Military Review

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.
Photos used:
www.aaas.org
107 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. figwam
    figwam 2 October 2015 15: 05 New
    +4
    Parity...
    1. oleg-gr
      oleg-gr 2 October 2015 15: 10 New
      24
      If you believe the information published by the State Department. Exactly - if ...
      1. Alexey Boukin
        Alexey Boukin 2 October 2015 15: 14 New
        25
        Видимо у Госдепа нет больше занятия как "меряться письками" с Россией.
        1. adept666
          adept666 2 October 2015 15: 19 New
          +4
          Calculate options http://russian.rt.com/article/120768
          1. Baikonur
            Baikonur 2 October 2015 15: 22 New
            +6
            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
              Danafxnumx 2 October 2015 15: 27 New
              +3
              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
                Yuri from Volgograd 2 October 2015 16: 06 New
                +7
                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
                  Temples 2 October 2015 17: 20 New
                  +7

                  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.

                  Что за слова "бубенчики", "письки"???
                  Guys or who?
                  If it is measured then ... yami !!!
                  1. Penzyac
                    Penzyac 2 October 2015 18: 57 New
                    +5
                    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.

                    Что за слова "бубенчики", "письки"???
                    Guys or who?
                    If it is measured then ... yami !!!

                    Unfortunately - site rules ...
                2. Penzyac
                  Penzyac 2 October 2015 18: 56 New
                  +2
                  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.

                  Им бы лучше о Йеллоустоне подумать, куда и как тикать то будут? Или они думают, что "страховка всё покроет"? Мёртвым деньги не нужны...
                  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
                    avia1991 3 October 2015 01: 57 New
                    +1
                    Quote: PENZYAC
                    nature is wiser than people - it does not divide them into rich and poor ...
                    Golden words, Andrey! ..
                    Вот только жизнь показывает, что когда люди (не все) достигают непомерных финансовых состояний, у них появляется иллюзия, что этот мир существует исключительно для них! И любое препятствие, возникающее перед ними на пути к новой "конфетке", воспринимается ими, как вызов лично им, а не как естественное событие.. И at such a moment, their selfishness and self-conceit banish the ability to soberly evaluate Reality! Начинает работать принцип "ВЫНЬ И ПОЛОЖЬ! Я ТАК ХОЧУ!" Нечто подобное мы можем сейчас наблюдать в действиях саудитов, по отношению к Сирии, и в поведении "шоколадного заис-ся" Такое чувство, что еще немного - и у их хозяев перестанет работать инстинкт самосохранения.. О последствиях ядерной атаки они задумываться просто перестанут.
                    1. Temples
                      Temples 3 October 2015 08: 49 New
                      0
                      olrvpfsho shyshkop
                3. Vadim237
                  Vadim237 2 October 2015 19: 27 New
                  0
                  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
                  Danafxnumx 3 October 2015 00: 36 New
                  0
                  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
                Penzyac 2 October 2015 18: 48 New
                0
                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 ...

                А может они предполагают использовать для этого "гражданские" носители (например, самолёты)? Как их отличить? Хотя, у нас тоже подобные возможности имеются... Будем друг друга бояться?...
                But how then to develop civilian air traffic? Maybe they want to walk? Like, for health? ... And swim across the ocean? ...
                1. Danafxnumx
                  Danafxnumx 3 October 2015 00: 37 New
                  +2
                  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
                    avia1991 3 October 2015 02: 01 New
                    +2
                    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
                      Danafxnumx 3 October 2015 14: 02 New
                      0
                      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
                        avia1991 3 October 2015 14: 23 New
                        0
                        Quote: DanaF1
                        Do you think they will fly to us on the Yak-40?

                        Они - точно не на Як-40, это НАША машина. Но полагаю, что у них подобные "универсальные" аппараты тоже имеются.
                        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
                        Danafxnumx 4 October 2015 16: 35 New
                        0
                        Quote: avia1991
                        Quote: DanaF1
                        Do you think they will fly to us on the Yak-40?

                        Они - точно не на Як-40, это НАША машина. Но полагаю, что у них подобные "универсальные" аппараты тоже имеются.
                        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 ...
                        так что, я думаю, что это была неумелая попытка "белого господина" напугать папуасов...
                      3. avia1991
                        avia1991 4 October 2015 18: 10 New
                        0
                        Quote: DanaF1
                        The efficiency of a bomb drop is not very good to say the least,

                        Ольга, я Вам советую уж как-то определиться: то ли Вы против использования гражданских самолетов выступаете - то ли против авиации вообще? Вы, получается, считаете, что эффект от бомбометания нашими самолетами в Сирии - нулевой? В чем выражается "КПД не очень"? С чего такой глубокий вывод делается?
                        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
                        -для бомбометания в "час Х" теми бортами, которые "вроде бы по расписанию" будут находиться над территорией противника
                        -to ensure the operational supply of troops, the removal of the wounded
                        -etc.
                        As for this thought:
                        Quote: DanaF1
                        я думаю, что это была неумелая попытка "белого господина" напугать папуасов...
                        - 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.
                        Скорее это выглядит, как очередная провокация против нас, с целью увеличения расходов и без того "натянутой" экономики на обеспечение равновесного ответа.
                      4. Danafxnumx
                        Danafxnumx 4 October 2015 23: 04 New
                        0
                        Quote: avia1991

                        Ольга, я Вам советую уж как-то определиться: то ли Вы против использования гражданских самолетов выступаете - то ли против авиации вообще? Вы, получается, считаете, что эффект от бомбометания нашими самолетами в Сирии - нулевой? В чем выражается "КПД не очень"? С чего такой глубокий вывод делается?
                        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
                        -для бомбометания в "час Х" теми бортами, которые "вроде бы по расписанию" будут находиться над территорией противника
                        -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.
                        Скорее это выглядит, как очередная провокация против нас, с целью увеличения расходов и без того "натянутой" экономики на обеспечение равновесного ответа.

                        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
                        avia1991 5 October 2015 17: 48 New
                        0
                        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
                        Danafxnumx 5 October 2015 18: 45 New
                        0
                        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)
                        это я к тому, что ракет ОТРК, таких как "Искандер", на границе и так достаточно и когда наши ВС РФ говорили об ответе, имели ввиду не увеличение ТЯО по периметру, а, скорее всего, более плотное патрулирование подлодками с БРПЛ на борту...
                      7. avia1991
                        avia1991 6 October 2015 04: 32 New
                        0
                        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 ..
                        Количество которых америкосы надеются нас заставить увеличить, на западном направлении. Чтобы потом, в частности, "с чистой совестью" кричать об эскалации напряженности со стороны России.
                        Quote: DanaF1
                        что ракет ОТРК, таких как "Искандер", на границе и так достаточно

                        ...а ОТКУДА Вы знаете о численности "Искандеров?!.. 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 ...

                        я в это тоже "не верю". Повторюсь: я лишь сказал о принципиальной возможности использования гражданских судов в качестве бомбардировщиков.
  • Columnist
    Columnist 2 October 2015 16: 19 New
    +6
    По договору, мы не должны передавать ядерное оружие странам, которые его не имели. Никто, кроме нас, в ОДКБ не имеет ни технологий, ни ядерных ракет. Нас тогда ничего не будет отличать от американцев (я о размещении ЯО в Германии). Надо поднимать все страны из "антиюсовской коалиции" и организовать массовые запросы и обращения в Совбез ООН о том, что США не уничтожила часть боеголовок, лежащих на хранении, а также прямое нарушение - поставка бомб в Германию. Пусть захлебнутся в постоянных обращениях и жалобах на нарушения международного права.
    1. clidon
      clidon 2 October 2015 22: 17 New
      0
      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?
  • adept666
    adept666 2 October 2015 21: 52 New
    0
    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 ...
  • Berg berg
    Berg berg 2 October 2015 22: 01 New
    +2
    why go there? better negotiate with Venezuela, Cuba and Nicaragua! And wakes them happy!
  • Penzyac
    Penzyac 2 October 2015 18: 44 New
    0
    Quote: adept666
    Calculate options http://russian.rt.com/article/120768

    Not poluchatstsa? ...
    1. adept666
      adept666 3 October 2015 10: 51 New
      +1
      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 ...
  • Kostyar
    Kostyar 2 October 2015 16: 49 New
    +2
    So this is their favorite pastime ...., based on the relevant conclusions, decide: attack-non-attack, rob-non-rob ..............!?
  • Shuttle
    Shuttle 2 October 2015 16: 50 New
    +6
    Quote: alexey bukin
    Видимо у Госдепа нет больше занятия как "меряться письками" с Россией.

    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
      Vadim237 2 October 2015 19: 31 New
      +3
      If you create a bomb of the same power now, it will be much smaller than the AN 602.
    2. clidon
      clidon 2 October 2015 22: 17 New
      +1
      We have not had such a toy for a long time either.
      1. Shuttle
        Shuttle 5 October 2015 10: 41 New
        0
        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.
  • clidon
    clidon 2 October 2015 22: 15 New
    0
    Godep has a job - including monitoring the implementation of international treaties, as in this case.
  • sanja.grw
    sanja.grw 2 October 2015 15: 20 New
    +1
    Exactly - if ...

    They still didn’t specify this in the office
    1. Penzyac
      Penzyac 2 October 2015 19: 07 New
      0
      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! ...
  • insafufa
    insafufa 2 October 2015 15: 22 New
    +4
    Quote: alexey bukin
    Видимо у Госдепа нет больше занятия как "меряться письками" с Россией.


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

    1. Penzyac
      Penzyac 2 October 2015 19: 12 New
      +3
      Quote: insafufa
      Quote: alexey bukin
      Видимо у Госдепа нет больше занятия как "меряться письками" с Россией.


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

      У них толще? Та Вы шо сказылись? А наша "царь-бомба" ("Кузькина мать")? У них такой отродясь не было! Так что - наша и длиннее, и, что не маловажно, ТОЛЩЕ!... Да ещё, к тому же, наша извилистее и "с пупырышками"...
      You have to be a patriot to the end! ... drinks
  • NEXUS
    NEXUS 2 October 2015 16: 28 New
    +3
    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
  • Sterlya
    Sterlya 2 October 2015 17: 05 New
    +2
    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
      Penzyac 2 October 2015 19: 17 New
      0
      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
  • MIKHAN
    MIKHAN 2 October 2015 15: 13 New
    +2
    Quote: figvam
    Parity...

    Complete destruction .... Everything and everyone ...!
    1. Rossiyanin
      Rossiyanin 2 October 2015 15: 28 New
      +2
      To the pentagon would be!
      1. Penzyac
        Penzyac 2 October 2015 19: 26 New
        +2
        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
      Bongo 2 October 2015 15: 47 New
      11
      Quote: MIKHAN
      Complete destruction .... Everything and everyone ...! ROCKET Satana Governor-EXPLOSION THE MOST POWERFUL IN THE WORLD,

      Where did the rocket come from? fool Экспериментальная термоядерная бомба АН602 была сброшена на полигоне "Сухой Нос" со специально подготовленного дальнего бомбардировщика Ту-95В ( на фото).
      1. The comment was deleted.
      2. pv1005
        pv1005 2 October 2015 22: 53 New
        +2
        The Tu-142M3 is a long-range anti-submarine photo. Tu-95V looked a little different.
  • ZU-23
    ZU-23 2 October 2015 15: 24 New
    +3
    Yes, we should have more nuclear weapons, we are alone and there are many of them.
    1. Penzyac
      Penzyac 2 October 2015 19: 28 New
      +1
      Quote: ZU-23
      Yes, we should have more nuclear weapons, we are alone and there are many of them.

      Надо такое иметь, чтобы "супостатам" не повадно было даже "мечтать"...
  • The comment was deleted.
  • Major Yurik
    Major Yurik 2 October 2015 15: 35 New
    +2
    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
  • little girl15
    little girl15 2 October 2015 15: 36 New
    +2
    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
      Penzyac 2 October 2015 19: 34 New
      0
      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 ...

      Эх! До чего же немец ныне измельчал, прям ни какой гордости и больше боятся того, чего боятся не стоит, чем того, чего бояться действительно стоит (временное "спокойствие" стали ценить выше жизни...)
  • Starover_Z
    Starover_Z 2 October 2015 16: 04 New
    +1
    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
      Sergej1972 2 October 2015 23: 29 New
      +1
      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.
  • Penzyac
    Penzyac 2 October 2015 18: 42 New
    0
    Quote: figvam
    Parity...

    Quantitative...
    Quality?...
    1. Boa kaa
      Boa kaa 2 October 2015 20: 49 New
      +1
      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
      А видимость "паритета" амерам нужна, чтобы визжать о том, что мы вооружаемся и являемся причиной новой гонки вооружений.
  • siberalt
    siberalt 2 October 2015 19: 30 New
    -1
    The Pentagon got nervous. Why's that? winked

    1. APASUS
      APASUS 2 October 2015 23: 18 New
      0
      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.
  • The comment was deleted.
  • Laksamana besar
    Laksamana besar 2 October 2015 15: 05 New
    +2
    We must stop cutting, BZHRK on the way. smile
    1. Good_Taxist
      Good_Taxist 2 October 2015 15: 10 New
      +2
      Already cut off the BRZHD, and now we are launching on a new one - Barguzin is called
      1. Zoldat_A
        Zoldat_A 2 October 2015 15: 20 New
        +6
        Quote: Good_Taxist
        Already cut off the BRZHD, and now we are launching on a new one - Barguzin is called

        Да уж чего мы только не пытаемся "возрождать" да "разрабатывать концепцию" из того, что за последние 25 лет угробили! За все эти сокращения ЕБН, Гайдарушке и всей их компании в аду гореть синим, как у Газпрома, пламенем во веки вечные! И тв..арь Горбатую, в Америке медали получающую "За победу в холодной войне", к ним скорей...
        1. Penzyac
          Penzyac 2 October 2015 19: 45 New
          0
          Quote: Zoldat_A
          Quote: Good_Taxist
          Already cut off the BRZHD, and now we are launching on a new one - Barguzin is called

          Да уж чего мы только не пытаемся "возрождать" да "разрабатывать концепцию" из того, что за последние 25 лет угробили! За все эти сокращения ЕБН, Гайдарушке и всей их компании в аду гореть синим, как у Газпрома, пламенем во веки вечные! И тв..арь Горбатую, в Америке медали получающую "За победу в холодной войне", к ним скорей...

          Увы, но даже самые "лучшие" вооружения имеют свойство стареть, причём не только физически, но и "морально"...
          То что было грозно "при Гайдаре-внуке" менять надо при любом раскладе - сейчас оно грозно скорее только на вид (как бы кому то не мечталось), время на месте не стоит, всё, в том числе и грозное оружие стареет, надо во-время менять...
          1. Zoldat_A
            Zoldat_A 2 October 2015 22: 03 New
            +3
            Quote: PENZYAC
            То что было грозно "при Гайдаре-внуке" менять надо при любом раскладе - сейчас оно грозно скорее только на вид

            Ну, во-первых, есть вещи такие, что для них 30 лет не старость. Как у советской бытовой техники (вспомните холодильник "ЗиЛ"!) был запас прочности "3", доставшийся ей в наследство от "оборонки", так и у военной техники был запас модернизации "5".Во-вторых, резали и взрывали не только старое, но и новое. А учитывайте ненакопленный опыт эксплуатации, а посчитать непоявившиеся идеи по созданию техники, которые обычно возникают в ходе эксплуатации старой? А в-третьих - и это 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?
  • Good_Taxist
    Good_Taxist 2 October 2015 15: 07 New
    0
    Noodle Hangers!
    How do Hakobyan play with numbers ...
  • The comment was deleted.
  • Denis DV
    Denis DV 2 October 2015 15: 12 New
    +5
    Oh, it's good that they reminded me - I’ll go to wash my socks, otherwise they stand like poplars, threatening the world bully
  • Shooting
    Shooting 2 October 2015 15: 14 New
    +4
    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.
  • Leeder
    Leeder 2 October 2015 15: 15 New
    11
    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
      kizhe 2 October 2015 15: 26 New
      +4
      But this is without an account. It is enough to look into any cabins to the Khachiks.
    2. Penzyac
      Penzyac 2 October 2015 19: 47 New
      +2
      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
  • kepmor
    kepmor 2 October 2015 15: 19 New
    +7
    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!
  • Borus017
    Borus017 2 October 2015 15: 19 New
    +1
    Общественное мнение запада должно быть ПОДГОТОВЛЕНО к тому, что война со злыми русскими ОБОРОНИТЕЛЬНАЯ. Вот и готовят. Какой крейсер "Мэн" взорвётся, или какой Перл-Харбор - увидим.
  • am808s
    am808s 2 October 2015 15: 22 New
    +1
    They are going to talk about heads again. Are they scared?
  • raid14
    raid14 2 October 2015 15: 30 New
    +2
    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
      Penzyac 2 October 2015 20: 00 New
      +1
      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 ...
  • kostya-petrov
    kostya-petrov 2 October 2015 15: 32 New
    +5
    Еще и новый РПКСН "Александр Невский" пришел для пополнения "Осиного гнезда" в Вилючинске!
    Now it will be completely restless for either the samurai, and even less the United States.
  • Das Boot
    Das Boot 2 October 2015 15: 34 New
    +3
    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.
  • Bongo
    Bongo 2 October 2015 15: 34 New
    +3
    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
      Bongo 2 October 2015 16: 02 New
      +2
      Специально для тех кто ставит не аргументированный "минус" рекомендую поинтересоваться первоисточником этой информации:
      At the same time, the United States does not hide plans to deploy the latest nuclear bombs with nuclear warheads in Germany
      fool Из той же серии - "Одна бабка сказала".
    2. Das Boot
      Das Boot 2 October 2015 16: 32 New
      +3
      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
        Boa kaa 2 October 2015 21: 08 New
        +1
        Quote: Das Boot
        I think that our Strategic Rocket Forces should pay attention to the Tajik janitors.

        У наших РВСН несколько другие задачи...А таджики-дворники -- это "объект приборки" ФСБ. yes
    3. Boa kaa
      Boa kaa 2 October 2015 21: 04 New
      +1
      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
        Bongo 3 October 2015 02: 35 New
        +2
        Quote: Boa constrictor KAA
        Sergey, the main difference between the B61-12 and its predecessors is that it is planning, with GPS guidance.

        Александр, это как одна из "приятных опций", но не факт, что GPS в военное время будет работать. Коме того точность бомбометания той же свободнопадающей "противобункерной" В61-11 поступившей на вооружение в 1998 году вполне приемлемая . Для ядерного устройства мощностью в десятки килотонн промах в 50-100 метров особой роли не играет. hi
  • patriot_serg
    patriot_serg 2 October 2015 15: 34 New
    +2
    Unfortunately, the site of veterans of the US Army is blocked. Http://www.veteranstoday.com/, Somehow forgot the ASP about one
    "неядерном" игроке на земле обетованной.А игрок похоже съезжает с катушек.О встрече ветеранов разведок Сирии и США,и остальное закулисье с их сайта сохранено тут:-http://el20.livejournal.com/107906.html
    К теме последних "неядерных взрывов"
    1. Das Boot
      Das Boot 2 October 2015 18: 32 New
      +2
      Quote: patriot_serg
      Unfortunately, the site of veterans of the US Army is blocked.http: //www.veteranstoday.com/

      what, really - is blocked ????
  • Imperial
    Imperial 2 October 2015 15: 39 New
    +1
    falling, falling nuclear mine
  • mpzss
    mpzss 2 October 2015 15: 39 New
    +1
    тут недавно в СМИ проскочила информация (со стороны сша), что у ИГ скоро появится атомное оружие, ну или как минимум "грязная" бомба... Теперь вопрос, вспоминая прошлогодние скандалы в армии сша с пропажей комплектующих от атомного оружия, эта информация про ИГ было предупреждение? Типа: "Мы говорили! Предупреждали! а вы нам не поверили!"??? есть над чем призадуматься, ведь 104 боеголовки уничтожить, это не просто так!
    1. patriot_serg
      patriot_serg 2 October 2015 16: 13 New
      +1
      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 /
  • mamont5
    mamont5 2 October 2015 16: 02 New
    +1
    Пусть хоть засчитаются, на них хватит, и на ихних шакалов останется. Тут главное приоритет выдержать, чтобы хозяина в первую очередь удоволить, а уж на лизоблюдов, что останется. А то американцы хотят своих, т.н. "союзников" вперед выставить, чтобы за их спинами от ядерного "армагеддона" спрятаться.
  • vovanpain
    vovanpain 2 October 2015 17: 02 New
    10
    Mokhet, we offended someone in vain, dropping a couple of extra megatons, Under the feet of the earth melts, Where once was the Pentagon.
  • Starik72
    Starik72 2 October 2015 17: 14 New
    +3
    I believe every beast, but the beast of the USA, I DO NOT BELIEVE!
  • roskot
    roskot 2 October 2015 17: 30 New
    +3
    The arsenals are impressive, enough to make the land uninhabited.
  • silver_roman
    silver_roman 2 October 2015 18: 01 New
    +1
    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.
  • NDR-791
    NDR-791 2 October 2015 18: 08 New
    +1
    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. Т.е. они заметили сокращение у себя, но как то не заметили у нас вывода с БД некоторого количества евростратегов - ТУ-22. Такой список не соответствия и несуразностей можно продолжать долго. При этом главное помнить, что если бы МЫ не соблюдали давно достигнутых договоров и не соблюдали бы их постоянно, то нас бы давно (ещё в начале 90х) попытались бы растереть в пыль. Помните, что у них "демократия и свобода пустого базара", так что собака лает, караван идёт...
    1. Vadim237
      Vadim237 2 October 2015 19: 36 New
      +2
      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
      Boa kaa 2 October 2015 21: 33 New
      +1
      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.
  • Reptiloid
    Reptiloid 2 October 2015 18: 19 New
    0
    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!
  • Darkoff
    Darkoff 2 October 2015 18: 46 New
    +2
    Why compare what is enough for several times to destroy all life on Earth?
  • Barakuda
    Barakuda 2 October 2015 18: 53 New
    +1
    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?
  • Evgeniy30
    Evgeniy30 2 October 2015 18: 54 New
    +3
    Truly thanks to comrades Stalin and Beria for our quiet childhood and present .....
  • Skiff
    Skiff 2 October 2015 19: 02 New
    +2
    in order to fight the Yankees on equal terms, we need an ocean fleet, in our case at least one - the Pacific
    1. Das Boot
      Das Boot 2 October 2015 20: 18 New
      +1
      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.
  • ssn18
    ssn18 2 October 2015 20: 48 New
    +1
    "Государственный департамент США"

    Question: And who else believes in this sharaga and puts it in something?
  • Yak-3P
    Yak-3P 2 October 2015 22: 04 New
    0
    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
      Vadim237 2 October 2015 23: 28 New
      0
      Nuclear winter is a science fiction fairy tale.
  • Noctis
    Noctis 3 October 2015 02: 06 New
    0
    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%;
  • polkovnik manuch
    polkovnik manuch 3 October 2015 12: 10 New
    +1
    All the bastards are crazy, we are for peace!
  • Old26
    Old26 5 October 2015 11: 01 New
    0
    Quote: alexey bukin
    Видимо у Госдепа нет больше занятия как "меряться письками" с Россией

    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, "божий дар с яичницой". В докладе ГД говорится о "стратегических" системах, как носителях, так и боеголовках. Бомбы - это тактические. Можно разместить конечно и наши тактические боеприпасы на территории стран ОДКБ, но что это даст? В чем выигрыш?

    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
  • Old26
    Old26 5 October 2015 11: 01 New
    0
    Quote: PENZYAC
    А может они предполагают использовать для этого "гражданские" носители (например, самолёты)? Как их отличить? Хотя, у нас тоже подобные возможности имеются... Будем друг друга бояться?...

    Бомбы, с гражданских? Ну вы батенька и фантаст. Запрет использование гражданских авиалайнеров в качестве носителей КР существует уже 3 десятка лет. А использовать как бомбардировщик пассажирский (гражданский) лайнер - деньги на ветер. Поспрашивайте у пилотов ВТА, какого они мнения были о возможности переделки их ВТС в "носители" бомб


    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!

    Вы даже не представляете насколько меньшем. Цифры говорят о "развернутых и неразвернутых" носителях. У нас это количество, неразвернутых в несколько раз меньше, чем у американцев. И мы продолжаем их сокращать, т.к. снимаются с вооружения старые комплексы. А именно они Р-36М2 и УР-100Н УТТХ имеет по 10 и 6 блоков соответственно... Для того, чтобы сохранять паритет нам придется ставить на вооружение большое количество ракет, причем не моноблочных

    Quote: silver_roman
    Those. more advanced SNF!

    Нет, СЯС обеих сторон примерно одинаковы по совершенству. Просто у них значительно дольше стоят на вооружение ракеты наземного и морского базирования, чем у нас. Мы свои жидкостные уже списываем, а их "Минитмены" до сих пор стоят
    1. silver_roman
      silver_roman 5 October 2015 13: 38 New
      0
      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.
  • The comment was deleted.
  • Old26
    Old26 5 October 2015 16: 25 New
    0
    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
    Количество УР-100Н УУТХ (а не УР-100, будьте все же точные в определениях) сейчас порядка 600. По 6 голов на каждой - это 360 голов. Итого 820 голов. Мы снимает оба изделия. Количество "Сарматов" будет сравнимо с количеством Р-36М2 и размещаться в тех же ПР. Итого 46. Ладно, пусть 50. Количество БГ, даже если посчитать их равным 10 - 500. Более того, вероятнее всего порядка 26 (как пишут наши СМИ) будут оснащены гиперзвуковыми аппаратами в количестве 3 шт. на каждом. То есть остается порядка 20-24 "Сарматов" с РГЧ ИН. То есть 200-240 ББ, плюс 26 х 3 = 72. Итого 270-312 ББ. По сравнению в нынешними 820 головами - это сокращение примерно в 2,6-3 раза. Вот так выглядит постановка новых тяжелых ракет на БД.

    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.