoot from submarines from the Barents and Kara Seas. The required range of 2500 km. Nuclear potential will be destroyed by high-speed ICBMs. The remaining goals are Tomahawks. All Russian boats at the berths will be destroyed precisely by the first strike.
                Russia is developing a weapon of a retaliation strike. The military and industrial complex of the enemy is located along the west and east coasts. The required firing range is half that. X-102 range of 5000 km, generally covers the entire territory of the enemy when firing from the Pacific or Atlantic Ocean. There will be nowhere to deliver a lightning strike with the help of ICBMs on nuclear potential, enemy missiles will already fly away.
                Borea does not provide the main goal of creating such a weapon, namely secrecy (not only acoustic, but also magnetometric, radar, thermal, etc.).
                The mace has an excess range, because no one will let you shoot straight from the pier. Only the boats that are on combat duty and will not be detected by the enemy will be able to retaliate after the first strike. And this, unfortunately, will clearly not be Boreas.
                Thus, as a complete layman, I believe that small boats with real secured increased secrecy and armed with cruise missiles will be much more dangerous for the enemy than the mighty Borey.
                I draw your attention to the fact that the enemy is not yet capable of creating such an air defense that will close the northern direction from land-based ICBMs, and both coasts are very long from cruise missiles.
                1. Nitup
                  Nitup 30 June 2013 20: 12 New
                  -2
                  Quote: Ataman
                  Nuclear potential will be destroyed by high-speed ICBMs

                  It is unlikely that the United States will be the first to use ICBMs: the risk is too high to get an answer. Rather, the hypersonic high-precision cruise missiles that they are currently developing and testing, and the Tomahawks, as you said.
                  After that, Russia is unlikely to respond with the remaining ICBMs across the United States, some of which may be intercepted by the missile defense system being created. If we nevertheless launch the surviving ICBMs, the United States will already be able to deliver a massive nuclear strike with its strategic nuclear forces against Russia. It is unlikely that Russia will do this. Our strategic nuclear forces protect us from a nuclear strike on our country. Therefore, the Boreas are needed in order to hit in response primarily to cities, economic projects, etc. The area of ​​breeding of the militant blocks of the Mace is huge.
                  Quote: Ataman
                  Borea does not provide the main goal of creating such a weapon, namely secrecy (not only acoustic, but also magnetometric, radar, thermal, etc.).

                  Who told you all this? The main thing here is the noiselessness of the boat, not its size, because under water the radio waves do not spread, and it is impossible to detect the boat by radar. And as experts admit, the noise of Borea is at the level of the natural noise of the sea.
                  1. Ataman
                    Ataman 1 July 2013 10: 33 New
                    +3
                    Quote: Nitup
                    It is unlikely that the United States will be the first to use ICBMs: the risk is too high to get an answer. Rather, the hypersonic high-precision cruise missiles that they are currently developing and testing, and the Tomahawks, as you said.
                    After that, Russia is unlikely to respond with the remaining ICBMs across the United States, some of which may be intercepted by the missile defense system being created. If we nevertheless launch the surviving ICBMs, the United States will already be able to deliver a massive nuclear strike with its strategic nuclear forces against Russia. It is unlikely that Russia will do this.

                    According to the new military doctrine, Russia will deliver a nuclear strike in response to any massive attack.
                    Quote: Nitup
                    And as experts admit, the noise of Borea is at the level of the natural noise of the sea.

                    And what do experts recognize under the natural sound of the sea? The roar of the surf or the rumble of ice during a storm? About 15-20 years ago, information came from America about filtering algorithms for white noise, and then the information disappeared. There was a suspicion that they were classified and used to isolate submarine noise from the natural noise of the sea. Thus, the submarine should have indistinguishable noise against the background of any noise of the sea, at least at a distance of several kilometers.
                    The main source of noise is GTZA. A hybrid installation was used on the Ash trees, it can sail with the GTZA turned off, but Boreas does not. In Korea, the engine compartment from project 971, which was designed in 1980.
                    1. Nitup
                      Nitup 1 July 2013 22: 34 New
                      -3
                      Quote: Ataman
                      According to the new military doctrine, Russia will deliver a nuclear strike in response to any massive attack.

                      With massive non-nuclear impact from the United States, it is unlikely. Since this is already exactly-complete mutual destruction.
                      Quote: Ataman
                      And what do experts recognize under the natural sound of the sea?

                      Well, of course, I mean the sound of the sea in a calm state. Anyway. Neither you nor I are specialists and do not reliably know noise data, etc.
                      1. cdrt
                        cdrt 30 July 2013 18: 04 New
                        +1
                        You would read the defense doctrine ... what they write about it ...
                        there Russian in white about this situation is written
    2. cdrt
      cdrt 30 July 2013 18: 01 New
      0
      Hmm ... have you personally learned how to launch the X-102 from under the water? wink
      And the rest have so far learned to let them out of planes only.
  • Sukharev
    Sukharev 29 June 2013 20: 21 New
    +1
    Hmm. At first I tried to reflect on what was written. I re-read several times the same tests in the hope of understanding the logical calculations. Then I realized that you should not take this article so seriously. It's a pity. The topic is largely interesting. Whoever saddles the first peaceful and military thermonuclear fusion will receive a great advantage. As far as I know from the peaceful dermo-poison, the Chinese are now ahead of all.
  • Zomanus
    Zomanus 29 June 2013 20: 38 New
    +1
    Quote: LetterKsi
    Everything is much simpler. For example, they fucked Russia with "clean" tomahawks. Our first takes a nuclear case and puts a finger to the big red button and ... remembers! Pancake! daughter went on an internship in the states! and the Fed central computer with my state dollar account will suffer ... dyke I’d better express the “big concern” to the states about their use of nuclear weapons against us than THIS RISK!

    This causes more concern than some new nuclear weapons. Because our rulers (and not only them) are not ready to sacrifice anything for the sake of the country's population. And if at the expense of a new thermonuclear poison, then we will not feel sorry for the old missiles for a retaliatory strike, no one is sorry ...
  • ABV
    ABV 29 June 2013 20: 39 New
    +2
    I read this nonsense for a very long time! Why are there such articles "not about anything", and even many years ago on your favorite site?
    Explain plz.
  • fzr1000
    fzr1000 29 June 2013 22: 48 New
    +2
    Bullshit is not bullshit, but how are they all for ... whether. Is that what freaks have? Either pure nuclear weapons, then hypersound, then invisible, then SDI, then missile defense, then lasers. No popcorn to eat beer to drink and watch wrestling.
  • chunga-changa
    chunga-changa 30 June 2013 12: 09 New
    0
    Of course nonsense, drank the American dough. Tolley business with us. Americans are fools, and we are smart. Even our one outdated rocket covers all American new developments like a bull to a sheep. They’re nothing to fear, it’s they who are afraid of us, sleep well.
    1. Letterksi
      Letterksi 30 June 2013 15: 32 New
      +2
      In preparation for the Second World War, countries set up many battleships for the battle in the ocean, which looked more thoroughly and more powerful than aircraft carriers. But the advantage was behind the latter. After World War II, the battleships became extinct like dinosaurs. Do not draw conclusions about who is hiding whom.

      A ballistic missile launched is immediately detected by the amers when launched by early warning means. Start tomahawk- is hidden, invisible and is detected after hit. What if a thermonuclear charge hit a tomahawk? Then you will not have time to launch your missiles. Not for nothing that Russia has recently taken care of MiG 31, just because of the threat of the Tomahawks and the invasion from the north

      We need to develop our response "clean" measures, and not hope that it will carry
  • Boa kaa
    Boa kaa 1 July 2013 01: 38 New
    +4
    The article is very interesting. She confirmed the OBS-information about the use of at least 6 times of such weapons in Libya. Buildings and structures in the places of its use were ground into dust. A relatively small depression in the middle. The zone cordoned off for 5-7 days, they didn’t let anyone in, especially correspondents. After a week, admission was allowed. Then, buildings were built on this place, as if there was nothing. Information from a credible source.
    1. cdrt
      cdrt 30 July 2013 18: 09 New
      0
      The article is very interesting. She confirmed the OBS information on the use of such weapons at least 6 times in Libya

      Nonsense ignoramus confirmed OBS ...
      It would be earlier about this (both the article and the commentary) would say that the paper on which it is printed does not stand.
  • Sergey Medvedev
    Sergey Medvedev 19 July 2013 11: 24 New
    +1
    For a long time already there are armor-piercing ammunition with a depleted uranium core, in particular for a 30-mm BMP-2 gun. They have high penetration, as well as blocking action. Surely there are similar ammunition for both artillery and aviation. Such ammunition, apparently, was used in Lebanon.
    And everything else, "pure thermonuclear" is a matter of the distant future.
    Just as they used to scare us with bluffs under the banner of "SOI", now they are also bluffs.
    1. Triazalon
      Triazalon 27 October 2013 03: 00 New
      0
      I do not agree with you. No general words, give us specific facts.
  • Gorchilin
    Gorchilin 29 July 2013 10: 37 New
    0
    Nonsense. The place where we are talking about the use of nuclear weapons in Lebanon is twice nonsense. All that could be found there (theoretically) - traces of not enriched but depleted uranium, quite a traditional filling for armor-piercing and (possibly) concrete-piercing munitions.

    Yes, nuclear weapons are evolving. Yes, accuracy increases, charges of such power as before are no longer needed. Yes, due to the development of technology, it is possible to make an initiating charge with a minimum amount of fissile material. Well, the synthesis reaction is relatively "clean."

    As for the "other" ways of initiating a thermonuclear reaction, whim and stupidity. For more than half a century grandmas have been tackling the problem of TCB, so far no other methods have been invented. Perhaps they do not exist at all.
  • Triazalon
    Triazalon 27 October 2013 03: 00 New
    0
    This is bullshit. The article describes the classic and standard neutron charge used in missiles anti-ballistic protection. No need to create mystics around the famous.
  • TECHNOCRAT82
    TECHNOCRAT82 2 February 2014 16: 35 New
    0
    Pure thermonuclear charges are a harsh reality. And their use is not limited to missiles, torpedoes ... I am talking about the use of stationary landmines in a total war ... By the principle, he himself assembled, he himself was blown up directly on the territory of the enemy. I myself-TECHNOCRAT82 long ago crossed, digested and spat out wars between states and was the first to use such charges to defend the earth from comets ... by completely evaporating them at distant approaches to our planet. I postulated the Chelyabinsk meteorite a month before the events and suggested its destruction. But I'm afraid that only a single technocratic government of the planet will be able to cope with such tasks. Type TECHNOCRAT82 in the search engines and see for yourself.
  • silberwolf88
    silberwolf88 4 May 2014 20: 36 New
    0
    Pure nuclear weapons are only speculations and conjectures. The country has been working on explosives with increased power (including the USSR and Russia) since the 80s. Who and what has been achieved is not exactly known.
    The analysis of threats and risks of advancing superiority by the adversary is complete and fully reflects the possible consequences.

    There is a small BUT ... countries that have not achieved such technology but that have traditional nuclear and thermonuclear weapons can simply score on international pressure ... and this is for example China ... one sixth of humanity is not so small.

    Conclusion ... it is necessary to develop nuclear technologies and weapons based on them ... high-precision global delivery vehicles ... systems for counteracting ICBMs and cruise missiles of a potential enemy.
  • Mih1974
    Mih1974 26 March 2018 09: 29 New
    0
    Let's be frank: why do you need nuclear weapons at all - so that other owners of nuclear weapons do not shine at you !! no
    Iraq - they bombed the nuclear center and they did not have time to make a "bomb", and where that Iraq, Libya - they themselves refused (albeit under pressure), and that Libya, the village of Korea - rested and did the merikas jumping at its "fence" they left not saltyly slurping.
    Now about the wars waged by the United States or the impudence: Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, something stir up in Africa. They need nuclear weapons to use them against these opponents, the answer is simple - NO, from the word Absolutely. Perfectly manage conventional weapons. What remains of the "goals" of Russia and China. And here it’s quite simple - see how our military is already pretty tough stop the American military "just try to bomb something again - we will send to Allah along with ships and bases am negative ". Now imagine that Trump will give the order to bomb something in Russia, albeit with" clean "nuclear missiles, even in the Crimea (well, like they don’t recognize it as Russia). And SHO? am And in response - the United States as a country will cease to exist. I personally believe in Putin and in every man at the remote soldier love , I believe that the President will also give orders to the men that they will launch America into the America with an unstoppable river, even if they are not “clean” nuclear missiles.
    So all this is from the evil one. And to frighten us with a huge number of tomahawks at Merikas (they’ll put a vigorous head on each), actually we can also attach a vigorous head to each “calliber”. And sho now? laughing
  • Dzafdet
    Dzafdet 5 February 2019 14: 55 New
    0
    Quote: bootlegger
    Are you serious or what?
    Then there were several groups in the Politburo. Each moved its candidate.
    What does the USA have to do with it? The fact that you are somehow connected with the USA has completely discredited.



    I often listened to the Voice of America then. So they said in advance that Gorbachev would be the Secretary General .. Any other questions? And they took him in bribes to his wife for diamonds and fur coats ...
    1. Kostya Kaluga
      Kostya Kaluga 3 August 2019 07: 34 New
      0
      The author writes: "At the same time, traces of enriched uranium were found in soil samples taken from bomb craters" ... wow, pure thermonuclear weapons with uranium235. The whole point is to initiate a thermonuclear reaction without uranium and plutonium. Secondly, 235 uranium cannot be there because the only use of 235 isotope enriched in initiating a nuclear reaction. For armor-piercing and penetrating deep into the target, uranium238 is used as a dense and heavy metal. In the article, inconsistencies, to put it mildly, the author does not know what he is writing about.