The US Department of State has published a new report on the number of nuclear warheads and delivery systems in the United States and Russia.

107
The US Department of State publishes updated data on the number of US and Russian nuclear warheads. The report of the State Department, referring to the US military, said that the data are updated as of 1 in September of this year. The ratio (according to the US State Department) is as follows:

1538 nuclear warheads from the United States and 1648 - from the Russian Federation;

898 deployed and non-deployed launchers (carriers) from the United States, 877 - from Russia.

The US Department of State has published a new report on the number of nuclear warheads and delivery systems in the United States and Russia.


If you believe the information published by the State Department, the United States reduced the number of warheads by 104 units, while Russia increased its nuclear potential by 5 warheads.

In terms of the number of launchers (carriers), Washington records a reduction in Russia too: in the United States, minus 14 units, in Russia, minus 34 units.

Recall that according to the agreement that entered into force in February 2011, Russia and the United States should reduce the number of nuclear warheads to 1500-1675, and the number of carriers to 500-1100.

At the same time, the United States does not hide its plans to deploy the latest nuclear bombs in Germany (talking about B61-12), and continues to take measures to deploy missile defense systems in Eastern Europe.
  • www.aaas.org
Our news channels

Subscribe and stay up to date with the latest news and the most important events of the day.

VK Zen Telegram
107 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. figwam Rank
    figwam
    +4
    2 October 2015 15: 05
    Parity...
    1. oleg-gr Rank
      oleg-gr
      +24
      2 October 2015 15: 10
      If you believe the information published by the State Department. Exactly - if ...
      1. Alexey Boukin Rank
        Alexey Boukin
        +25
        2 October 2015 15: 14
        Apparently the State Department no longer has a lesson how to "measure pussy" with Russia.
        1. adept666 Rank
          adept666
          +4
          2 October 2015 15: 19
          Calculate options http://russian.rt.com/article/120768
          1. Baikonur Rank
            Baikonur
            +6
            2 October 2015 15: 22
            At the same time, the United States does not hide plans to deploy the latest nuclear bombs with nuclear warheads in Germany
            those. they will transfer warheads to Germany and have reduced them! Hitropops!
            It is also necessary to shove our CSTO countries (for safekeeping) and - goodies! Here are the pens! hi
            1. Danafxnumx Rank
              Danafxnumx
              +3
              2 October 2015 15: 27
              Quote: Baikonur
              those. they will transfer warheads to Germany and have reduced them! Hitropops!
              It is also necessary to shove our CSTO countries (for safekeeping) and - goodies! Here are the pens! hi

              yes, I just don’t understand how these BOMBS can help them in the war with us, it’s not for the Papuans to bomb ... we still have to fly ...
              1. Yuri from Volgograd Rank
                Yuri from Volgograd
                +7
                2 October 2015 16: 06
                Quote: DanaF1
                Quote: Baikonur
                those. they will transfer warheads to Germany and have reduced them! Hitropops!
                It is also necessary to shove our CSTO countries (for safekeeping) and - goodies! Here are the pens! hi

                yes, I just don’t understand how these BOMBS can help them in the war with us, it’s not for the Papuans to bomb ... we still have to fly ...

                In general, it’s shitty that we got to the point that we measure bells.
                If something dodges, little will not seem to anyone. Neither Hans, nor 3 / 14ndos nor us. Even to those who are not involved in business, krants will come.
                1. Temples Rank
                  Temples
                  +7
                  2 October 2015 17: 20

                  In general, it’s shitty that we got to the point that we measure bells.


                  Nothing worthless.
                  Always watched it.
                  On this and contracts exist.

                  What are the words "bells", "pussy" ???
                  Guys or who?
                  If it is measured then ... yami !!!
                  1. Penzyac Rank
                    Penzyac
                    +5
                    2 October 2015 18: 57
                    Quote: Temples

                    In general, it’s shitty that we got to the point that we measure bells.


                    Nothing worthless.
                    Always watched it.
                    On this and contracts exist.

                    What are the words "bells", "pussy" ???
                    Guys or who?
                    If it is measured then ... yami !!!

                    Unfortunately - site rules ...
                2. Penzyac Rank
                  Penzyac
                  +2
                  2 October 2015 18: 56
                  Quote: Yuri from Volgograd
                  Quote: DanaF1
                  Quote: Baikonur
                  those. they will transfer warheads to Germany and have reduced them! Hitropops!
                  It is also necessary to shove our CSTO countries (for safekeeping) and - goodies! Here are the pens! hi

                  yes, I just don’t understand how these BOMBS can help them in the war with us, it’s not for the Papuans to bomb ... we still have to fly ...

                  In general, it’s shitty that we got to the point that we measure bells.
                  If something dodges, little will not seem to anyone. Neither Hans, nor 3 / 14ndos nor us. Even to those who are not involved in business, krants will come.

                  They'd better think about Yellowstone, where and how they will tick? Or do they think "insurance will cover everything"? The dead don't need money ...
                  In their geological situation it is not necessary to look for enemies, but friends, and as urgently as possible, nature is wiser than people - it does not divide them into rich and poor ...
                  1. avia1991 Rank
                    avia1991
                    +1
                    3 October 2015 01: 57
                    Quote: PENZYAC
                    nature is wiser than people - it does not divide them into rich and poor ...
                    Golden words, Andrey! ..
                    But life shows that when people (not all) reach exorbitant financial conditions, they have the illusion that this world exists exclusively for them! And any obstacle that arises before them on the way to a new "candy" is perceived by them as a challenge to them personally, and not as a natural event .. And at such a moment, their selfishness and self-conceit banish the ability to soberly evaluate Reality! The principle "TAKE OUT AND POSITION! I WANT IT SO!" We can now observe something similar in the actions of the Saudis in relation to Syria, and in the behavior of the "chocolate bar". It feels like a little more - and the instinct of self-preservation will cease to work for their owners .. They will simply stop thinking about the consequences of a nuclear attack.
                    1. Temples Rank
                      Temples
                      0
                      3 October 2015 08: 49
                      olrvpfsho shyshkop
                3. Vadim237 Rank
                  Vadim237
                  0
                  2 October 2015 19: 27
                  For those who are out of business, nothing will happen. They will spoil the planetary ecology, but other countries will live on, their infrastructure will survive and continue to work.
                4. Danafxnumx Rank
                  Danafxnumx
                  0
                  3 October 2015 00: 36
                  Quote: Yuri from Volgograd

                  In general, it’s shitty that we got to the point that we measure bells.
                  If something dodges, little will not seem to anyone. Neither Hans, nor 3 / 14ndos nor us. Even to those who are not involved in business, krants will come.


                  if it dodges, then you won’t have time to get scared, but now you don’t spoil your mood ... wink
              2. Penzyac Rank
                Penzyac
                0
                2 October 2015 18: 48
                Quote: DanaF1
                Quote: Baikonur
                those. they will transfer warheads to Germany and have reduced them! Hitropops!
                It is also necessary to shove our CSTO countries (for safekeeping) and - goodies! Here are the pens! hi

                yes, I just don’t understand how these BOMBS can help them in the war with us, it’s not for the Papuans to bomb ... we still have to fly ...

                Or maybe they intend to use "civilian" carriers (for example, aircraft) for this? How can you tell them apart? Although, we also have similar opportunities ... Shall we be afraid of each other? ...
                But how then to develop civilian air traffic? Maybe they want to walk? Like, for health? ... And swim across the ocean? ...
                1. Danafxnumx Rank
                  Danafxnumx
                  +2
                  3 October 2015 00: 37
                  Quote: PENZYAC
                  carriers (e.g. airplanes)? How to distinguish them? Although, we also have similar opportunities ... Will we be afraid of each other? ...
                  But how then to develop civilian air traffic? Maybe they want to walk? Like, for health? ... And swim across the ocean? ...

                  and how do you imagine the loss of bombs from civilian aircraft?
                  1. avia1991 Rank
                    avia1991
                    +2
                    3 October 2015 02: 01
                    Quote: DanaF1
                    how do you imagine falling bombs from civilian aircraft?

                    Do you imagine the Yak-40? ..
                    In wartime, this machine was quite simply converted into a front-line bomber! .. Able, by the way, to twist aerobatics and withstand overloads .. I won’t lie - I don’t remember exactly how much. But not 2 and not 3 g - that's for sure, more!
                    And there is every reason to believe that such examples still exist! wink
                    1. Danafxnumx Rank
                      Danafxnumx
                      0
                      3 October 2015 14: 02
                      Quote: avia1991
                      Quote: DanaF1
                      how do you imagine falling bombs from civilian aircraft?

                      Do you imagine the Yak-40? ..
                      In wartime, this machine was quite simply converted into a front-line bomber! .. Able, by the way, to twist aerobatics and withstand overloads .. I won’t lie - I don’t remember exactly how much. But not 2 and not 3 g - that's for sure, more!
                      And there is every reason to believe that such examples still exist! wink

                      Do you think they will fly to us on the Yak-40?
                      1. avia1991 Rank
                        avia1991
                        0
                        3 October 2015 14: 23
                        Quote: DanaF1
                        Do you think they will fly to us on the Yak-40?

                        They are definitely not on the Yak-40, they are OUR car. But I believe that they also have similar "universal" devices.
                        I am not saying that they will bomb us with civilian aircraft. I just answered your question:
                        Quote: DanaF1
                        and how do you imagine the loss of bombs from civilian aircraft?
                        indicating that potentially such opportunities exist. hi
                      2. Danafxnumx Rank
                        Danafxnumx
                        0
                        4 October 2015 16: 35
                        Quote: avia1991
                        Quote: DanaF1
                        Do you think they will fly to us on the Yak-40?

                        They are definitely not on the Yak-40, they are OUR car. But I believe that they also have similar "universal" devices.
                        I am not saying that they will bomb us with civilian aircraft. I just answered your question:
                        Quote: DanaF1
                        and how do you imagine the loss of bombs from civilian aircraft?
                        indicating that potentially such opportunities exist. hi

                        if there is a war, then no civilian aircraft will fly in the conflict zone ... this is the first ...
                        second: the efficiency of a bomb drop is not very good to say the least, given what we can answer ...
                        so, I think it was an inept attempt by the "white master" to scare the Papuans ...
                      3. avia1991 Rank
                        avia1991
                        0
                        4 October 2015 18: 10
                        Quote: DanaF1
                        The efficiency of a bomb drop is not very good to say the least,

                        Olga, I advise you to decide somehow: are you against the use of civilian aircraft - or against aviation in general? It turns out that you think that the effect of the bombing by our planes in Syria is zero? How is "not very efficient" expressed? Why such a profound conclusion?
                        Civilian aircraft, when planning an attack, can be used very effectively:
                        -As a means of secretive landing delivery
                        -for blocking the runway at enemy airfields
                        - for bombing at "X hour" with those sides that "seemingly on schedule" will be over the enemy's territory
                        -to ensure the operational supply of troops, the removal of the wounded
                        -etc.
                        As for this thought:
                        Quote: DanaF1
                        I think it was an inept attempt by the "white master" to scare the Papuans ...
                        - let me disagree completely: the Americans, in fact, just do nothing. They are pragmatists, and do not engage in empty concussion - as DAM, for example, likes to do with us.
                        Rather, it looks like another provocation against us, with the aim of increasing the costs of an already "strained" economy to ensure an equilibrium response.
                      4. Danafxnumx Rank
                        Danafxnumx
                        0
                        4 October 2015 23: 04
                        Quote: avia1991

                        Olga, I advise you to decide somehow: are you against the use of civilian aircraft - or against aviation in general? It turns out that you think that the effect of the bombing by our planes in Syria is zero? How is "not very efficient" expressed? Why such a profound conclusion?
                        Civilian aircraft, when planning an attack, can be used very effectively:
                        -As a means of secretive landing delivery
                        -for blocking the runway at enemy airfields
                        - for bombing at "X hour" with those sides that "seemingly on schedule" will be over the enemy's territory
                        -to ensure the operational supply of troops, the removal of the wounded
                        -etc.
                        As for this thought:

                        - let me disagree completely: the Americans, in fact, just do nothing. They are pragmatists, and do not engage in empty concussion - as DAM, for example, likes to do with us.
                        Rather, it looks like another provocation against us, with the aim of increasing the costs of an already "strained" economy to ensure an equilibrium response.

                        you obviously misinterpreted my words ...
                        I was not talking about the use of aviation and bombing as such, but about the fact that ballistic missiles with nuclear warheads are much more efficient, faster and more powerful than nuclear bombs dropped from a variety of aircraft ...

                        as for the second part of your message, I don’t see at all how this can affect the costs, because everything possible is done in terms of air defense ...
                      5. avia1991 Rank
                        avia1991
                        0
                        5 October 2015 17: 48
                        Quote: DanaF1
                        as for the second part of your message, I don’t see at all how this can affect the costs, because everything possible is done in terms of air defense ...

                        Olga, this is not about spending on air defense, but about forcing Russia to increase the number of tactical nuclear weapons (tactical nuclear weapons) in the west, in order to achieve parity with NATO reserves.
                        A ballistic missile is MUCH more expensive than a nuclear bomb, and much more powerful. Missiles armed with nuclear weapons, as a rule, are well known to the enemy, and their launch will be immediately noticed, and immediately countermeasures (ABMs) will be used. A bomb hidden in an airplane is much more difficult to track. And if the enemy’s intentions include a tactical nuclear strike - not necessarily against Russia, against one of our allies, for example - he has absolutely no need to spend an expensive missile ..
                        You can talk about this for a long time - all the more, arguing that
                        Quote: DanaF1
                        ballistic missiles with nuclear warheads are much more efficient, faster and more powerful than nuclear bombs

                        You do not go against the Truth - YES, of course! Yes
                        But it all depends on the specific task.
                      6. Danafxnumx Rank
                        Danafxnumx
                        0
                        5 October 2015 18: 45
                        Quote: avia1991

                        Olga, this is not about spending on air defense, but about forcing Russia to increase the number of tactical nuclear weapons (tactical nuclear weapons) in the west, in order to achieve parity with NATO reserves.
                        A ballistic missile is MUCH more expensive than a nuclear bomb, and much more powerful. Missiles armed with nuclear weapons, as a rule, are well known to the enemy, and their launch will be immediately noticed, and immediately countermeasures (ABMs) will be used. A bomb hidden in an airplane is much more difficult to track. And if the enemy’s intentions include a tactical nuclear strike - not necessarily against Russia, against one of our allies, for example - he has absolutely no need to spend an expensive missile ..
                        You can talk about this for a long time - all the more, arguing that

                        You do not go against the Truth - YES, of course! Yes
                        But it all depends on the specific task.

                        this is all true, but I do not believe in the possibility of a nuclear bombardment from a civilian ship ... even our allies ...

                        you still decide you are about tactical missiles that need to be increased, or ballistic? as far as I remember, none of the tactical ones along a ballistic trajectory flies ... (although I could be wrong)
                        I mean that there are enough OTRK missiles, such as Iskander, on the border, and when our RF Armed Forces talked about the answer, they did not mean an increase in TNW along the perimeter, but, most likely, more dense patrolling by submarines with SLBMs on board ...
                      7. avia1991 Rank
                        avia1991
                        0
                        6 October 2015 04: 32
                        Quote: DanaF1
                        you still decide you are about tactical missiles that need to be increased, or ballistic?

                        Ol, I'm talking about NUCLEAR ammunition smile ..
                        The number of which the Americans hope to make us increase, in the western direction. So that later, in particular, "with a clear conscience" to shout about the escalation of tension on the part of Russia.
                        Quote: DanaF1
                        that there are enough OTRK missiles, such as Iskander, on the border

                        ... and WHERE do you know about the number of Iskander?! .. wink You are more careful with the statements! lol
                        Quote: DanaF1
                        as far as I remember, none of the tactical ballistic trajectory flies ..

                        You are mistaken, Olya: ALL tactical missiles (namely missiles - not missiles) fly along a ballistic trajectory. The difference in purpose and range. hi
                        As for
                        Quote: DanaF1
                        the possibility of nuclear bombing from a civilian ship ...

                        I don't believe in that either. I repeat: I only spoke about the fundamental possibility of using civilian ships as bombers.
            2. Columnist Rank
              Columnist
              +6
              2 October 2015 16: 19
              Under the treaty, we must not transfer nuclear weapons to countries that did not have them. No one, except us, in the CSTO has neither technology nor nuclear missiles. Then nothing will distinguish us from the Americans (I'm talking about the deployment of nuclear weapons in Germany). It is necessary to raise all countries from the "anti-Yusov coalition" and organize mass inquiries and appeals to the UN Security Council that the United States did not destroy part of the warheads in storage, as well as a direct violation - the supply of bombs to Germany. Let them drown in constant appeals and complaints about violations of international law.
              1. clidon Rank
                clidon
                0
                2 October 2015 22: 17
                Nuclear weapons in Germany have long been deployed (20 bombs) and we are only talking about its modernization. What kind of violation are we talking about?
            3. adept666 Rank
              adept666
              0
              2 October 2015 21: 52
              those. they will transfer warheads to Germany and have reduced them! Hitropops!

              Maybe so, or maybe they don’t really trust their Strategic Rocket Forces (they do not corny believe that everyone will fly at H and decided to play it safe). I remember they had problems with test launches of mine ICBMs on a resource ...
            4. Berg berg Rank
              Berg berg
              +2
              2 October 2015 22: 01
              why go there? better negotiate with Venezuela, Cuba and Nicaragua! And wakes them happy!
          2. Penzyac Rank
            Penzyac
            0
            2 October 2015 18: 44
            Quote: adept666
            Calculate options http://russian.rt.com/article/120768

            Not poluchatstsa? ...
            1. adept666 Rank
              adept666
              +1
              3 October 2015 10: 51
              Not poluchatstsa? ...

              I think not, they’re just trying to show a tough reaction, because somehow you need to react when they feed them into the trash ...
        2. Kostyar Rank
          Kostyar
          +2
          2 October 2015 16: 49
          So this is their favorite pastime ...., based on the relevant conclusions, decide: attack-non-attack, rob-non-rob ..............!?
        3. Shuttle Rank
          Shuttle
          +6
          2 October 2015 16: 50
          Quote: alexey bukin
          Apparently the State Department no longer has a lesson how to "measure pussy" with Russia.

          No, they just thought that we in the Manege had put an active product on display for the public.
          Thought, and went to change diapers.
          They don’t have such a toy. So they bought a bunch of little ones.
          1. Vadim237 Rank
            Vadim237
            +3
            2 October 2015 19: 31
            If you create a bomb of the same power now, it will be much smaller than the AN 602.
          2. clidon Rank
            clidon
            +1
            2 October 2015 22: 17
            We have not had such a toy for a long time either.
            1. Shuttle Rank
              Shuttle
              0
              5 October 2015 10: 41
              Quote: clidon
              We have not had such a toy for a long time either.

              And what for is she to us?
              She completed her task. The corncracker tapped. Amer seismologists what should be recorded. Everything.
        4. clidon Rank
          clidon
          0
          2 October 2015 22: 15
          Godep has a job - including monitoring the implementation of international treaties, as in this case.
      2. sanja.grw Rank
        sanja.grw
        +1
        2 October 2015 15: 20
        Exactly - if ...

        They still didn’t specify this in the office
        1. Penzyac Rank
          Penzyac
          0
          2 October 2015 19: 07
          Quote: sanja.grw
          Exactly - if ...

          They still didn’t specify this in the office

          What is there to clarify then? They don’t have such a fact! ...
      3. insafufa Rank
        insafufa
        +4
        2 October 2015 15: 22
        Quote: alexey bukin
        Apparently the State Department no longer has a lesson how to "measure pussy" with Russia.


        Judging by their report they have it thicker lol we have longer lol

        1. Penzyac Rank
          Penzyac
          +3
          2 October 2015 19: 12
          Quote: insafufa
          Quote: alexey bukin
          Apparently the State Department no longer has a lesson how to "measure pussy" with Russia.


          Judging by their report they have it thicker lol we have longer lol...

          Are they thicker? That you sho affected? And our "Tsar Bomba" ("Kuzkina's Mother")? They never had such a birth! So - ours is both longer, and, which is not unimportant, THICKER! ... Moreover, besides, ours is more sinuous and "with pimples" ...
          You have to be a patriot to the end! ... drinks
      4. NEXUS Rank
        NEXUS
        +3
        2 October 2015 16: 28
        Quote: oleg-gr
        If you believe the information published by the State Department. Exactly - if ...

        We are waiting for the Sarmatians, Boundaries and Russian greetings with love in the form of an 4202 object, as well as in the 18 year of the Barguzins. And then let them consider. hi
      5. Sterlya Rank
        Sterlya
        +2
        2 October 2015 17: 05
        Quote: oleg-gr
        If you believe the information published by the State Department. Exactly - if ...

        but I don’t believe the State Department. I have a pathological lack of confidence in the State Department winked
        1. Penzyac Rank
          Penzyac
          0
          2 October 2015 19: 17
          Quote: Sterlya
          Quote: oleg-gr
          If you believe the information published by the State Department. Exactly - if ...

          but I don’t believe the State Department. I have a pathological lack of confidence in the State Department winked

          Correction: in my opinion, not pathological, but healthy not trust ... hi
    2. Vitaly Anisimov Rank
      Vitaly Anisimov
      +2
      2 October 2015 15: 13
      Quote: figvam
      Parity...

      Complete destruction .... Everything and everyone ...!
      1. Russian Rank
        Russian
        +2
        2 October 2015 15: 28
        To the pentagon would be!
        1. Penzyac Rank
          Penzyac
          +2
          2 October 2015 19: 26
          Quote: Rossiyanin
          To the pentagon would be!

          Unfortunately, living people live around the Pentagon, not all of them are worthy of such a fate ...
          It would be better (probably even the only true one) to find a way to defeat the Pentagon without a nuclear apocalypse ...
      2. Bongo Rank
        Bongo
        +11
        2 October 2015 15: 47
        Quote: MIKHAN
        Complete destruction .... Everything and everyone ...! ROCKET Satana Governor-EXPLOSION THE MOST POWERFUL IN THE WORLD,

        Where did the rocket come from? fool An experimental thermonuclear bomb AN602 was dropped at the Sukhoi Nos test site from a specially prepared Tu-95V long-range bomber (pictured).
        1. The comment was deleted.
        2. pv1005 Rank
          pv1005
          +2
          2 October 2015 22: 53
          The Tu-142M3 is a long-range anti-submarine photo. Tu-95V looked a little different.
    3. ZU-23 Rank
      ZU-23
      +3
      2 October 2015 15: 24
      Yes, we should have more nuclear weapons, we are alone and there are many of them.
      1. Penzyac Rank
        Penzyac
        +1
        2 October 2015 19: 28
        Quote: ZU-23
        Yes, we should have more nuclear weapons, we are alone and there are many of them.

        One must have such a thing so that the "adversaries" would not even "dream" ...
    4. The comment was deleted.
    5. Major Yurik Rank
      Major Yurik
      +2
      2 October 2015 15: 35
      In many knowledge, there is a lot of sadness, who multiplies knowledge, multiplies sorrow. (Ecclesiastes).

      Sleep well, dear mattresses, do not twitch! In case of what you first receive the data, piece by piece! stop
    6. little girl15 Rank
      little girl15
      +2
      2 October 2015 15: 36
      At the same time, the United States does not hide its plans to deploy the latest nuclear bombs in Germany (talking about B61-12), and continues to take measures to deploy missile defense systems in Eastern Europe.


      It is necessary to launch BZHRK into production faster. It hurts, they strain the mattresses.
      1. Penzyac Rank
        Penzyac
        0
        2 October 2015 19: 34
        Quote: Vovochka15
        At the same time, the US does not hide plans to deploy the latest nuclear bombs with nuclear warheads in Germany (talk about B61-12), and also continues to take measures to deploy missile defense in Eastern Europe ...

        Eh! How much the German is now crushing, not of any pride, and they are more afraid of something that is not worth fearing than of something that is really worth fearing (temporary "calmness" began to be appreciated above life ...)
    7. Starover_Z Rank
      Starover_Z
      +1
      2 October 2015 16: 04
      Quote: figvam
      Parity...

      And if you raise the detailed accounts stored in the United States, but not considered reserve and so on (such calculations were here)?
      At the same time, the US does not hide plans to deploy the latest nuclear bombs with nuclear warheads in Germany (talk about B61-12),

      Well, after the upgrade they will be listed for the European armies, and not for ShaSha.
      We need new counting systems, taking into account NATO forces, where the United States plays a dominant role!
      1. Sergej1972 Rank
        Sergej1972
        +1
        2 October 2015 23: 29
        In any case, these bombs will be registered in the USA. NATO nuclear forces are the sum of the US nuclear forces in Great Britain, actually under US command. France’s nuclear forces are exclusively under national command and are not part of NATO forces.
    8. Penzyac Rank
      Penzyac
      0
      2 October 2015 18: 42
      Quote: figvam
      Parity...

      Quantitative...
      Quality?...
      1. Boa kaa Rank
        Boa kaa
        +1
        2 October 2015 20: 49
        Quote: PENZYAC
        Quote: figvam
        Parity...
        Quantitative...
        Quality?...

        If so ... The main threat to the States is our ICBMs (OS, rkkSN), but the picture is somewhat different.
        The United States, as of September 1, 2015, had a total of 762 deployed intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs), ballistic missiles in submarines (SLBMs) ​​and heavy bombers (TB). The number of such weapons in Russia was 526. http://interfax.com.ua/news/general/294017.html
        And the semblance of "parity" amers need to scream that we are arming ourselves and are the cause of a new arms race.
    9. siberalt Rank
      siberalt
      -1
      2 October 2015 19: 30
      The Pentagon got nervous. Why's that? winked

      1. APASUS Rank
        APASUS
        0
        2 October 2015 23: 18
        Quote: siberalt
        The Pentagon got nervous. Why's that?

        There is an opinion that it is Russia that wants to drag the Pentagon into the next arms race, and since Americans are completely deprived of a sense of proportion, it may turn out to be an unbearable burden in a place with budgetary problems.
    10. The comment was deleted.
  2. Laksamana besar Rank
    Laksamana besar
    +2
    2 October 2015 15: 05
    We must stop cutting, BZHRK on the way. smile
    1. Good_Taxist Rank
      Good_Taxist
      +2
      2 October 2015 15: 10
      Already cut off the BRZHD, and now we are launching on a new one - Barguzin is called
      1. Zoldat_A Rank
        Zoldat_A
        +6
        2 October 2015 15: 20
        Quote: Good_Taxist
        Already cut off the BRZHD, and now we are launching on a new one - Barguzin is called

        Why are we not trying to "revive" and "develop a concept" from what we have ruined over the past 25 years! For all these reductions, EBN, Gaidarushka and their entire company will burn in hell with a blue flame, like Gazprom's, forever and ever! And TV .. aye to Humpbacked, in America receiving medals "For Victory in the Cold War", to them soon ...
        1. Penzyac Rank
          Penzyac
          0
          2 October 2015 19: 45
          Quote: Zoldat_A
          Quote: Good_Taxist
          Already cut off the BRZHD, and now we are launching on a new one - Barguzin is called

          Why are we not trying to "revive" and "develop a concept" from what we have ruined over the past 25 years! For all these reductions, EBN, Gaidarushka and their entire company will burn in hell with a blue flame, like Gazprom's, forever and ever! And TV .. aye to Humpbacked, in America receiving medals "For Victory in the Cold War", to them soon ...

          Alas, even the "best" weapons tend to age, not only physically, but also "morally" ...
          What was menacing "under Gaidar the grandson" must be changed in any situation - now it is menacing rather only in appearance (no matter how someone dreamed of it), time does not stand still, everything, including the formidable weapon, is aging, -time to change ...
          1. Zoldat_A Rank
            Zoldat_A
            +3
            2 October 2015 22: 03
            Quote: PENZYAC
            What was menacing "under Gaidar the grandson" must be changed in any scenario - now it is rather menacing only in appearance

            Well, firstly, there are things that are not old age for them 30 years. Just as Soviet household appliances (remember the ZIL refrigerator!) Had a "3" safety margin inherited from the "defense industry", so military equipment had a "5" modernization margin. Secondly, they cut and blew up not only old but also new. And take into account the unaccumulated operating experience, and count the unexpired ideas for creating equipment that usually arise during the operation of the old one? And thirdly - and this the worst thing is that the continuity of generations is broken, both those who invent and those who embody these ideas with their hands in metal. So the conversation here is not only about technology that could have been outdated in 25 years, but remained forever powerful and formidable, because it was destroyed in the prime of life. A conversation about what, in order to reform, maybe cutting to the root was not worth it?
  3. Good_Taxist Rank
    Good_Taxist
    0
    2 October 2015 15: 07
    Noodle Hangers!
    How do Hakobyan play with numbers ...
  4. The comment was deleted.
  5. Denis DV Rank
    Denis DV
    +5
    2 October 2015 15: 12
    Oh, it's good that they reminded me - I’ll go to wash my socks, otherwise they stand like poplars, threatening the world bully
  6. Shooting Rank
    Shooting
    +4
    2 October 2015 15: 14
    We must move from quantity to quality. The main thing is that all the available quantity can guaranteed to fly in full, sail, crawl in the end to the goal.
  7. Leeder Rank
    Leeder
    +11
    2 October 2015 15: 15
    Quote: Denis DV
    Oh, it's good that they reminded me - I’ll go to wash my socks, otherwise they stand like poplars, threatening the world bully

    Faster, because the Pentagon has 2 more chemical weapons! laughing
    1. kizhe Rank
      kizhe
      +4
      2 October 2015 15: 26
      But this is without an account. It is enough to look into any cabins to the Khachiks.
    2. Penzyac Rank
      Penzyac
      +2
      2 October 2015 19: 47
      lol
      Quote: LeeDer
      Quote: Denis DV
      Oh, it's good that they reminded me - I’ll go to wash my socks, otherwise they stand like poplars, threatening the world bully

      Faster, because the Pentagon has 2 more chemical weapons! laughing

      Will socks fit in a test tube? ... lol
  8. kepmor Rank
    kepmor
    +7
    2 October 2015 15: 19
    Enough, they were half-bent before the amers in the 90s. How much these creatures and drunks have done, how much harm they have done, we still cannot disentangle with our bast shoes. As I would like, instead of reducing IAS, to hear only about the MODERNIZATION of their birthmarks. NO Worship to the generation of our parents who created all this!
  9. Borus017 Rank
    Borus017
    +1
    2 October 2015 15: 19
    Public opinion in the West must be PREPARED for the DEFENSIVE war with the evil Russians. So they are preparing. Which cruiser Maine will explode, or which Pearl Harbor - we'll see.
  10. am808s Rank
    am808s
    +1
    2 October 2015 15: 22
    They are going to talk about heads again. Are they scared?
  11. raid14 Rank
    raid14
    +2
    2 October 2015 15: 30
    Russia remains to strengthen and modernize its tactical nuclear forces on the quantitative correlation of forces with NATO (someone considers 12-1, other 60-1);
    1. Penzyac Rank
      Penzyac
      +1
      2 October 2015 20: 00
      Quote: raid14
      Russia remains to strengthen and modernize its tactical nuclear forces on the quantitative correlation of forces with NATO (someone considers 12-1, other 60-1);

      And what was the balance of power between the Zulus, armed with spears, and the British, armed with machine guns? Neither we nor the Americans - of course: neither the British nor those Zulus. But, nevertheless, everything in the world is relatively ...
  12. kostya-petrov Rank
    kostya-petrov
    +5
    2 October 2015 15: 32
    Also the new SSBN "Alexander Nevsky" has come to replenish the "Wasp's Nest" in Vilyuchinsk!
    Now it will be completely restless for either the samurai, and even less the United States.
  13. The boat Rank
    The boat
    +3
    2 October 2015 15: 34
    ABOUT! magic of numbers laughing I hope that we will never again demonstrate our friendliness / peacefulness by taking off our nuclear pants in front of the States, as it was in the damned 90s. That shame is enough for a couple of generations. Peaceful atom is packed in mines, boats and carcasses. Everything is correct. Without sarcasm.
  14. Bongo Rank
    Bongo
    +3
    2 October 2015 15: 34
    At the same time, the United States does not hide its plans to deploy the latest nuclear bombs in Germany (talking about B61-12), and continues to take measures to deploy missile defense systems in Eastern Europe.

    How much can you chew it! stop B61-12 nuclear free-fall bombs are currently only being tested, which will last at least 2018. In Germany, no more than 20 B61 bombs of an earlier modification are stored at Buchel airbase. The main difference between the B61-12 and the armed B61-3, B61-4, B61-7, B61-10 (in reserve) and B61-11 is its great reliability, safety and manufacturability. In the future, the Americans plan to replace 20 old nuclear bombs with the same number of new ones, and possibly even less power. What kind of tantrums about this? In any case, our country significantly exceeds the United States (several times) in terms of the number of nuclear weapons in Europe.
    1. Bongo Rank
      Bongo
      +2
      2 October 2015 16: 02
      Especially for those who put an unreasoned "minus", I recommend inquiring about the original source of this information:
      At the same time, the United States does not hide plans to deploy the latest nuclear bombs with nuclear warheads in Germany
      fool From the same series - "One grandmother said."
    2. The boat Rank
      The boat
      +3
      2 October 2015 16: 32
      Quote: Bongo
      How much can you chew it! B61-12 nuclear free-fall bombs currently

      comment essentially. However, no later than yesterday or the day before yesterday, some members of the forum, with a claim to wit, linked the themes of the European refugees and B61-12 to the context of the Islamic State’s desire to possess nuclear weapons through its European fifth column. I think that our Strategic Rocket Forces should pay attention to the Tajik janitors.
      1. Boa kaa Rank
        Boa kaa
        +1
        2 October 2015 21: 08
        Quote: Das Boot
        I think that our Strategic Rocket Forces should pay attention to the Tajik janitors.

        Our Strategic Missile Forces have somewhat different tasks ... And the Tajik janitors are the "tidying object" of the FSB. Yes
    3. Boa kaa Rank
      Boa kaa
      +1
      2 October 2015 21: 04
      Quote: Bongo
      The main difference between the B61-12 and the armed B61-3, B61-4, B61-7, B61-10 (in reserve) and B61-11 is its high reliability, safety and manufacturability.

      Sergey, the main difference between the B61-12 and its predecessors is that it is planning, with GPS guidance. And the freely falling ones are essentially the FAB of the Second World War, but of great power ...
      1. Bongo Rank
        Bongo
        +2
        3 October 2015 02: 35
        Quote: Boa constrictor KAA
        Sergey, the main difference between the B61-12 and its predecessors is that it is planning, with GPS guidance.

        Alexander, this is one of the "nice options", but not the fact that GPS will work in wartime. In addition, the accuracy of bombing the same free-falling "anti-bunker" B61-11, which entered service in 1998, is quite acceptable. For a nuclear device with a capacity of tens of kilotons, a slip of 50-100 meters does not play a special role. hi
  15. patriot_serg Rank
    patriot_serg
    +2
    2 October 2015 15: 34
    Unfortunately, the site of veterans of the US Army is blocked. Http://www.veteranstoday.com/, Somehow forgot the ASP about one
    "non-nuclear" player in the promised land. And the player seems to be going crazy. About the meeting of the veterans of the Syrian and US intelligence services, and the rest of the behind the scenes from their website is saved here: -http: //el20.livejournal.com/107906.html
    On the topic of the latest "non-nuclear explosions"
    1. The boat Rank
      The boat
      +2
      2 October 2015 18: 32
      Quote: patriot_serg
      Unfortunately, the site of veterans of the US Army is blocked.http: //www.veteranstoday.com/

      what, really - is blocked ????
  16. Imperial Rank
    Imperial
    +1
    2 October 2015 15: 39
    falling, falling nuclear mine
  17. mpzss Rank
    mpzss
    +1
    2 October 2015 15: 39
    here recently information leaked to the media (from the United States) that IS will soon have atomic weapons, or at least a "dirty" bomb ... Now the question, recalling last year's scandals in the US Army with the loss of components from atomic weapons, this information about Is there a warning? Like: "We talked! We warned you! And you didn't believe us!" ??? there is something to think about, because to destroy 104 warheads, it's not just that!
    1. patriot_serg Rank
      patriot_serg
      +1
      2 October 2015 16: 13
      Rather, and I'm sure from Israel.http: //el20.livejournal.com/107906.html Curved translation of excerpts:
      That is why I believe that Netanyahu's message from the platform’s General Assembly was not addressed to the world, but to Israeli Jews. On Israeli prime time television, he told them, implicitly, but effectively, “if the UN does not stop beating us and the world turns against us, we must be united in our determination to tell the world to go to hell.”
      http://www.veteranstoday.com/2015/10/02/netanyahus-real-message-was-to-israels-j

      ews-talk-peace-but-prepare-for-doomsday /
      And more.http: //www.veteranstoday.com/2015/09/30/israeli-russian-threat-hoax-pushe
      sw
      orld-to-brink-of-war /
  18. mamont5 Rank
    mamont5
    +1
    2 October 2015 16: 02
    Let them at least be counted, enough for them, and their jackals will remain. Here the main priority is to withstand, so that the owner first of all pleases, and only for sycophants what remains. And then the Americans want their own, the so-called. to put the "allies" forward in order to hide behind their backs from the nuclear "Armageddon".
  19. vovanpain Rank
    vovanpain
    +10
    2 October 2015 17: 02
    Mokhet, we offended someone in vain, dropping a couple of extra megatons, Under the feet of the earth melts, Where once was the Pentagon.
  20. Starik72 Rank
    Starik72
    +3
    2 October 2015 17: 14
    I believe every beast, but the beast of the USA, I DO NOT BELIEVE!
  21. roskot Rank
    roskot
    +3
    2 October 2015 17: 30
    The arsenals are impressive, enough to make the land uninhabited.
  22. silver_roman Rank
    silver_roman
    +1
    2 October 2015 18: 01
    interestingly it turns out: with fewer carriers, we have more warheads, which speaks of carriers with a large number of self-guidance blocks in one rocket!
    Those. more advanced SNF! That and it seems like we are constantly improving missile defense systems. Americans, along the way, feel so unpunished that they don’t take a lot of steam at the expense of their nuclear missiles.
  23. NDR-791 Rank
    NDR-791
    +1
    2 October 2015 18: 08
    To be honest, this is a numbers game.898 deployed and non-deployed launchers (carriers) from the United States, 877 - from Russia. For example: nuclear weapons are constantly located on every US carrier, I suspect not one. And the carrier in this case is any F-18 carrier-based aviation. Further: If you believe the information published by the State Department, the United States reduced the number of warheads by 104 units, while Russia increased its nuclear potential by 5 warheads. Those. They noticed a reduction in themselves, but somehow they did not notice the withdrawal from the database of a certain number of Eurostrategy - TU-22. This list of inconsistencies and absurdities can be continued for a long time. At the same time, the main thing to remember is that if WE did not comply with the agreements reached long ago and did not comply with them constantly, then they would have tried to grind us into dust a long time ago (back in the early 90s). Remember that they have "democracy and freedom of an empty bazaar", so the dog barks, the caravan goes ...
    1. Vadim237 Rank
      Vadim237
      +2
      2 October 2015 19: 36
      In general, the account goes for strategic carriers: submarines, ICBMs, long-range cruise missiles, such carriers as fighters and Tu 22 are not relevant to them.
    2. Boa kaa Rank
      Boa kaa
      +1
      2 October 2015 21: 33
      Quote: NDR-791
      nuclear weapons are constantly located on every U.S. carrier, I suspect not one.
      That's for sure. Estimated up to 80 units.
      Quote: NDR-791
      And the carrier in this case is any F-18 carrier-based aircraft.
      Fortunately, only equipped for this mission. Their order is 40-48 units.
  24. Reptiloid Rank
    Reptiloid
    0
    2 October 2015 18: 19
    They think that nobody will ever get them. NONI (mattresses) build their dreams on the habit of sitting in a nook and gloating quietly when others wet each other. And they also cut their coupons, as always. And then they help economics raise after the war with benefit for themselves. And enslaving the country. Dreaming of crushing everyone. Including our country. Everything is closer, closer.
    And they are very surprised that everything is not as they intended. And will not be!
  25. Darkoff
    Darkoff
    +2
    2 October 2015 18: 46
    Why compare what is enough for several times to destroy all life on Earth?
  26. Barakuda Rank
    Barakuda
    +1
    2 October 2015 18: 53
    Someone was in a stationary mine? THIS IS WHAT, breathtaking, though not a boy. And somewhere in the tunnel the major on duty sits-bored, who, with a partner, in which case the key will turn and press the button. wink And why do we need Skynet?
  27. Evgeniy30 Rank
    Evgeniy30
    +3
    2 October 2015 18: 54
    Truly thanks to comrades Stalin and Beria for our quiet childhood and present .....
  28. Skiff Rank
    Skiff
    +2
    2 October 2015 19: 02
    in order to fight the Yankees on equal terms, we need an ocean fleet, in our case at least one - the Pacific
    1. The boat Rank
      The boat
      +1
      2 October 2015 20: 18
      Quote: Skiff
      in order to fight the Yankees on equal terms, we need an ocean fleet

      quietly, quietly, bro .... here some mark the bases for ... don’t bother.
  29. ssn18 Rank
    ssn18
    +1
    2 October 2015 20: 48
    "US Department of State"

    Question: And who else believes in this sharaga and puts it in something?
  30. Yak-3P Rank
    Yak-3P
    0
    2 October 2015 22: 04
    yeah ... but we are already at war ... I do not mind ... I’m even for blows for YES .. but we are getting closer to a vigorous winter ..
    1. Vadim237 Rank
      Vadim237
      0
      2 October 2015 23: 28
      Nuclear winter is a science fiction fairy tale.
  31. Noctis Rank
    Noctis
    0
    3 October 2015 02: 06
    parity will only be possible if we can guarantee the complete destruction of the enemy. its production, resources and personnel. In my opinion, it would be necessary to further build up the most advanced systems. there may be 1 warhead, but in a cloud of false targets with a probability of its destruction of no more than 5%;
  32. colonel manuch Rank
    colonel manuch
    +1
    3 October 2015 12: 10
    All the bastards are crazy, we are for peace!
  33. Old26 Rank
    Old26
    0
    5 October 2015 11: 01
    Quote: alexey bukin
    Apparently the State Department no longer has a lesson on how to "measure pussies" with Russia

    This is the task of any Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the publication of such data

    Quote: Baikonur
    those. they will transfer warheads to Germany and have reduced them!

    Guys!! Well do not confuse, as they say, "God's gift with scrambled eggs." The State Duma report refers to "strategic" systems, both delivery vehicles and warheads. Bombs are tactical. It is possible, of course, to place our tactical ammunition on the territory of the CSTO countries, but what will it give? What is the benefit?

    Quote: PENZYAC
    Would they be better off thinking about Yellowstone, where and how will they tick?

    Yes, finally stop dreaming of a pipe dream. The Yellowstone explosion will be a problem not only for the United States, but for the whole world, including Russia

    Quote: Bongo
    The main difference between the B61-12 and those in service with the B61-3, B61-4, B61-7, B61-10 (in reserve) and B61-11

    Currently, many of these ammunition are no longer in service. The B-61-3 was withdrawn from service in 2012, the model 61-10 was withdrawn from service in 2005. In which type of reserve it is now - too lazy to look.
    B-61-7 in 1996 underwent modernization. Then they had them 430 units, including 215 active. Modernization affected only 50 units, which are now B-61-11, the rest are withdrawn from service.
    And now it is planned to modernize the B-61-4 in the B-61-12. The number of modernized is planned about 400-500

    Quote: mamont5
    Let them count, enough for them, and their jackals will remain

    They are enough for us too ... Do not think. that they will not use nuclear weapons against us
  34. Old26 Rank
    Old26
    0
    5 October 2015 11: 01
    Quote: PENZYAC
    Or maybe they intend to use "civilian" carriers (for example, aircraft) for this? How can you tell them apart? Although, we also have similar opportunities ... Shall we be afraid of each other? ...

    Bombs from civilians? Well, you are my friend and fantastic. The ban on the use of civil aircraft as carriers of the Kyrgyz Republic has existed for 3 decades. And to use a passenger (civil) liner as a bomber is money down the drain. Ask the BTA pilots what they thought about the possibility of converting their MTC into bomb carriers


    Quote: silver_roman
    interestingly it turns out: with fewer carriers, we have more warheads, which speaks of carriers with a large number of self-guidance blocks in one rocket!

    You can't even imagine how much less. The numbers speak of "deployed and non-deployed" media. We have this number of non-deployed ones several times less than that of the Americans. And we continue to reduce them, because old complexes are being removed from service. Namely, they R-36M2 and UR-100N UTTH have 10 and 6 blocks, respectively ... In order to maintain parity, we will have to put into service a large number of missiles, and not monoblock

    Quote: silver_roman
    Those. more advanced SNF!

    No, the strategic nuclear forces of both sides are approximately the same in perfection. It's just that they have been using land-based and sea-based missiles for much longer than ours. We are already writing off our liquids, and their "Minutemans" are still standing
    1. silver_roman Rank
      silver_roman
      0
      5 October 2015 13: 38
      But, writing off the R-36 and UR-100, are we just replacing them with the development of a new heavy ICBM?
      Poplars and yars are good, but they have few individual guidance blocks and the cast mass is incomparably smaller!
      And at the expense of non-deployed media: what's the difference how many there are? if even half of the deployed carriers are used by the states and we, then the planet will have a cover. so the race in this matter, it seems to me, is pointless. As in the years of the Cold War: we can destroy the planet 27 times, and syshya - 30. not order ....
      This could be justified when a really effective missile defense system is put on alert. But today, with today's development, the probability of intercepting a nuclear warhead, especially with a maneuvering warhead, is extremely low.
  35. The comment was deleted.
  36. Old26 Rank
    Old26
    0
    5 October 2015 16: 25
    Quote: Laksamana Besar
    We must stop cutting, BZHRK on the way

    And with missiles that have a resource on the verge of what to do? Reduce or not?

    Quote: silver_roman
    But, writing off the R-36 and UR-100, are we just replacing them with the development of a new heavy ICBM?

    Let's count. R-36M2 (not R-36) now in stock 46 units. The number of blocks on each is 10. Total 460
    The number of UR-100N UUTH (and not UR-100, be precise in the definitions) is now about 600. 6 heads on each is 360 heads. A total of 820 heads. We shoot both items. The number of "Sarmats" will be comparable to the number of R-36M2 and will be located in the same missile defense system. Total 46. Okay, let 50. The number of BGs, even if you count them equal to 10 - 500. Moreover, most likely about 26 (as our media write) will be equipped with hypersonic vehicles in the amount of 3 pieces. on each. That is, there remain about 20-24 "Sarmatovs" with MIRVs. That is 200-240 BB, plus 26 x 3 = 72. Total 270-312 BB. Compared to the current 820 heads, this is a reduction of about 2,6-3 times. This is how the deployment of new heavy missiles on the DB looks like.

    Quote: silver_roman
    And at the expense of non-deployed media: what's the difference how many there are? if even half of the deployed carriers are used by the states and we, then the planet will have a cover. so the race in this matter seems to me pointless

    I guess, yes. But in order to maintain parity, it is enough for the Americans to remove a certain amount of their carriers, and in parallel with the removal, we still need to finish building a lot.

"Right Sector" (banned in Russia), "Ukrainian Insurgent Army" (UPA) (banned in Russia), ISIS (banned in Russia), "Jabhat Fatah al-Sham" formerly "Jabhat al-Nusra" (banned in Russia) , Taliban (banned in Russia), Al-Qaeda (banned in Russia), Anti-Corruption Foundation (banned in Russia), Navalny Headquarters (banned in Russia), Facebook (banned in Russia), Instagram (banned in Russia), Meta (banned in Russia), Misanthropic Division (banned in Russia), Azov (banned in Russia), Muslim Brotherhood (banned in Russia), Aum Shinrikyo (banned in Russia), AUE (banned in Russia), UNA-UNSO (banned in Russia), Mejlis of the Crimean Tatar people (banned in Russia), Legion “Freedom of Russia” (armed formation, recognized as terrorist in the Russian Federation and banned), Kirill Budanov (included to the Rosfinmonitoring list of terrorists and extremists)

“Non-profit organizations, unregistered public associations or individuals performing the functions of a foreign agent,” as well as media outlets performing the functions of a foreign agent: “Medusa”; "Voice of America"; "Realities"; "Present time"; "Radio Freedom"; Ponomarev Lev; Ponomarev Ilya; Savitskaya; Markelov; Kamalyagin; Apakhonchich; Makarevich; Dud; Gordon; Zhdanov; Medvedev; Fedorov; Mikhail Kasyanov; "Owl"; "Alliance of Doctors"; "RKK" "Levada Center"; "Memorial"; "Voice"; "Person and law"; "Rain"; "Mediazone"; "Deutsche Welle"; QMS "Caucasian Knot"; "Insider"; "New Newspaper"