Military Review

Nuclear watch

42
The teachings of the Soviet army helped the West hold back


Unlike Russia, where the conviction dominates over the need to ban tactical nuclear weapons weapon (TNW), the United States and NATO countries consider its use possible. Moreover, they pay great attention to this. In a lightning strike strategy, an important role is played by TNW located in Europe. The results of the analysis of the state of NATO’s nuclear planning require that specific measures be taken to prevent the military threat from escalating into open conflict.

In the 90 of the last century, as a result of unilateral initiatives of the President of the USSR (October of 1991), as well as the Treaty on the Elimination of Intermediate-Range and Short-Range Missiles (December of 1987), the domestic arsenal of tactical nuclear forces and INF Treaty had a significant reduction. Uncertainty arose in understanding the need to preserve these weapons and ammunition with all the ensuing consequences, first of all, the possibility and feasibility of using them in solving nuclear deterrence problems on a regional scale.


OTRK "Oka" was adopted in 1980-m. Launchers and more 200 missiles that were on the territory of the USSR were destroyed in 1989 year - allegedly on the basis of the INF Treaty


The use of tactical nuclear weapons was not planned at the exercises, the methods and forms of military actions required under such conditions were not developed. As a result, the corresponding skills of commanders and staff officers were lost. The process of degradation of the military infrastructure ensuring the operation of tactical nuclear weapons has accelerated.

The military press very little discussed the problems relating to non-strategic nuclear weapons, underestimated its importance to the security of the country, which caused various interpretations in the methods of its use. Some researchers and practitioners believe that in repelling aggression it is advisable to use TNW in all cases first. But the explanations seem to be insufficiently correct, since they are based primarily on the weakening of Russia's military might. Say, the use of nuclear weapons in the initial phase of repelling an attack by the West should be demonstrative in nature and without disastrous consequences, but convincingly prove readiness for an escalation of nuclear strikes in the event of further aggression.

Such proposals confirm that deterrence issues at the regional level and the role of tactical nuclear weapons in this task are poorly developed. An analysis of publications on the problem indicates that in some of them the authors believe that the distinction between deterrence and combat use of tactical nuclear weapons does not exist. We believe that nuclear deterrence should be understood as the prevention of aggression by the threat of use of nuclear weapons in a retaliatory strike. That is, the main tool is the presence of nuclear weapons in this area.

Unlike deterrence, the de-escalation of aggression is not a threat, but rather forcing the enemy to cease hostilities with strikes of various sizes, including nuclear, in response to the use of nuclear weapons by the enemy and other means of mass destruction.

According to the experience of exercises held in military districts in 1960 – 1988, the methods of work of the commander and front staff during the preparation and planning of a nuclear attack depended on the situation and were carried out on the basis of the General Staff Directive, which indicated the ammunition consumption and the depth in which targets (objects) must be hit by front forces. The direct formation of a decision on the use of tactical nuclear weapons was carried out at the front headquarters. For this purpose, a special nuclear planning group was created in advance. Usually it was headed by the chief of staff of the front.

The nuclear strike plan was approved by the front commander and regularly updated depending on the identification of important new objects (targets). As practice shows, such a plan should be reported before the announcement of the decision on the operation with the expectation that the use of TNW is authorized when a general order is issued.

Since the beginning of the conflict and the military threat build-up, the main efforts have been focused on collecting, studying and analyzing the situation to identify new important goals, as well as organizing the advancement of TNW to false boundaries to demonstrate the presence of nuclear forces, and subsequently their hidden relocation to positional areas. Special attention was paid to engineering equipment and disguise.



With the emergence of an immediate threat of deployment of aggression, by order or by an established signal of the General Staff (Supreme Command rates), the formations and parts of the front were brought to a state of alert “complete”. The troops and headquarters occupied the secret areas assigned to them, the MTA and RIA were positional, and the air forces of the front occupied alternate airfields.

Studies conducted in the course of the exercise showed that during this period the possible nature of the actions of the enemy and his intentions to use nuclear weapons can be most fully evaluated. Therefore, the operational directive of the General Staff (Supreme Command rates) came to the front, as a rule, two or three days before the onset of aggression.

With the receipt of reliable data on the readiness of the enemy to use nuclear weapons, work methods in front management acquired a special direction, which consisted in supplementary exploration of objects (targets) to be destroyed by nuclear weapons and corrected, therefore, decisions on their use.

The most expedient method of preparing the operation was parallel. During this period, high coordination and professionalism of the officers take on special significance. Data collection and processing was carried out with the extensive use of automated mode with mandatory feedback.

Immediately before nuclear strikes, the regulations were usually as follows. According to the signal set at the front headquarters, the commander, the front headquarters officer, the head of the RVAA, the Air Force and their chiefs of staff, the head of the operational department, the officers involved in the management of MFA and the Air Force, in the process of direct preparation and application of retaliatory nuclear strikes, took their places in the center the battle command of the front, and the head of the intelligence of the front with officers is the intelligence center. Between the CBU, the RC, the missile forces and the Air Force in advance organized communication of all types and automated control systems.

For further exploration of previously identified targets, primarily nuclear weapons, and the establishment of new ones by order of the front commander, aviation. On some exercises, not only intelligence, but all. Firstly, to withdraw it from the enemy’s strikes, and secondly, for visual additional reconnaissance of targets.

The dozor-86 exercise examined the working methods of all officials involved in this task. Upon detection of a target, an airborne pilot transferred to the reconnaissance center, for example: “Grove - 2 km north of Ivanov, concentrates up to 100 tanks". Having received such information in the RC, it was determined, for example, that previously there were no tanks in this area. And they transmitted to the Central Bank: “The target is new, up to 100 tanks in the grove” and the coordinates on the encoded map.

In the CBU, an officer at the MFA headquarters put a target on the map of the commander and determined the geographical coordinates, clarified the ACS.

The head of the MFA and A determined the optimal variant (air or ground) of a nuclear weapon to destroy this target and reported to the front commander.

He identified the performer - MTA and the Air Force and gave the command to the head: "MTA, 100, air, destroy."

The MFA Head determined the number of the RDB and readiness.

The head of the direction to this brigade duplicated the order to the RDB commander for the available means of communication. With the availability of modern tools, the process can be reduced.

The proposed option of using tactical nuclear weapons from the experience of 60 – 80-s exercises is not a template and requires discussion of the use of these formidable weapons. It must be remembered that any of its first use, except as a last resort, is adventurism, which leads to an escalation of nuclear strikes down to strategic ones and will lead to a general catastrophe.
Author:
Originator:
http://vpk-news.ru/articles/28916
42 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. aszzz888
    aszzz888 30 January 2016 07: 36
    +5
    An important role in the lightning strike strategy is given to nuclear weapons located in Europe.


    That is why the first and 100% deceased geyropovtsy who have TNWs will be there.
    1. akmalinin
      akmalinin 30 January 2016 13: 44
      +3
      The exchange of TNW strikes is nothing, if nuclear weapons are used, then this will be global in nature, if you beat it for sure. The whole world is in ruins, I hope this will not come to this.
      1. Mikhail Krapivin
        Mikhail Krapivin 30 January 2016 19: 27
        0
        They don’t understand this. They sincerely believe that they will be able to disclose to us with the help of TNW headquarters, airfields, launch mines, and we will cry and ask not to hit us painfully. The fact that the answer will fly instantly and no longer with the aim of scaring and kneeling, but with the goal of destroying it to the ground, does not come into their European heads. Hence the rattling of weapons, and the constant factories, and screams that they are about to start fighting with us. As soon as they understand that we are not joking and will literally be trash, they will calm down and begin to think how to coexist peacefully with us.
        1. Scraptor
          Scraptor 31 January 2016 01: 47
          +1
          It is applied simply on a "standing" target, so the troops are not very concentrated both in defense and in the offensive, and the ships follow the anti-nuclear order.

          The headquarters in the shallow bunker can be covered with a regular bomb.

          The first paragraph is also true as after the WWII with gas masks there were all armies in WWII, although weapons of mass destruction did not seem to be used.
        2. Bayonet
          Bayonet 12 February 2016 21: 19
          +2
          Quote: Mikhail Krapivin
          They don’t understand this. They sincerely believe that they will be able to disclose to us with the help of TNW headquarters, airfields, launch mines, and we will cry and ask not to hit us painfully.

          Why do you think that "they don't understand it"? Excuse me, you were there, did you communicate with people? Looks like no. Some people sincerely believe that there are some shit - "mattresses", "paddling pools", "macaroni" and so on and so on, fagots stand at every corner and in general everyone just thinks how to fight with us. The same people live, work, study, love and raise children there, with their joys and problems, why demonize and insult them? If some of the politicians do not like (by the way, here they swear at our own people all day long), so what about all the people? When we begin to understand and respect each other, then nuclear weapons will become unnecessary, but for now only one reasoning - who will be the first to ruin whom. And the difference between who is the first to burn and who is the second is only tens of minutes. Maybe some will even have time to feel deep satisfaction from the fact that they are the second ... God forbid!
      2. Scraptor
        Scraptor 30 January 2016 22: 48
        0
        In this connection, all these conclusions?
        1. remy
          remy 31 January 2016 19: 45
          +1
          we need by OTRK Iskander,
          to deliver Brigade complexes with Caliber missiles to the troops and declare that their range is not more than 500 km. (agreement RMNS)
          below just PU under Caliber
    2. Sasha 19871987
      Sasha 19871987 8 February 2016 17: 40
      0
      this passive foreign exchange swindler with a spot in his forehead is precisely marked by God as a leper ... the prison cries for a hunchback at least for starting the Oka for scrap
  2. Vladimir 23rus
    Vladimir 23rus 30 January 2016 07: 54
    23
    Unlike Russia, where dominates conviction of the need to ban tactical nuclear weapons
    Hear it for the first time. And people with such convictions need to arrange an "accident" since the death penalty for treason is prohibited in our country.
    1. kot28.ru
      kot28.ru 30 January 2016 08: 45
      +5
      And you carefully listen to the sweet-voiced liberals from the government who are trying to reduce the military budget, saying that arming and maintaining an army is expensive and in principle not really necessary for Russia, since they certainly know that Russia doesn’t need nuclear weapons, who knows what will they do if some sort of Gref becomes president? hi
      1. clidon
        clidon 30 January 2016 10: 58
        -4
        And whose budget do you advise to reduce? Healthcare? State employees? MIA? Stop paying government bonds and debt? Social obligations? Squeeze pensions?

        PS And specifically, who says that about TNW? Who is this mysterious government liberal? Gref or what?
        1. lexx2038
          lexx2038 30 January 2016 11: 33
          10
          Quote: clidon
          And whose budget do you advise to reduce? Healthcare? State employees? MIA? Stop paying government bonds and debt? Social obligations? Squeeze pensions?

          PS And specifically, who says that about TNW? Who is this mysterious government liberal? Gref or what?

          It is better to live in your own country with reduced budgets listed by you than to end your life on the Anglo-Saxon reservation, with Ukrainian and Polish policemen. The German occupation during WWII seems like a paradise, the current democrats are much more bloodthirsty, and the means of killing people are now much more advanced than in the past.
          Develop, produce everything, even to the detriment of the stomach! Apply without hesitation - in which case. Or do you think they will come, they will win, and they will all drink Bavarian beer and put it on benefits?
          1. clidon
            clidon 30 January 2016 13: 41
            +1
            Well, as soon as retirees cease to pay pensions or doctors salaries, so go to them and tell about the horrors of a democratic occupation. In line at the clinic. You look at your virtual calculations a little and are adjusted by reality. ) Have you been to hospitals for a long time?

            I think that we should maintain an army that we can afford. The strength of the state is not only in guns and tanks, but also in its people, their education and health.

            And I didn’t see who was there against TNW? And then there is such a delicious thesis in the article, but you can’t see where it came from or how it came from.
            1. Scraptor
              Scraptor 31 January 2016 01: 53
              +1
              And what is the impact on the budget of WMD in warehouses, does it simply lie on its own? laughing
              1. clidon
                clidon 31 January 2016 08: 31
                +1
                Nuclear weapons in warehouses do not just lie, they need to be updated, guarded, maintained by technical personnel plus means of use, etc.
                1. Scraptor
                  Scraptor 31 January 2016 19: 08
                  0
                  And in my opinion it, along with its means, in general, simply lies if it does not drip from above ... And the soldier at the entrance to the arsenal carries his service, even when he is not sleeping.
                  1. clidon
                    clidon 31 January 2016 21: 30
                    +1
                    Well, it cannot lie without restrictions. There are also terms of maintenance and warranty "age". We'll have to send it for processing.
                    1. Scraptor
                      Scraptor 31 January 2016 21: 36
                      0
                      Did the soldier sleep? Well, what are the limitations and how much will it cost? laughing
                      1. clidon
                        clidon 31 January 2016 21: 50
                        0
                        Carry out maintenance with a neutron recharge every five years. Once every twenty years for remelting.
                      2. Scraptor
                        Scraptor 31 January 2016 22: 29
                        0
                        And so it is better to immediately sell all weapons-grade plutonium to the United States to "destroy their industry"?

                        Where does this information come from? In a neutron, fast neutrons melt faster? wassat
                      3. clidon
                        clidon 31 January 2016 22: 52
                        0
                        Do you speak voices?
                      4. Scraptor
                        Scraptor 31 January 2016 23: 13
                        0
                        I asked you this! laughing am
  3. Megatron
    Megatron 30 January 2016 11: 57
    -1
    Deputies, various apparatchiks, ministries, other civil servants, in short, all the officials. Sinecures in state corporations, and some "corporations" as a whole, allegedly Russian, Skolkovo, in short, the list goes on and on.
    1. clidon
      clidon 30 January 2016 13: 33
      +1
      Here it is necessary to begin with the fact that the people have already thrown bone and 10% of deputy salaries will be reduced. Plus, the retirement age will be extended.
      Secondly, out of 16 trillion of the budget, expenses for the entire state apparatus, including the president and other deputies, and even to the smallest clerk, as well as all buildings, etc., amount to a little more than one (1,15) trillion rubles. At the current cost of oil, you need to save not one or two trillion rubles, so if you even force the entire state machine to work for free, this will not save other budget items from sequestration.
  4. max702
    max702 30 January 2016 14: 52
    +2
    Quote: clidon
    And whose budget do you advise to reduce?

    Well, for example, the US budget will cease to sponsor by buying their government bonds, and these funds (tens of billions \ dollars) will be spent on our needs, both defensive and social ..
    1. clidon
      clidon 30 January 2016 15: 44
      +1
      Well then, you need to immediately decide whether we need to reserve funds in case of any crises, schmiesises or not.
      And you have already guessed - the budget deficit (so far officially at 2 trillion with a tail) this year will be paid off due to reserves.
  • ozon34rus
    ozon34rus 30 January 2016 13: 45
    0
    Nadozhe, but I did not know, getting old))
  • An64
    An64 30 January 2016 19: 13
    +2
    Unlike Russia, where the belief that it is necessary to ban tactical nuclear weapons (TNW) dominates

    Not once, no where, none of the leaders of the Russian Federation spoke of the need to reduce nuclear weapons. Moreover, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs stated that while there is an American TNW in Europe, one should not even start talking about the prohibition / reduction / withdrawal of nuclear weapons ...
  • kind
    kind 30 January 2016 08: 26
    13
    I studied "Oku" at the school, the complex is simply magnificent, even today! True, it was not possible to serve on it Gorbachev-cyka betrayed-sold. I had to serve on the "kerosene" - 9K72 "Elbrus". By the way, the task of our brigade was to deliver a group attack on the Bosphorus so that NATO ships would not enter the Black Sea!
    1. Olfred
      Olfred 30 January 2016 13: 07
      +1
      here, because of the tagged, our beloved Iskander almost disappeared ... what would happen to Us if there weren’t a nuclear club hi
  • Zaurbek
    Zaurbek 30 January 2016 08: 43
    0
    Here is the platform ..! Why is it not being used in the Army now? Put modern units and a universal machine will work.
  • Nikolay71
    Nikolay71 30 January 2016 08: 59
    +1
    The military doctrine of Russia seems to spell out the possibility of using the first nuclear weapons, even in response to hostilities without it.
  • Sergey-8848
    Sergey-8848 30 January 2016 09: 06
    +1
    Where does the statement in the very first phrase of the article come from, that we have dominated by the belief about the need to ban tactical nuclear weapons (TNW)? From what ceiling did the author get this data?
    1. clidon
      clidon 30 January 2016 16: 36
      0
      Well, he needed to start the article with something ...
  • lotar
    lotar 30 January 2016 09: 53
    0
    As far as I know, we notify our sworn friends in advance of the relocation of strategic and not only forces, the same strictly follow this. They have a similar situation. Does anyone know this firsthand? If you know, then share the info.
  • Gormenghast
    Gormenghast 30 January 2016 12: 07
    +3
    "Demo"the use of TNW in the form of warheads with a predominantly electromagnetic component; high-altitude explosions over a theater of operations, perhaps.

    The availability of weapons and their readiness for use are demonstrated; direct destruction of manpower does not occur; all types of communication disappear on the watch; Precise electronics burn out, which demoralizes the enemy.

    No "opinions“Of course, there is no and cannot be a ban on TNW. It is only in the liberal minds that there is such a conviction (they propose to surrender all nuclear weapons in general - for the sake of a can of jam and a basket of cookies).
    1. Bayonet
      Bayonet 12 February 2016 20: 44
      0
      Quote: Gormengast
      Of course, there is no "opinion" on the prohibition of TNW, and there cannot be. It is only in liberal heads that there is such a conviction

      So after all, this is where the article begins - "Unlike Russia, where the prevailing conviction about the need to ban tactical nuclear weapons ..."), therefore the author is the very "liberal head"? what
  • Yak28
    Yak28 30 January 2016 12: 45
    -1
    The tactical nuclear weapons that the United States deployed in Europe will reach Russia, and the tactical nuclear weapons of Russia the United States will not reach, and this is not good. In general, who would not say anything about a retaliatory nuclear strike or retaliation strike, and so on, if the NATO countries launch nuclear strikes the first to attack Russia’s territory, it’s not a match for destruction that will defeat Russia. Whoever strikes the first blow will win. Imagine nuclear strikes at airfields, no strategic aviation, no cities with populations of millions and no manpower. mine-based missiles, mobile missile launchers from a nuclear strike will scatter in all directions, there’s no sense in a retaliatory strike. So you don’t have to wait on June 22, you need to be proactive.
    1. Bolhevik
      Bolhevik 30 January 2016 16: 58
      0
      On January 25 of this year, an organization called the "January 25 Committee" was created, which declared itself as the third outside political force and is ready to unite under its leadership
      supporters of National Sociolism. In this regard, there is every reason to believe that before the external intervention, an analogue of the revolution is being prepared during the period of the hot conflict of the government with a non-systemic opposition. But the resource of Russia is far from the one that allowed it to self-organize after the collapse of the Russian Empire, and in this regard, the answer to the question of what will happen after the second is obvious Russia is being prepared for self-destruction "the model of the disintegration of Ukraine is taken as a basis as it meets the requirements of modeling according to the conformity of the peoples living on the territory of the state." ... In this regard, we can say - "Well, we are not Ukrainians - this will not work for us ?, and so here the whole answer is in self-deception similar to Ukraine, so they are not Russians and who are they now.
      And after all this, a unilateral nuclear strike will occur.
  • runway
    runway 30 January 2016 13: 02
    +3
    The author tried to take on an obviously overwhelming burden. "But if you took up a tug, do not say that you are not hefty" ....
    This whole article (to call it an article - to deceive oneself) is a mess from prescriptions and articles of the 60s that have not been working in the troops for a long time.
    In order to draw hasty conclusions about the use of nuclear weapons, the author should at least read the Military Doctrine of the Russian Federation in 2015 (Article 27).
  • 8140
    8140 30 January 2016 14: 57
    +5
    What money is not enough for the army? I do not believe!
    Cancel the golden parachutes and awards of tens of millions of tops in state-owned companies.
    Gazprom is the property of Russia, let's see the top salary budget.
    And Rosneft, Russian Railways, Rosnanotech)))) I can’t laugh
    But for an example:
    Everyone loves to watch football) and it hurts so much for losing the team) everyone cries that we do not develop young people (this is so for example)
    And now the question is how much does Gazprom Zenit pay only for the transfer of the Hulk + his salary? And how many legionnaires in general? And how much did they cost us?
    For us! Money is then a state-owned company.
    Or what, holy football? Spent billions of euros, where? Morons!

    And you say TNW)
    We have in the camp of the poor for 20 million.
    People for 20 thousand rubles are injected from hopelessness. Putin wanted the revolution, so he will.
    In the Leningrad region, for example, they use wood to heat houses. Gas branches 600 meters from the villages.
    And government purchases!
    They limited the officials in cars)) 2,5 million. Why aren’t you up there at all up to what level of workers' salaries is?
    This mess is already visible with closed eyes.
    Now I really want to write obscenities about officials and about everything that happens in my home country!
    Our leadership, together with Putim and Medvedev, is really not right.
    The authorities are responsible for what is happening in the country.
    Created a system)
  • Old26
    Old26 30 January 2016 15: 00
    +3
    Quote: Yak28
    The tactical nuclear weapons that the United States deployed in Europe will reach Russia, and the tactical nuclear weapons of Russia the United States will not reach, and this is not good. In general, who would not say anything about a retaliatory nuclear strike or retaliation strike, and so on, if the NATO countries launch nuclear strikes the first to attack Russia’s territory, it’s not a match for destruction that will defeat Russia. Whoever strikes the first blow will win. Imagine nuclear strikes at airfields, no strategic aviation, no cities with populations of millions and no manpower. mine-based missiles, mobile missile launchers from a nuclear strike will scatter in all directions, there’s no sense in a retaliatory strike. So you don’t have to wait on June 22, you need to be proactive.

    The fact that their nuclear weapons will reach and ours will not reach - there is no arguing. But with respect to the fact that destruction cannot be compared with any answer - this is a rather controversial statement. To begin with, the United States does not have missile systems in Europe. And from the stockpiled nuclear weapons - 100% ammunition. The planners on their part will not be able to guarantee 100% deep penetration of NATO aircraft. In addition, in the same England on alert only one boat with reduced ammunition, France is not much more in readiness. It is unlikely that anyone will use TNW in the first, preemptive strike. It is rather a weapon of stripping, finishing, and not a weapon of the first blow.

    About the flying Poplars. You are right, these are not mine complexes. Here are just the coordinates of the mine are known with an accuracy of seconds and fractions of a second. Try to find "Poplar". And probably since there is no sense in them, we deploy them. 2/3 of the mobile (stupid) and a third of the efficient. Uh-huh. And about the article. Didn't put anything. The article is basically about nothing
    1. Yak28
      Yak28 31 January 2016 08: 55
      0
      Quote: Old26
      1. The deployed ground mobile launchers of ICBMs and their associated missiles are based only in limited areas. A limited area does not exceed five square kilometers in size and does not enter the territory of another limited area. In a limited area, no more than ten deployed soil mobile launchers of ICBMs and related missiles may be based or located. Within a limited area, there are no deployed ICBMs for the soil mobile launchers of ICBMs of more than one type of ICBMs.

      If you take into account this information, plus to take into account that the mobile complex carries less payload than a mine-based missile, then there is not much sense from poplars in a retaliatory strike. In the USA there are no fools, they don’t need a mobile missile system, they have a lot of sea missiles bases that are practically not vulnerable
      1. clidon
        clidon 31 January 2016 10: 05
        0
        The missile of the same type, that in the silos, that on the mobile installation (TopolM or Yars) is the same.
        In the USA, the basis of strategic forces is mobile units - only in the form of submarines.
  • Old26
    Old26 30 January 2016 19: 34
    +2
    Quote: CERHJ
    In fact, it’s the same under the START-2 treaty (in START-3 they confirmed the same in my opinion) the area of ​​accommodation is limited to 25 km ... But the idea with the BRC is very serious for staff members ..

    Under the START-3 treaty, the deployment area of ​​the missile division is not limited. Under START-1, the deployment area was limited to 250000 square meters. km, which means either a square of 500 x 500 km or, accordingly, a circle with a radius of almost 150 km.

    Quote: CERHJ
    Yes? And how many ground mobile ICBMs will move away from the base on primers in case of time "H"? What is their average speed? And now we can compare it with BZHRK. I think the difference will immediately become clear.

    Well, the average speed is about 45 km / h. But what the BZHRK will have is not yet known. In addition, if necessary, PGRK can shoot directly from the "Kron"
  • SlavaP
    SlavaP 30 January 2016 21: 34
    0
    An interesting movie: if you believe the attached schedule - the script, then we are already somewhere between the 2 and 3 phases (?)
  • Old26
    Old26 30 January 2016 21: 52
    +2
    Quote: CERHJ
    On a primer, a 100-ton tractor-average speed of 45 km / h? Something smacks of fiction, and even in the convoy ..

    Those who served spoke of such an average speed. How real - I can’t say

    Quote: CERHJ
    Well, Molodtsov had the same provision.

    Honestly, I have not seen this. The building on the PPD BZHRK - differed in design from the "Krona".

    Quote: CERHJ
    Well, yes I remember. That was. That 25, it turns out 250 thousand km. Is there a link to this information?

    I apologize, CERHJ, but I involuntarily misled you Article VI of START I is worded as follows:

    Article VI
    1. The deployed ground mobile launchers of ICBMs and their associated missiles are based only in limited areas. Limited area does not exceed in size five square kilometers and does not enter the territory of another limited area. In a limited area can be based or located no more than ten deployed soil mobile launchers ICBMs and related missiles. Within a limited area, there are no deployed ICBMs for the soil mobile launchers of ICBMs of more than one type of ICBMs.

    Paragraph 1 refers to the RPM of the missile regiment

    2. Each of the Parties shall limit the number of stationary structures for mobile launchers of ICBMs within each limited area so that these structures are not capable of containing more mobile soil launchers of ICBMs than the number of mobile soil launchers of ICBMs indicated for this limited district.

    About the number of structures "Krona"

    3. Each restricted area is within the deployment area. Deployment area does not exceed in size 125000 square kilometers and does not enter the territory of another deployment area. Within the deployment area, there is no more than one ICBM base for land-based mobile launchers of ICBMs.

    But with the number 250000 I was wrong. I admit it. For some reason, this figure has sunk. And what is it for the division. In reality, the deployment area of ​​the regiment is a radius of about 100 km
    Link - www.armscontrol.ru
  • ratcatcher
    ratcatcher 31 January 2016 21: 25
    +1
    Oh guys, it's not like that. All wrong guys.
    "During the Great Britain's headquarters exercises, a committee of representatives of the military leadership, as well as high-ranking members of the government, refused to retaliate if Russia would strike such a blow on England.
    “At that moment it was clear that the policy of containment had failed. My feeling was that it became a moral issue - the use of force can only be justified to prevent more evil ... and if Britain is destroyed, then what will we achieve by destroying half of Russia as well? ""
    http://vz.ru/news/2016/1/31/791488.html

    What we are talking about is the senselessness of strategic nuclear weapons as a deterrence weapon.
    All lovers of Topol M and other things should think about this. A headshot to each other does not solve anything and has nothing to do with politics and military art.
    Strategic nuclear weapons are an absolute evil and must be destroyed on any media in all countries. Nuclear strikes against civilian facilities, plants and infrastructure must be completely eliminated.
    At the same time, I personally consider it possible to maintain tactical nuclear weapons in very limited quantities with a maximum capacity of up to 0.5-1 kilotons. To solve exclusively tactical and operational tasks of the confrontation, significantly superior to the enemy on the battlefield. That is, in fact, accumulations of equipment in the areas of major strikes and naval large formations.
    Monstrous spending on suicide weapons must be stopped
  • ratcatcher
    ratcatcher 31 January 2016 21: 30
    0
    As for the tactical. It is from NATO countries ONLY in the United States. Before the Ukrainian events, a significant part of it was exported from Europe to the United States. The rest was in storage warehouses and was not in a state of readiness. And ONLY in the form of air bombs. Russia has missiles capable of carrying tactical weapons.
    So there’s a big question here - who wants to ban and who doesn’t really