Military Review

Nuclear era. Part 10

126



Nuclear weapon Since the second half of the 20th century, nuclear power engineering has become an integral part of the cultural, military, and technological spheres of human civilization. As the development of nuclear technology and the creation of new types of nuclear weapons, attitudes towards them among the inhabitants, political and public figures, military, scientists and engineers changed.

Appearing as a “superweapon” in the United States in 1945, the atomic bomb almost immediately turned into an instrument of political pressure on the Soviet Union. However, after the advent of nuclear weapons in the USSR, the accumulation of reserves and the miniaturization of nuclear charges, it, along with the preservation of strategic objectives, began to be seen as a means of battlefield. First, in the USA, and then in the USSR, tactical missile systems and artillery shells with "nuclear filling" appeared. Nuclear warheads were equipped with anti-aircraft and aviation missiles, torpedoes and depth charges, nuclear mines were developed to create insurmountable obstacles to the advance of the enemy forces.

Nuclear era. Part 10

The number of nuclear warheads in the United States and the USSR / Russia


In the 60 of the last century, intercontinental ballistic missiles became the main means of solving strategic tasks, replacing long-range bombers in this role. During the years of confrontation between the two world systems, the accumulation of the number of nuclear warheads and their delivery vehicles continued until the second half of the 80-s. Their sharp decline occurred after the collapse of the USSR and the formal end of the Cold War. However, the complete elimination of nuclear weapons, despite the predictions of some "humanist idealists" in the XXI century did not happen. Moreover, its role in ensuring the defense capacity of our country in the years of decline and endless "reform" of the Russian army even increased. The presence of nuclear weapons in Russia in many ways prevented our western and eastern "partners" from attempts to resolve political and territorial disputes by force. In addition to the strategic deterrent of the Russian nuclear triad, tactical nuclear weapons have played and are playing, largely devaluing the superiority in the field of conventional weapons of NATO and the PLA of the PRC. It is not by chance that the leadership of the United States has repeatedly raised the issue of Russian tactical nuclear weapons, offering to publish data on its locations, the exact quantitative and qualitative composition, as well as conclude an agreement on mutual elimination of tactical nuclear weapons.



Currently in the world at the disposal of official and unofficial members of the “nuclear club” there is an amount of fissile and fissile materials sufficient to create 15000 nuclear charges. About 5000 nuclear warheads quickly deployed on the carrier, or can be prepared for use within a few days. The Federation Of American Scientists estimates that only in the Russian armed forces as of the beginning of 2015, there were about 1800 deployed charges. About 700 strategic warheads are located in storage facilities separately from carriers. The number of nuclear charges awaiting their turn for recycling is estimated at 3200 units. Although these warheads are for the most part no longer suitable for combat use, the nuclear materials contained in them after reprocessing can be used to create new charges. In the arsenals of the United States and Russia is approximately 90% of all world stocks of nuclear weapons.

A vivid example of this is such countries as Iran and the DPRK. If the Iranian nuclear program, at least formally, thanks to the efforts of international diplomacy, was able to be transferred to a peaceful plane, then North Korea, due to excessive pressure from the United States, Japan and South Korea, on the contrary, demonstrates intractability. Apparently, the fate of the leaders of Iraq and Libya, who at one time for some reason refused to create their own nuclear weapons and eventually became victims of Western aggression, is a negative example for the leadership of the DPRK.



At various times, nuclear ambitions have shown: Argentina, Brazil, Libya and Sweden. At different stages of the development of their own nuclear programs, these countries refused to create an atomic bomb. Iraq was forced to stop developing nuclear weapons after the destruction of the Osirak nuclear reactor from France by the Israeli Air Force.

Work on the creation of the atomic bomb in Argentina began with the 1951 year in the period of the dictatorship of Perron. Prior to the start of the 70-x, four research reactors and a laboratory unit for the radiochemical processing of irradiated nuclear fuel were commissioned. In the 1973 year, about 1 kg of plutonium was obtained, but for foreign policy reasons, the production of plutonium in 1974 was discontinued. At that time, Argentina already had the necessary scientific and technical base and production facilities for obtaining heavy water, producing nuclear fuel, enriching uranium, radiochemical processing of spent nuclear fuel and separating plutonium.

After the military government headed by General Jorge Redondo came to power in 1978, it was officially announced that atomic weapons were being built in Argentina. According to the then leadership of the country, the implementation of the national nuclear program should not only enhance the prestige of Argentina, but also ensure national security in a competitive environment with Brazil for regional leadership. In the course of the implementation of the Argentine nuclear weapons program, factories have been set up for the production of uranium dioxide, nuclear fuel and heavy water. However, after the defeat of Argentina in the Falkland conflict, a civil administration came to power, and the process of cooperation with Brazil and the inclusion of Argentina in the international regime for the non-proliferation of nuclear weapons began. After the signing of the Guadalajara Agreement on the Use of Atomic Energy for Peaceful Purposes in Argentina and Brazil in the 1991 year, the Argentine nuclear weapons program collapsed exclusively for peaceful purposes. After that, the leadership of Argentina has repeatedly declared that the creation of national nuclear weapons is contrary to the interests of the state, but the existing nuclear infrastructure in the country and qualified personnel will allow it to be done in a relatively short period of time.

For a sufficiently long period of time in Brazil, in parallel with peaceful nuclear research controlled by the IAEA, a secret nuclear weapons program has been conducted since 1957. An additional impetus for the development of the Brazilian nuclear industry was publicizing in 1983 the fact of the completion of the construction of the previously classified uranium enrichment plant in Argentina. At the beginning of the 80's in Brazil, industrial mining of uranium and its enrichment began. In the 1986 year, uranium was obtained, enriched to 20%. At the same time, a laboratory facility for the extraction of plutonium from SNF came into operation.

After the end of the military rule and the civilian administration came to power in 1985, as in Argentina, Brazil began a gradual process of joining the international nuclear nonproliferation regime. In the middle of 90, Brazilian representatives officially announced the existence of a nuclear weapons program under the code name “Project Solimoes” in 70 – 80. Within the framework of this program, the 300 meter shaft, “officially” closed by Brazilian President FK, was created to conduct nuclear tests in a remote region of the country near Kachimbo (in the jungles of the Amazon). de Melo 17 September 1990 of the year. At the time of the signing of the 18 on July 1991 by Brazil and Argentina of the Guadalajara Agreement on the Use of Atomic Energy for Peaceful Purposes in Brazil, the Air Force representatives developed designs of two nuclear bombs with a design capacity of 12 kt and 20 – 30 kt, but they were not assembled.

As in neighboring Argentina, in Brazil at the moment there is the possibility of creating their own nuclear weapons in a relatively short time perspective. In the municipality of Reseda (pc. Rio de Janeiro), a uranium enrichment plant was launched in 2006. Its production capacity is sufficient to produce fuel assemblies for light-water reactors with a capacity of 1000 MW, or to create approximately 30 uranium nuclear charges per year. Brazilian specialists have the necessary qualifications and they have at their disposal spent nuclear technologies for all key elements of the nuclear fuel cycle. In the case of the adoption of an appropriate decision by the leadership of the country in Brazil, it is possible to proceed relatively quickly to the production of fissile materials of a high degree of enrichment, followed by the manufacture of nuclear explosive devices on their basis.

Shortly after 1970 came to power, the leader of the Libyan revolution, M. Gaddafi, began to show nuclear ambitions. Since the country lacked the necessary scientific and industrial base, he turned for help in creating an atomic bomb, first to China, and then to the USSR. But these appeals did not meet with understanding. In 1975, Libya joined the NPT, and then in 1977, the Soviet Union helped establish a research laboratory and set up a light-water research reactor with a capacity of 1981 MW in 10, along with highly enriched uranium.

But Libya could not create an atomic bomb with her own forces in the foreseeable future. Attempts to acquire a heavy-water reactor in the USSR, equipment for the production of heavy water, a line for radiochemical processing of irradiated nuclear fuel, despite the proposed 10 billion at the end of 70-x, were not successful. Due to US opposition, deals with Belgian and German companies were thwarted. As a result, Libya offered significant financial assistance to Pakistan in the hope of gaining an "Islamic nuclear bomb." Unable to purchase the necessary equipment and materials legally, Libya turned to the black market for nuclear technology. In recognition of the “father” of the Pakistani nuclear bomb, Abdul Kadir Khan, through an illegal network created by him, 20 centrifuges for enriching uranium and technical documentation on the design of a nuclear charge were delivered to Libya. At the same time, Libyan representatives made illegal purchases of uranium.

However, the weakness of the Libyan scientific and technological base and international sanctions did not allow Libya to seriously advance in the production of weapons-grade fissile materials. In 2003, Libya, in exchange for a promise to lift the sanctions, announced it was refusing to implement a nuclear weapons program. The IAEA inspections that followed confirmed the lack of production of weapons-grade nuclear materials in Libya. The available special equipment and materials violating the non-proliferation regime were removed from the country. How it ended up for M. Gaddafi, we all know.

Shortly after the nuclear bombing of Japan, on the initiative of the military-political leadership of Sweden, nuclear research began in the country. In 1946, all work in this area was concentrated at the Swedish National Center for Defense Studies. Initially, the purpose of the research was to find out how Sweden could defend itself against an attack with a nuclear weapon. As a result, the leadership of the Swedish armed forces came to the conclusion that the best defense against aggression would be the possession of its own atomic bomb.

At the end of 40, Sweden made a number of attempts to gain access to US nuclear secrets, including uranium enrichment technology, but received a polite refusal. After that, the Swedish leadership simply tried to buy ready-made nuclear warheads in the United States. In 1955, the projected purchase volume — 25 nuclear bombs — was even announced.

The Americans agreed to go to the meeting, but with two fundamental conditions. One of them was the preservation of American control over Swedish nuclear warheads, according to another - Sweden had to conclude a treaty on defense with the United States and abandon neutrality. Both of these conditions were unacceptable for the government of Sweden and the deal did not take place. After the breakdown of the nuclear agreement with the United States, the Swedish leadership decided to create an atomic bomb on its own. I must say that for this in Sweden there was everything you need - scientific, laboratory, industrial and raw materials base.

The national Swedish nuclear weapons production program called for the creation of 100 plutonium bombs weighing 400-500 kg and power 20 CT. To this end, uranium enrichment plants were built in Kvarntorp and Ranstad, and the first heavy-water nuclear reactor was launched in Stockholm in 1954. Heavy water for the reactor was imported from Norway.

After signing a bilateral cooperation agreement with the United States in the field of civilian nuclear energy under the US Peaceful Atomic Program, the R-1956 research reactor was installed in 2. In addition, Sweden has the opportunity to access American research in the field of nuclear energy. Enriched uranium and heavy water began to come from the USA in small quantities at prices lower than from Norway. Moreover, the agreement separately stipulated that Sweden could not use the information and materials received from the Americans to create nuclear weapons.

In 60, nuclear research in Sweden advanced far enough, and the IBM 7090 semiconductor computer imported from the United States seriously helped. In 1964, the Agesta reactor, independently created in Sweden, began operations. This reactor with a thermal capacity of 68 MW could produce up to 2 kg of plutonium per month, which already opened up real possibilities for creating nuclear weapons. It was planned to receive even larger volumes of plutonium at the reactor under construction in Marviken, but this reactor, in view of the refusal to create nuclear weapons, was never launched.

In the second half of 60, Sweden’s nuclear program advanced so much that in a relatively short time it was possible to accumulate the necessary amount of weapons-grade plutonium and start assembling nuclear explosive devices. By that time, with the use of significant volumes of conventional explosives in the river basin of Nausta, a nuclear test method had already been worked out and a place for the construction of adits had been selected for underground tests on the Kjelen Highland in Lapland. To begin assembling a nuclear charge and conducting tests, all that was missing was a political decision by the country's leadership.

The Swedish government understood that the creation and maintenance of a nuclear arsenal would put a heavy burden on the economy. In addition, the country's nuclear status in the event of a conflict between NATO and the Warsaw Pact could have led the Soviet Union to launch a preventive nuclear strike on Sweden. In this regard, protest anti-nuclear sentiments grew in Sweden itself. In 1968, Sweden joined the NPT, and 9 in January, 1970 ratified it. However, work on the weapons program was finally folded only in 1974 year. Recently, Sweden has not shown interest in the possession of nuclear weapons, but the country's scientific and production potential makes it possible to create completely modern types of nuclear weapons in a relatively short time.

Special mention deserves the Iranian nuclear program. In 50-60-s of the last century, the Iranian Shah Reza Pahlavi attempted to rebuild life in the country on a European scale. In 1957, Iran joined the US Atom for Peace program and joined the IAEA. In 1967, a research reactor from the United States began operation at the Tehran Nuclear Research Center. In 70-ies, Iran acquired technological equipment for uranium enrichment and fuel cell production and launched a program in the field of nuclear energy.

The 1979 Islamic Revolution seriously slowed down the work in this area, not only all foreign specialists left the country, but also many Iranian physicists and engineers. In 80-ies, the Iranian nuclear program, which received weapons-oriented, began to be implemented with the help of China and Pakistan. In the second half of 80-s in Isfahan, a nuclear research center began operating on the basis of a reactor supplied from the PRC. However, the agreement with China on the construction of light-water reactors in the same place under US pressure was canceled.

In 90-ies, Iran illegally received centrifuges for uranium enrichment from Pakistan and a package of technical documentation. The exact date of the start of uranium enrichment in Iran is not known, but in Fordo near the city of Qom in the rocks at a depth of 80-90 meters in 2012, there was a production line from about 2000 centrifuges. The first unaccounted Iranian centrifuges were discovered by the IAEA inspectors in Iran in 2004 year. After 2005, the president of the Islamic Republic of Iran, became Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the country's position on nuclear issues became tougher. Iranian representatives at international negotiations insisted on the need to create a full range of enrichment and reprocessing of spent nuclear fuel. Russia took the initiative to enrich Iranian uranium and recycle waste materials from the Bushehr nuclear power plant at its facilities. This would exclude the possibility of extracting weapons-grade plutonium from spent fuel at nuclear power plants.


Google Earth Snapshot: Bushehr Nuclear Power Plant


After international negotiations involving France, Germany and the United Kingdom, the United States, Russia and the PRC came to a standstill, the UN Security Council adopted six resolutions demanding that Iran stop enriching and processing uranium, four of them provided for the introduction and tightening of sanctions against this country.

Despite the imposed international sanctions, Iran did not make concessions. Moreover, heavy water production facilities were put into operation in 2006, and cooperation with the IAEA was limited at 2009 and plans were announced to build ten new uranium enrichment plants in the country. In 2010, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said that the first batch of uranium enriched up to 20% was received at the nuclear center in Natanz, and that the country has the opportunity to produce uranium with a higher degree of enrichment. In the second half of 2011, the IAEA experts issued a conclusion that Iran is increasing its uranium enrichment capacity and works are underway that can be interpreted as producing nuclear weapons.
In April, 2013, Iran announced the 15-year program for the construction of a cascade of 16 nuclear power plants.

By 2010, a set of research and laboratory centers and uranium mining and enrichment factories were formed in Iran. Iran’s nuclear industry relies on mines in Sagand and Gachin, uranium enrichment plants in Ford and Erdekan, nuclear centers in Isfahan, Tehran, Natanz and Parchin. According to IAEA estimates, Iran, while maintaining the enrichment rate of uranium at the level of 2013, could have had several uranium nuclear charges by the year of 2020.

Tensions associated with the Iranian nuclear program began to decline at the end of 2013, after Hassan Rouhani replaced Mahmoud Ahmadinejad as president of the country. At the talks in Geneva, it was possible to adopt a joint action plan, according to which Iran undertook to stop enriching uranium over 5% and destroy all reserves of nuclear materials enriched above this threshold, as well as to stop building new uranium enrichment facilities. In response, the sanctions against Iran, which seriously impeded the development of the Iranian economy, were weakened. The agreement for a period of six months entered into force on January 20 2014 of the year, subsequently its validity was extended twice - first to November 24 of 2014 of the year, then to June 30 of 2015 of the year. Following inspections by Iranian nuclear enterprises and the positive conclusion of the IAEA, international sanctions against Iran in January 2016 were lifted.

Simultaneously with the nuclear one, a missile program was being implemented in Iran. The first ballistic missiles, which are North Korean copies of the Soviet P-17, appeared in Iran in the second half of the 80. They were actively used at the closing stage of the Iran-Iraq war to attack Iraqi cities. In 90, Iran’s cooperation in the missile area with the DPRK continued. That ballistic missiles were to be the main means of delivery of Iranian nuclear weapons.

Based on the missiles received from the DPRK, Iranian specialists have developed their own ground-to-ground missiles of the Shahab family. Thanks to the increased capacity of the fuel and oxidizer tanks and the new North Korean engine, the Shahab-3 rocket, in service with the 2003 of the year, reached the flight range of 1100 — 1300 km with a warhead weight of 750 — 1000 kg.


Launch of Iranian ballistic missile Shahab-3


In August, the 2004 of the year passed the tests of the modernized Shekhab-3M MRSD, the Iranian specialists, by reducing the size of the head part of the rocket and increasing the power of its propulsion system and the capacity of the fuel tanks, achieved the launch range of 1600 km. But the accuracy of these Iranian missiles is low (the QUO is approximately 2,5 km), their effective combat use is possible only against such area targets as the enemy’s cities. According to Israeli estimates, the IRI has about 600 BR family "Shehab". They are placed both on the mobile chassis and in disguised silos. At a military parade in September 2007, the Gadr-1 rocket was demonstrated with a range of up to 2000 km. According to Iranian sources, it is a further development option for Shehab-3M.



With the use of propulsion systems of rockets, working on liquid fuel "Shehab", the launch vehicle "Safir" was created, its third stage is solid propellant. February 2 The improved Safir-2009, launched from the Semnan missile range, launched the first Iranian Omid satellite into orbit.


Google Earth Snapshot: Iranian Semnan Missile Range


In November, a solid single-stage MRSD "Sajil-2008" was launched from the Semnan test site at a distance of about 2000 km. The two-stage Sajil-1 rocket in May 2 of the year demonstrated the launch range of 2009 km. Unlike Iranian medium-range liquid-propellant missiles, which require several hours to refuel and prepare to launch, Sajil solid-fuel missiles lack this disadvantage. According to the Iranian military, it is planned to create mobile solid-propellant missile systems that will be constantly on combat patrols, thus, it is intended to carry out missile deterrence of Israel and guarantee the survival of Iranian MRBD in the event of a sudden disarming strike.

Work on the creation of nuclear weapons were carried out at one time in Spain, Romania, Norway, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Algeria, Myanmar, South Korea, Switzerland and Taiwan. After the collapse of the USSR, nuclear weapons remained in Ukraine, Belarus and Kazakhstan, according to the Lisbon Protocol signed in the 1992 year, they were declared to be countries without nuclear weapons, and in 1994 — 1996 they transferred all nuclear weapons to Russia. In addition to countries that have tried to create nuclear weapons purposefully, there are at least two dozen states in the world that can, if desired, create their own nuclear weapons in the foreseeable future. First of all, these are European industrialized countries, such as Germany, Italy, Belgium and the Netherlands, as well as Japan, Australia and Canada. Many countries have accumulated large stocks of plutonium recovered from SNF. For example, stocks of fissile materials accumulated in Germany and Japan are sufficient to create more than a thousand nuclear charges, which is comparable to the nuclear potential of Russia or the United States.


Nuclear proliferation data as of 2010 year


Despite the reduction in the number of nuclear warheads in Russia, the United States, France and Great Britain, the armed forces of the states where there are nuclear weapons regularly conduct trainings and trainings at which training for the use of nuclear weapons and protection against them are worked out. In developed countries where there are no nuclear weapons, they are preparing their army to act in conditions of nuclear war. Despite the declared end of the Cold War and the moratorium on nuclear testing, the improvement and creation of new types of nuclear weapons did not stop. This is due to the fact that the military and political leadership of nuclear states continues to consider possible scenarios of nuclear war.



Sadly, one must admit that nuclear war is possible. In the event of a global nuclear conflict between the United States and Russia, to which American NATO allies (including the United Kingdom and France) will undoubtedly be connected, the parties can use nuclear warheads against each other up to 4000. This will have disastrous consequences for the developed countries of the world. In a short time period, about 700 million people will die, most of the industrial and infrastructural potential of “Western civilization” will be destroyed. However, according to modern studies, this will not lead to the destruction of life on the planet and even to the complete destruction of humanity. The nuclear charges available to the United States and Russia are enough to turn a country the size of France into a zone of continuous destruction. But, apparently, the global "nuclear winter" will not come, and the radiation contamination of the area will not be as destructive as it is considered to be.

Without a doubt, the emission into the atmosphere of millions of tons of soot and dust may have some effect on the amount of sunlight falling on the earth’s surface, this will somewhat lower the temperature in temperate latitudes for a short time, but it will not be as significant as is commonly believed in gloomy apocalyptic forecasts. . Changes in temperature in the coastal and subtropical zones will be almost negligible. This is confirmed by long-term observations of the consequences of large-scale forest fires and large volcanic eruptions, during which large volumes of solid particles are also ejected into the atmosphere. The main mass of soot during forest and man-made fires does not reach the stratosphere, and is quickly washed out from the lower layers of the atmosphere.

The opinion that several thousand nuclear explosions could split the planet is also untenable. Since 1945, on Earth, nuclear explosions have thundered around 2500, of which 12 with a capacity from 10 to 58 MT, but this has not led to any global changes. During large volcanic eruptions, the amount of released energy exceeds the power of a bomb dropped ten times on Hiroshima, only in the 20 century there were more than 3500 volcanic eruptions, but this did not have a noticeable effect on population growth on earth.

The greatest destructive effect in a nuclear explosion is achieved in the case of an air detonation of a nuclear charge. Modern nuclear warheads have a high utilization rate of fissile and fissile materials, and in the absence of their contact with the ground during an air blast a minimum amount of radionuclides is formed, subsequently falling as radioactive fallout. So after testing on Novaya Zemlya in 1961, a thermonuclear charge with a power of 58 Mt, participants in the tests arrived at the point over which a thermonuclear explosion occurred, after two hours, the radiation level in this place was not very dangerous. At present, the radiation background in the places where aerial test nuclear explosions were carried out, has little different natural values.

A nuclear explosion produces a complex mixture of more than 200 radioactive isotopes of 36 elements (from zinc to gadolinium), the most active are short-lived radionuclides. So, through 7, through 49 and through 343 days after the explosion, the SPP activity decreases by 10, 100 and 1000, respectively, compared to the activity one hour after the explosion. In addition to nuclear fission products, radioactive contamination of the locality is due to radionuclides of induced activity and the scattered part of the nuclear charge, which did not participate in the fission reaction. In aerial nuclear explosions, 20-25% of fission products falls in the immediate vicinity. Part of the radionuclides lingers in the lower part of the atmosphere and under the action of the wind moves long distances, remaining approximately at the same latitude. They can be in the air for about a month, gradually fall to the Earth at a considerable distance from the point of explosion. The main part of the fission products formed during an air explosion is thrown into the stratosphere (to an altitude of 12-15 km), where their global dispersion and, to a significant degree, decay occur. It is worth noting that in the case of a land-based nuclear explosion, radiation contamination of the area may be ten times more. The greatest danger is nuclear strikes at operating NPPs and nuclear enterprises, in this case, radiation contamination of a locality may indeed be of catastrophic long-term nature.

It is obvious that in the case of a global nuclear war, humanity, having suffered huge losses, will not disappear. It can be assumed that the centers of civilization after the Third World will be the relatively underdeveloped countries of Asia, Africa, Central and South America, as well as Australia, untouched in a nuclear conflict. The prophecies that the “Fourth World War” will be conducted “with stones and sticks” are untenable, since the accumulated knowledge and skills base ensures that humanity will preserve the technological path of development.


Nuclear bomb V61


Unlike global nuclear war, the use of tactical nuclear weapons seems more likely in future military conflicts. It is warranted that the improvement of nuclear weapons leads to a decrease in the threshold of their use. So at the present time in the USA the B61-12 nuclear bomb is being tested. After being put into service, this nuclear munition should oust most of the armed bombs (except B61-11) of this family: B61-3, B61-4, B61-7, B61-10.



Thanks to the use of a satellite or inertial guidance system, the accuracy of the B61-12 bombing should increase several times, which, in the opinion of the US military, along with the possibility of stepwise control of the explosion power (0,3, 5, 10, and 50 CT) will allow using it both tactically and strategic weapons. And also to minimize collateral damage from its use for their troops.

Another way to improve nuclear weapons can be the creation of charges based on nuclear isomers, for example, a hafnium bomb based on hafnium-178m2. According to the destructive effect, one gram of hafnium can be equivalent to 50 kilograms of TNT and at the same time there is practically no radiation contamination of the area. However, studies that were conducted at the United States Agency for Advanced Defense Research and Development with 1998 to 2004 have shown that, using current technologies, the release of excess energy from the hafnium-178m2 core is not yet possible. But one way or another, nuclear weapons have been in military arsenals for more than 70 years and will not be abandoned in the near future.

Based on:
http://fas.org/issues/nuclear-weapons/status-world-nuclear-forces/
http://www.bellona.ru/reports/1174944248.53
http://warspot.ru/4658-neudavshayasya-kovka-molota-tora
http://www.nationaldefense.ru/includes/periodics/armament/2012/0807/20358969/detail.shtml
http://zver-v.livejournal.com/133575.html
http://endoftheamericandream.com/archives/the-number-of-volcanoes-erupting-right-now-is-greater-than-the-20th-centurys-yearly-average
Author:
Articles from this series:
Nuclear era. Part 1
Nuclear era. Part 2
Nuclear era. Part 3
Nuclear Era. Part 4
Nuclear era. Part 5
Nuclear era. Part 6
Nuclear era. Part 7
Nuclear era. Part 8
Nuclear era. Part 8
Nuclear era. Part 9
126 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. D-Master
    D-Master 3 February 2016 06: 50
    13
    Wonderful article, special thanks for the diagrams, everything is extremely clear and understandable. The conclusion is very sad. With the development of technology, the fear of nuclear weapons recedes, and the use of nuclear weapons becomes unconditionally probable from an unconditional taboo, especially when accepting US games with missile defense. This cannot but disturb.
    1. Corsair
      Corsair 3 February 2016 10: 52
      +2
      Quote: D-Master
      The conclusion is very sad. With the development of technology, the fear of nuclear weapons recedes, and the use of nuclear weapons becomes unconditionally probable from an unconditional taboo, especially when accepting US games with missile defense. This cannot but disturb.

      laughing The existence of life after the war with the full-scale use of nuclear weapons does not guarantee those who started this life, part of the people naturally sit in remote areas, but many factors are not taken into account by forecasters:
      - Wind rose may change
      - Unexpected emergence of typhoons, hurricanes and tornadoes due to strong temperature changes over certain territories
      - Fresh water contamination.
      - All kinds of tectonic processes.
      If victory is purely for the sake of victory and reconciled with the loss of the most infrastructure-developed and settled territory, most of the population, then they may well try.
      It is not clear about Australia - perhaps it will receive its "gingerbread" or other buns in the form of an ozone hole and an even hotter climate (drought, oncology, etc.)
      1. Bongo
        3 February 2016 10: 57
        +5
        Quote: Corsair
        The existence of life after the war with the full-scale use of nuclear weapons does not guarantee those who began this life, part of the people will naturally sit in remote areas

        Certainly yes
        Quote: Corsair
        - Wind rose may change

        Why, and what will it change?
        Quote: Corsair
        - Fresh water infection

        Local, if there will be no targeted attacks on nuclear power plants.
        Quote: Corsair
        All kinds of tectonic processes.

        Caused by air explosions? No.
        Quote: Corsair
        It is not clear about Australia - perhaps it will receive its "gingerbread" or other buns in the form of an ozone hole and an even hotter climate (drought, oncology, etc.)

        Why would the Russian strategic nuclear forces strike Australia? And the remaining consequences will go to all survivors, but humanity in the current situation will not disappear.
        1. Operator
          Operator 3 February 2016 13: 35
          -7
          The Sarmat ICBM with a launch weight of 200 tons will reach anywhere on Earth.
          10 tons of "Sarmat" payload is about seven thermonuclear warheads with a capacity of 5-10 Mt each or one BB with a capacity of 50-100 Mt. That is enough for the vitrification of seven million-plus cities or one megalopolis. The number of "Sarmatov" BB must correspond to the number of the indicated targets on the planet (minus the Russian ones).
          Plus, several tens of thousands of tactical thermonuclear charges of 100 Kt deployed on medium-range ballistic and cruise missiles — by the number of military bases, military-industrial complex enterprises and infrastructure facilities.
          After that, it will be possible to proceed to the nuclear disarmament of North Korea, Israel, Pakistan, India, Britain and France. They don’t have their own nuclear weapons, since each of them has a protector country (Russia, the USA or China).
          In the event of a renunciation of nuclear disarmament, the glass-breaking of the territory of the refusenik by the forces of three countries - protectors.
          Such an approach will be enthusiastically supported by all countries that do not have nuclear weapons, but who have the capabilities to manufacture them (Germany, Iran, Japan, Brazil and other Sweden).
          1. Vadim237
            Vadim237 3 February 2016 16: 02
            +6
            In general, the new Sarmat ICBM will have a launch mass of just over 100 tons and some powerful megaton thermonuclear warheads, it will not carry - a maximum of 500 kilotons, in Russia they no longer produce heavy-duty thermonuclear charges, in view of the high cost - the doctrine of the use of nuclear weapons has changed, beat around the cities will no longer be - the main and primary goals of the military.
            1. Operator
              Operator 3 February 2016 17: 29
              +2
              The Deputy Minister of Defense of the Russian Federation said the launch weight of the Sarmat ICBM was over 100 tons, the payload of 10 tons, the possibility of suborbital flight at a distance of up to 20000 km, based in mines from the Voevoda ICBM and liquid propellant rocket engines powered by asymmetric dimethylhydrazine and nitrogen tetroxide. In order to meet all these criteria, the launch weight of the Sarmat cannot be less than 200 tons, and given the density of the layout of the Sineva missile of the same type (with second and third stage rocket engines recessed in fuel tanks), the weight of the new ICBM is rather total will be 210-220 tons.

              A "pure" two-stage thermonuclear charge consists of tritium (a fuse weighing several grams) plutonium (a fission stage weighing up to several tens of kg, depending on the power), lithium hydride (a fusion stage weighing up to several hundred kg), beryllium (a neutron reflector weighing up to several tens kg), tungsten (X-ray reflector weighing up to several hundred kg) and chemical explosive (for compressing the first stage weighing up to several tens of kg).
              Plus steel case and electronic equipment.

              The most expensive component is plutonium, but since Soviet times Russia has accumulated hundreds of tons of weapons-grade plutonium (several tens of thousands of charges), some of which were even sold to the United States. So plutonium will cost almost free.

              The design has been tested, the technology has been developed, production facilities and specialists are available. Those. costs will be only for the manufacture of products.
      2. Vadim237
        Vadim237 3 February 2016 13: 34
        +4
        For this, it can be asserted with 100 percent certainty that the explosions of all 4000 thermonuclear charges and subsequent fires will cause a very tangible greenhouse effect due to the emission of several million tons of CO2 into the atmosphere, as well as heavy monsoon showers due to evaporation of moisture.
        1. dvina71
          dvina71 4 February 2016 03: 48
          +3
          Quote: Vadim237
          For this, it can be argued with 100 percent certainty that the explosions of all 4000 thermonuclear charges and subsequent fires will cause a very tangible greenhouse effect

          I can’t say such a thing.
          Not a single ground test of nuclear weapons has caused massive fires. It's all about the order of action of the damaging factors. The light radiation causing ignition is one of the first, and the blast wave is the penultimate one, followed by the discharge front, which finally reaches the source of ignition, the flame of which was brought down by the front of the blast wave.
          1. Vadim237
            Vadim237 4 February 2016 18: 40
            +1
            Most of the tests were carried out in desert areas where there were no forests and combustible materials - the Semipolatinsk test site, Novaya Zemlya, the islands of French Polenesia, the desert in the state of Nevada, in conditions outside the test site, one spark and a small light are enough and no shock wave, all the fire extinguish, individual foci will remain, and since no one will extinguish them on the first day, the flame will spread very quickly, everything that can burn - as in the summer of 2010, only the "light" will be much cooler.
    2. saturn.mmm
      saturn.mmm 14 February 2016 22: 40
      -5
      Quote: D-Master
      Great article

      The article is full of idiocy, at least, will people survive in a nuclear war, will they certainly survive, but how will they live? Like Metro-33?
      I want to make a critical comment on the nonchalant conclusions of the impact of the destructive component of nuclear explosions of 8000 nuclear charges on the surrounding land surface.
      People on a fig to us it is "Metro-33"?
      1. Bongo
        28 March 2016 13: 41
        +4
        Quote: saturn.mmm
        The article shows through idiocy

        This word shines through your comment, play computer games less and do not watch zombies. negative In general, read the site rules again.
      2. KaPToC
        KaPToC April 2 2017 12: 43
        0
        Quote: saturn.mmm
        People on a fig to us it is "Metro-33"?

        "Metro" tells the survivors in the subway. But there may be other survivors. Even in the metro there are mutant survivors on the surface.
  2. Magic archer
    Magic archer 3 February 2016 10: 05
    +9
    I agree with all who plus the articles! Great series! If I didn’t learn much for myself, but I found out, I was SURPRISED !!! SWEDEN !!! Cool, damn it! I didn’t know that this small and beloved country of mine (I often go there ) developed its own yao! And this with their much-praised neutrality (in quotation marks)! It’s clear against whom this weapon was developed! You think what happened and is happening in the world, your hair stands on end .. request
    1. aiw
      aiw 3 February 2016 12: 19
      +6
      Stockholm has a very good Army Museum, go. In particular, it says about the Swedish program and even some devices are on display ;-)
  3. srha
    srha 3 February 2016 10: 12
    +9
    I agree with the term "disastrous". But he decided to check: "The nuclear warheads at the disposal of the United States and Russia are enough to turn a country the size of France into a zone of continuous destruction." I took the Soviet textbook on RCBZ and "Appendix No. 1" Tables for assessing RCBM in a unit "" (http://www.ivo.unn.ru/rhbz/?page_id=15) and multiplied the data of the first line of table 2 by 4000 - and yes, I got about the size of France (well, plus or minus bast shoes).
    1. Bongo
      3 February 2016 10: 21
      +4
      Quote: srha
      and multiplied the data of the first line of table 2 by 4000 - and yes, I got about the size of France (well, plus or minus the bast shoes).

      What size bast shoes? lol
      1. Amurets
        Amurets 3 February 2016 11: 01
        +2
        Quote: Bongo

        What size bast shoes?

        48th trampled! Nashik as they always make a mistake with power and do it with a margin! I’m joking. Today is not a participant in the discussion. We need to configure Windu. Flown. Installed, the archives have survived well. Sergey! Thanks for the series.
  4. Vadim237
    Vadim237 3 February 2016 10: 19
    0
    Work on the creation of the isomeric bomb, three years ago, was resumed again.
  5. engineer74
    engineer74 3 February 2016 10: 24
    0
    I wonder when will the uncontrolled buildup of nuclear capabilities begin again? Everything is heading for this, unfortunately ... what
    1. Bongo
      3 February 2016 10: 30
      +6
      Quote: engineer74
      I wonder when will the uncontrolled buildup of nuclear capabilities begin again? Everything is heading for this, unfortunately ...

      I am sure that we will never reach the level of the Cold War times in the USA and the Russian Federation. The current number of warheads is enough to inflict unacceptable damage. Another question is that the delivery systems, the ammunition themselves and the missile defense system will be improved. In my opinion, in the foreseeable future, the number of warheads can increase sharply only in the PRC.
      1. engineer74
        engineer74 3 February 2016 11: 12
        +2
        I disagree, the number of nuclear countries is growing, the options for possible coalitions are multiplying. For example, the States have enough "negotiated" BBs either for Russia, or for China, but not together, and so on.
        Thank you again for your efforts!
        1. Bongo
          3 February 2016 11: 19
          +4
          Quote: engineer74
          I disagree, the number of nuclear countries is growing, the options for possible coalitions are multiplying. For example, the States have enough "negotiated" BBs either for Russia, or for China, but not together, and so on.

          Due to geographical and climatic features, Russia is more vulnerable to nuclear strikes than the United States and the current number of American warheads and carriers is enough to destroy the industrial potential of the Russian Federation and China.
          Quote: engineer74
          Thank you again for your efforts!

          hi
          1. engineer74
            engineer74 3 February 2016 11: 55
            0
            Maybe I gave an unsuccessful example, if you look from the Russian side, then ~ 1500 BB is clearly not enough to overcome the strategic missile defense and cause unacceptable damage to NATO (the United States, Britain and France). Plus, after that it is also very good to have a strategic nuclear forces stockpile for China ... Of course, TNW also has a place to be, but it is difficult to quickly and efficiently solve the problem even in a European theater of operations.
            IMHO
            1. Bongo
              3 February 2016 12: 04
              +5
              Quote: engineer74
              Maybe I gave an unsuccessful example, if you look from the Russian side, then ~ 1500 BB is clearly not enough to overcome the strategic missile defense and cause unacceptable damage to NATO (the United States, Britain and France).

              I doubt that the American missile defense will be able to contain most of the military blocks of Russian ICBMs and SLBMs in the near future. In addition, approximately 1500 Russian tactical nuclear charges can be deployed in Europe, and we have a significant advantage over the Americans in this area.
              1. engineer74
                engineer74 3 February 2016 12: 21
                +2
                I'm just about the prospect, now the situation is more or less satisfied with everyone!
                As for our TNW in Europe, you are probably right, I can only add that I have the impression that we are trying to carefully circumvent the INF Treaty, how long it will be and how it will end, that’s the question ...
                1. Bongo
                  3 February 2016 12: 26
                  +3
                  Quote: engineer74
                  I get the impression that we are trying to carefully circumvent the INF Treaty, how long it will take and how it will end, that’s the question ...

                  This Treaty, corresponding to the realities of the Cold War, is outdated. And the current means of nuclear attack have become much more flexible. In any case, especially in the Far East, the MRBM would not hurt us, and we already have CDs that go beyond the scope of this treaty.
                  1. Vadim237
                    Vadim237 3 February 2016 13: 43
                    0
                    What do you mean - "Much more flexible"?
                    1. Bongo
                      3 February 2016 13: 48
                      +5
                      Quote: Vadim237
                      What do you mean - "Much more flexible"?

                      Much more flexible to use, if you like. A typical example of a new generation nuclear bomb is the B61-12. In addition, you yourself largely answered your own question:
                      Quote: Vadim237
                      in the future, hypersonic missiles, aeroballistic glide bombs will come to the fore
                      Including with nuclear warheads of low power.
    2. Vadim237
      Vadim237 3 February 2016 13: 41
      +5
      There will no longer be uncontrolled buildup of nuclear weapons, due to the high cost, complexity of maintenance and storage, the power of thermonuclear weapons will be reduced, but the accuracy of carriers will be increased, in the future hypersonic missiles, aeroballistic glide bombs, kinetic warheads and their carriers - aircraft will come to the fore on fast hypersound.
  6. ivanovich
    ivanovich 3 February 2016 11: 33
    +3
    The greatest danger is nuclear strikes at existing nuclear power plants and enterprises in the nuclear industry, in which case radiation contamination of the area can really have a catastrophic long-term nature.


    and this will necessarily happen in the event of a nuclear war since 1) a strike at a nuclear power plant will cause a national blackout at the enemy 2) will lead to total radioactive contamination of the area for hundreds of kilometers and mass deaths because no one will be able to build sarcophagi in the conditions of utter ruin, therefore, they will constantly sound the destroyed power units, throwing hundreds of millions of curies from nuclear fission products into the environment.
    1. Bongo
      3 February 2016 12: 06
      +3
      Quote: ivanovich
      and this will necessarily happen in the event of a nuclear war since 1) a strike at a nuclear power plant will cause a national blackout at the enemy 2) will lead to total radioactive contamination of the area for hundreds of kilometers and mass deaths because no one will be able to build sarcophagi in the conditions of utter ruin, therefore, they will constantly sound the destroyed power units, throwing hundreds of millions of curies from nuclear fission products into the environment.

      As far as I know, during the negotiations on strategic offensive arms, the parties agreed not to deliver targeted attacks on nuclear power plants. Another question is how much this will be respected.
      1. aiw
        aiw 3 February 2016 12: 34
        +3
        In order to cause a blackout, it is not necessary to make the NPPs themselves - it is enough to make the distribution network. Undermining the NBC in the ionosphere, for example, will be much more effective than a strike at a nuclear power plant.
  7. zyablik.olga
    zyablik.olga 3 February 2016 12: 00
    +6
    Excellent series of articles, the author is a huge plus !!!! It's amazing how much information is collected, ordered and laid out in a very, very readable form. goodEven willy-nilly, one wonders if the author does not have access to intelligence matters, because it is surprising to me how one can write such cool and informative articles without having access to confidential analytical material.
    1. Bongo
      3 February 2016 12: 08
      +7
      Quote: zyablik.olga
      An excellent series of articles, the author a huge plus !!!! It is simply amazing how much information is collected, ordered and laid out in a very, very readable form. Even inevitably one wonders if the author has access to intelligence, because it is surprising to me how such cool and informative articles can be written without access to classified analytic material.

      Olenka, someone who, and you know exactly what I earn by the nature of my main activity. wink lol But with the provisions of the law on state secrets, I do not enter into conflict.
  8. aiw
    aiw 3 February 2016 12: 31
    +6
    Thank you for the article!

    As for the scenario of the development of humanity after the global nuclear war - by pitchforks on water ... all these predictions are at the level of fortune-telling on coffee grounds. Too many uncertain factors.

    In particular, we do not know how the increase in the radioactive background in the long term will affect. And we do not know how the consequences of the massive use of nuclear weapons will affect the climate.
    1. dvina71
      dvina71 4 February 2016 03: 55
      +3
      Quote: aiw
      And we do not know how the consequences of the massive use of nuclear weapons will affect the climate.

      Almost nothing .. Humanity imagines itself to be equal to nature .., but in vain .. The amount of solar energy that is only absorbed by the Earth in one day is many times greater than the energy consumed by all mankind. A lot of interesting information about volcanoes. Some of them release the annual energy of the middle country into the atmosphere during the eruption.
      But mankind will get it, do not spoil it at all.
  9. gramatey
    gramatey 3 February 2016 13: 05
    0
    I have a question for the author: For what purpose is the idea of ​​the principle non-catastrophic (read - admissibility) of modern nuclear war spreading in society?
    1. Bongo
      3 February 2016 13: 25
      +5
      Quote: gramatey
      I have a question for the author: For what purpose is the idea of ​​the principle non-catastrophic (read - admissibility) of modern nuclear war spreading in society?

      Where did you read in the publication about the acceptability and non-catastrophic nature of nuclear war? It says literally the following:
      Despite the declared cessation of the Cold War and a moratorium on nuclear testing, the improvement and creation of new types of nuclear weapons has not stopped. This is due to the fact that the military and political leadership of nuclear states are still considering possible scenarios of nuclear war.

      Sad as it may be, it must be admitted that a nuclear war is possible. In the event of a global nuclear conflict between the United States and Russia, to which the American NATO allies (including Great Britain and France) will undoubtedly be connected, the parties can use up to 4000 nuclear warheads against each other. It will have disastrous consequences for developed countries of the world.

      No need to speculate and ascribe to the author too much No.
      1. gramatey
        gramatey 3 February 2016 14: 46
        0
        Just a few words later after the passage you quoted -
        "However, as modern studies show, this will not lead to the death of life on the planet and even to the complete destruction of mankind. The nuclear warheads at the disposal of the United States and Russia are enough to turn a country the size of France into a zone of continuous destruction. But, most likely, global." nuclear winter "will not come, and the radiation contamination of the area will not be as destructive as it is commonly believed."

        I propose not to use separate excerpts from a written very integral material. So we each in his favor pulled. In the written thesis is repeated many times already repeated that nuclear weapons must cease to be a deterrence weapon, which does not allow it to be used first by the threat of death of all mankind. The thesis of the fundamental admissibility of nuclear war plays into the hands of those who need war. The author is not the first to develop this thesis. Why even indulge in the potential for practical application of nuclear weapons?
        1. Bongo
          3 February 2016 14: 56
          +3
          Quote: gramatey
          Just a few words later after the passage you quoted -
          "However, as modern studies show, this will not lead to the death of life on the planet and even to the complete destruction of mankind. The nuclear warheads at the disposal of the United States and Russia are enough to turn a country the size of France into a zone of continuous destruction. But, most likely, global." nuclear winter "will not come, and the radiation contamination of the area will not be as destructive as it is commonly believed."

          Are you able to refute this statement with facts?
          Quote: gramatey
          In the written thesis is repeated many times already repeated that nuclear weapons must cease to be a deterrence weapon, which does not allow it to be used first by the threat of death of all mankind. The thesis of the fundamental admissibility of nuclear war plays into the hands of those who need war

          Where did you see this in my publication? I’m afraid that your imagination has been excessively played out.
          Quote: gramatey
          The author is not the first to develop this thesis.

          Where else are you sorry?
          Quote: gramatey
          Why even indulge in the potential for practical application of nuclear weapons?

          Do you know our military doctrine? And also with the conclusions made following the results of the command post exercises held in the Far Eastern Federal District a few years ago?
          1. gramatey
            gramatey 3 February 2016 15: 40
            +1
            I will start with your last question - it’s better to say that you are not familiar. Rather, I did not analyze it deeply. To blame.
            The second question from the end - The beginning of the verbal "fearlessness" in relation to the possibility of using nuclear weapons was laid by those who used it in practice - the US administration. Now it is on Madame Clinton's shield.
            http://www.globalresearch.ca/there-is-no-danger-of-nuclear-war-or-is-there/55002
            76
            Should this be indulged? Such thoughts sounded among our citizens.
            The next answer is that you should not admit that readers will "conjecture" what is offered to their attention. There will be. This is how we all perceive what we have read, seen and heard - through ourselves. This is how I perceived what you have stated. And perhaps this is not only my merit (or fault), but also the author?
            To the first question - to our and our common happiness, the "negative" impact of the consequences of nuclear explosions the facts at the moment I cannot refute. But, I'm afraid that the destruction will not be limited to the size of France. Planetary negative phenomena, for example, associated with the stratosphere, are not at all excluded.
            1. Bongo
              3 February 2016 16: 01
              +3
              Quote: gramatey
              I will start with your last question - it’s better to say that you are not familiar. Rather, I did not analyze it deeply.

              You know Konstantin, before writing publications on a particular topic, I try to thoroughly study the material in order to be responsible for my words. Besides, I try to write only about what I know a little about. At one time, I had to take a course on the damaging factors of nuclear weapons and I did not take everything stated in the publication "from the ceiling", about an area the size of France as well. What is also confirmed by dear Sergey:
              srha today, 10:12
              I agree with the term "disastrous". But he decided to check: "The nuclear warheads available to the US and Russia are enough to turn a country the size of France into a zone of continuous destruction." I took the Soviet textbook on RCBZ and "Appendix No. 1" Tables for assessing RCBO in a unit "" (http://www.ivo.unn.ru/rhbz/?page_id=15) and multiplied the data of the first line of Table 2 by 4000 - and yes, I got about the size of France (well, plus or minus bast shoes)
            2. Vadim237
              Vadim237 3 February 2016 16: 41
              0
              And what will happen to the stratosphere in atomic explosions with a capacity of 100 to 500 kilotons? - The lion's share of all nuclear weapons in Russia and the United States is just in these aisles, the detrimental consequences depend not only on the number of thermonuclear charges exploded, but also on their power, for example, in the 70s, 500 Mk 41 warheads with 25 megatons and 350 Mk 53 bombs with a capacity of 9 megatons, these two components of the nuclear arsenal of one country, exceeded the entire current nuclear arsenal of Russia and the United States by 4 times in terms of megaton.
              1. Bongo
                3 February 2016 16: 48
                +4
                Quote: Vadim237
                And what will happen to the stratosphere in atomic explosions with a capacity of 100 to 500 kilotons?

                I would like to hear your substantiated by facts point of view on this subject. In addition, I wonder what kind of American nuclear warhead in service has a capacity of 500 kilotons?
                Quote: Vadim237
                the detriment of the consequences depends not only on the number of thermonuclear explosions detonated, but also on their power, for example, in the 70s the USA was armed with 500 Mk 41 warheads with a capacity of 25 megatons and 350 Mk 53 bombs with a capacity of 9 megatons, these two components of the nuclear arsenal of one country exceeded megatonnage the entire current nuclear arsenal of Russia and the United States combined 4 times.

                What does this have to do with modern realities? what
                1. Vadim237
                  Vadim237 3 February 2016 17: 21
                  0
                  From 100 to 500 kilotons is within the aisles "Besides, I wonder which American nuclear warhead in service has a capacity of 500 kilotons?" - W88 475 kilotons or 500 of course, but already close "What does this have to do with modern realities?" The best thing is that the harmful effect on the environment is ten times less than if we used these arsenals then in the 70s. "I would like to hear your fact-based point of view on this matter" - calculation is needed here.
    2. Vadim237
      Vadim237 3 February 2016 13: 48
      0
      Probably in order to prepare society for the fact that someday, these weapons will be used in local and other conflicts.
      1. Bongo
        3 February 2016 13: 51
        +3
        Quote: Vadim237
        Probably in order to prepare society for the fact that someday, these weapons will be used in local and other conflicts.

        Do we have another option besides TNW in a large-scale clash with NATO and the PLA?
        1. Vadim237
          Vadim237 3 February 2016 16: 08
          0
          Is artillery nuclear ammunition with a power of 0,5 to 4 kilotons tactical?
          1. Bongo
            3 February 2016 16: 11
            +1
            Quote: Vadim237
            Is artillery nuclear ammunition with a power of 0,5 to 4 kilotons tactical?

            Well, what do you think?
  10. bald
    bald 3 February 2016 16: 03
    +1
    . “Another direction for improving nuclear weapons could be the creation of charges based on nuclear isomers, for example, the so-called hafnium bomb, based on hafnium-178m2. According to the destructive effect, one gram of hafnium can be equivalent to 50 kilograms of trotyl and there is practically no radiation contamination of the area. ” “The big suspicion in connection with this is (for some reason, well captured by the media) the so-called.” tsunami, "after the average earthquake in Japan in the Fukushima area, followed by contamination of the Pacific Ocean. Usually such earthquakes and at such depths are not accompanied by tsunamis. The initial media reports about the serious exposure of some crew members of the Enterprise aircraft carrier who took a shower from the sea water during the passage of this area during the earthquake completely confirms the version of the test of a tactical Y.O. of a new type, which is silenced by the media in the USA and Japan. Initially, immediately after the earthquake, the media voiced confirmation of the version about the test of Y. O., based on the nature of the tremors from the PRC and Russia, for some reason they did not require an international investigation into the incident in the area immediately after the tragedy. , The next was the explosion of the container terminal in the area of ​​the largest computer at that time in the world and the center of the latest technologies in China, the consequences and nature of which are very much like the military use of new tactical nuclear weapons. Although the seismic picture of both of these explosions differs from the classical one, the temporary increase in the surrounding radioactive background and its sharp decline literally within a few days in these areas confirms the version of the test and subsequent secret use of the latest nuclear munitions based on hafnium-178m2. Since Japan is completely subordinate to US policy, she did not dare to demand an investigation into the incident. And the PRC, despite the direct aggression against it, had to swallow its tongue and hide its ambitions and claims until the next time because of the complete prostration in the country's leadership, the revealed unpreparedness to repel a possible nuclear attack. Just taking Washington with such impunity the next time, that’s the question ...
    1. engineer74
      engineer74 3 February 2016 16: 57
      +2
      EMNIP, The professor somehow uploaded a selection of photos from the American site, there was a photo of deactivation of some ship at that time (March 2011) and in that place ...
  11. 5234
    5234 3 February 2016 17: 29
    -2
    GRAMATEI in many ways, very right ...
    It is hardly possible to refute with facts that the factors of a nuclear war are "negative". But the author's assertions that the use of nuclear weapons, mankind will survive, to put it mildly, is debatable. Even if someone will survive after such a war, then forgive me, in what format? Can it be argued that this will be humanity? Modern reptiles and other amphibians, contemporaries of dinosaurs, also seem to have survived the cataclysm, but ... where should they, to those heights that were occupied by real Diplodocus and Rex?) ...
    The very idea that human life after a nuclear war is possible, of course, is not seditious. It is possible to dream up. But GRAMATEI is right again: why cultivate it, and even the author, proud of his analytics, and hinting at top-secret awareness in this topic?
    And then, you can fantasize that despite the doctrines (as if they cannot be violated or changed, which has happened more than once), very smart strategists sit somewhere above the maps and assume some kind of millions of losses that become fertilizer for the soil, allow the survivors to heal very, not bad and to harvest a beautiful crop.
    1. Vadim237
      Vadim237 3 February 2016 17: 49
      +6
      And from what other countries and people living in them will die? - the entire infrastructure will survive, production and everything else, well, they will go in protective suits and air purifying agents - life will go on, but in the new environmental conditions and without countries using nuclear weapons against each other.
      1. engineer74
        engineer74 3 February 2016 18: 01
        0
        I strongly doubt that the participants in World War III will confine themselves to nuclear weapons and only in the conflict zone. "Biology", which is prohibited, and radiological weapons ("Status-6"?) Will be used, and God knows what else is exotic. In addition, the surviving countries will squabble among themselves (redistribution of the resource base), again with chemistry, biology, nuclear weapons, since the ethical threshold for the use of weapons of mass destruction has already been passed. So it will be "fun" for everyone, "Nobody will leave offended" (c) ...
        1. Vadim237
          Vadim237 3 February 2016 18: 19
          +4
          Biological weapons in fires will die, almost all OMs have been removed from weapons, due to inefficiency and the spread of protective equipment. China and India will become the main force after the nuclear conflict between the United States and NATO and Russia, and maybe everything will be even simpler - the trouble will come from where you did not expect it - from space in the form of an asteroid or meteorite attack.
          1. engineer74
            engineer74 3 February 2016 19: 08
            0
            China-India-Pakistan, Iran-Israel, Azerbaijan-Armenia, Africa (all), Latin America (all) - this is a very incomplete list of places where it will be "fun" after the US-Russia match. Biology and chemistry are good because having specialists, you can quickly set up production in almost any shed ...
    2. zyablik.olga
      zyablik.olga 4 February 2016 09: 30
      +4
      Quote: 5234
      GRAMATEI in many ways, very right ...
      It is hardly possible to refute with facts that the factors of nuclear war are "negative". But the author's assertions that the use of nuclear weapons, humanity will survive, to put it mildly, is debatable.

      The author seems in his article quite convincingly covered this topic. But some apparently difficult to abandon the views imposed by the propaganda of the cold war.
      Quote: 5234
      The very idea that human life after a nuclear war is possible, of course, is not seditious. It is possible to dream up. But GRAMATEI is right again: why cultivate it, and even the author, proud of his analytics, and hinting at top-secret awareness in this topic?

      Kramolna, only for those who think with cliches and are not very well educated. As for “top secret awareness”, I know the author personally and I know what he does for a living during the last 25 years. . Otherwise, how can you explain your attempts to bring a "fly in the ointment" into a very interesting cycle of publications, with the inability to do something intelligible to write yourself?
      1. 5234
        5234 5 February 2016 00: 37
        -2
        Arguments, as it is not noticeable ... simple statement.
        And at the expense of a fly in the ointment .... so, it’s wonderful that the article is being discussed!) So, the topic is interesting. Is not it so?
        About megalomania, I can fend off. Your comments, emphasizing personal acquaintance, are very similar to the famous fable, about the cuckoo and the rooster.
        Excuse me.
        1. Bongo
          5 February 2016 02: 25
          +3
          Quote: 5234
          Your comments, emphasizing personal acquaintance, are very similar to the famous fable, about the cuckoo and the rooster.

          I am forced to disappoint you, I have really been acquainted with Olga for a long time. Very clever girl.
          1. 5234
            5234 5 February 2016 17: 05
            0
            Yes, no one objects that she is not a stupid girl. I even agree that smart.
            Is that what this is about?
            Again, before that, I have to be disappointed, at least, it is necessary to charm.
            Not yet fascinated.
            1. zyablik.olga
              zyablik.olga 6 February 2016 13: 01
              +4
              Quote: 5234
              Again, before that, I have to be disappointed, at least, it is necessary to charm.
              Not yet fascinated.

              I do not think that this is the responsibility of the author. and mine too - to charm anyone on the site. lol
              Quote: 5234
              Survivors, even if they remain from the point of view of biology, a kind of living beings, does not mean that they will be humans, and even more so, humanity!)

              It is obvious that mutations are inevitable among the survivors. Contemporaries are always able to give a fitting rebuff to long-known mutations, and what to talk about after irradiation? What calculations, at least someone can present now ???

              Based on your arguments, we can assume that the offspring of people who survived a nuclear war, in the 2-3 generation will inevitably have tails and unnecessary limbs. However, this is not confirmed by the facts. During the 50-60 nuclear tests, a significant number of people (tens of thousands) were exposed to significant radiation exposure. Of course, this did not add much health, many of them afterwards suffered oncology in their old age, but the tails of their offspring did not grow lol
              People without any consequences live for centuries in territories where the natural background exceeds standards hundreds of times. For example, in France, the background in some places is up to 200 md / h, in India (Kerala and Tamil Nadu) - to 320 md / h, in Brazil on the beaches of the states of Rio de Janeiro and Espiritu Santo it ranges from 100 to 1000 md / h (on the beaches of the resort town of Guarapari - 2000 md / h). In the Iranian resort Ramsar, the average background is 3000, and the maximum is 5000 μR / h, while its main source is radon - which suggests a massive influx of this radioactive gas into the body.
              1. 5234
                5234 6 February 2016 13: 48
                -1
                Thank you.
                About charm, disappointment, sorry, I did not start. Do not need. You are somehow not responsible for yourself.

                About the tails ... I'm not even sure that in general, something can be answered. They themselves invented, and they themselves answered. Why fuss, then?

                Your arguments are far-fetched. And about the natural level of radiation: yes, there are such places, and what does this prove? And about observing the generations of the irradiated: you do not have such data, more or less accurate, and it cannot be, for reasons of secrecy, so do not grimace, please.
                One of my grandfathers, on duty, was monitoring the exposed people, and the area died from this. But this fact does not prove anything, except that there are observations. The question is, on what scale and how carefully and for how long.
                1. Bongo
                  7 February 2016 06: 14
                  +3
                  Quote: 5234
                  Your arguments are far-fetched.

                  Apparently just for you request
                  Quote: 5234
                  , exact, and cannot be, for reasons of secrecy, so do not grimace please
                  stop
                  Just the other day, we broke up with one of the participants in the discussion, and I can’t say that we are missing him. Apparently, you once again need to familiarize yourself with the rules of the site and more carefully choose expressions and formulate your thoughts.
                  1. 5234
                    5234 7 February 2016 16: 18
                    -4
                    You are opposed by several people. Have you not noticed?

                    There is nothing in the word SCROLL that contradicts the rules of the site.
                    1. Bongo
                      8 February 2016 05: 30
                      +6
                      Quote: 5234
                      You are opposed by several people. Have you not noticed?

                      Reasoned? I'm sorry, I didn’t notice No.
                      Quote: 5234
                      There is nothing in the word SCROLL that contradicts the rules of the site.

                      You should not go over to personalities and give subjective assessments to people. No. Olga does not comment on your logic and the possible state of the psyche. So please be more correct in the estimates and wording.
    3. Bongo
      4 February 2016 11: 39
      +2
      Quote: 5234
      But the author’s claims that the use of nuclear weapons, humanity will survive, to put it mildly, is debatable.

      Well, let's argue, only reasoned, based on facts. Do you personally have facts that can refute the author’s point of view?
      Quote: 5234
      But GRAMATEY is right again: why cultivate it, and even an author who is proud of his analytics and hinting at top-secret awareness of this topic?

      Excuse me, where did you notice this? There is nothing secret in the publication, information was taken from open and public sources.
      1. 5234
        5234 5 February 2016 00: 44
        -3
        The debate about whether humanity will survive, and in what format, after a nuclear war, seems to me pointless. For, neither you, nor I, have valid arguments, just assumptions. Therefore, the dispute does not make much sense.
        So-air shaking and unscientific fiction ...

        According to the sources, yes, you are absolutely right. All open. That is what I spoke about earlier. There are very few analysts ...
        But I really would like to, because those of you have touched upon, of course, an extremely interesting one, for which thanks!)
  12. Raphael_83
    Raphael_83 3 February 2016 17: 41
    10
    Well, this cyclopean opus has come to an end ... crying There was just some kind of breakthrough in the material during the cycle and the discussions were interesting, sorry, I could not participate - there is sorely lacking time.
    Many thanks to Sergey for his titanic, I’m not afraid of this pathos, work.
    From SW. hi
    PS
    Well, Iran, Pakistan and other Libya (Gaddafi, of course, made a lot of stupidity, sorry). But Sweden !!! But I was naive, I thought that in addition to SAABs (aircraft, of course, although the cars were excellent fellow ), Volvo, Beaufors guns / missiles, Visby corvettes and rock pop groups singing in English better than the Anglo-Saxons themselves, they have nothing ... request

    PPS
    Itself is never a fisherman or a hunter (well, not mine, not mine), but a photo of the prey of the uv. the author in the discussion of the previous article ... this, this ... Yes! Impressive. Here.
  13. opus
    opus 3 February 2016 19: 05
    +8
    Quote: Author
    Another area for improving nuclear weapons may be the creation of charges based on nuclear isomers, for example, a hafnium bomb based on hafnium-178m2.
    belay
    relax:
    1. in 2004 the program was closed.
    DARPA has invested several tens of millions of dollars in the study of Hf-178-m2 (and now is ashamed of this).
    2. The Hf-178-m2 isomer is not found in nature.

    BM "mass" production: neutron irradiation of hafnium-177 in a nuclear reactor on thermal neutrons .... for a year in such a reactor from 1 kg of natural hafnium (containing less than 20% of the 177 isotope) you can get just about 1 microgram of the excited isomer (the allocation of this amount is a separate problem).

    Attempts to repeat the results of Collins (Carl B. Collins) for several years have been made repeatedly. However, no other scientific group was able to reliably confirm the acceleration of the decay of the isomeric state of hafnium. Physicists from several American national laboratories - Los Alamos, Argonne and Livermore - also dealt with this question. They used a much more powerful x-ray source - the Advanced Photon Source of the Argonne National Laboratory, but could not detect the effect of induced decay, although the radiation intensity in their experiments was several orders of magnitude higher than the similar values ​​in the experiments of Collins himself. US National Laboratory - Brookhaven where a powerful National Synchrotron Light Source was used for irradiation, result = 0

    Quote: Author
    According to the destructive effect, one gram of hafnium can be equivalent to 50 kilograms of TNT

    Offend (hafnium)

    The hafnium isomer 178m2Hf is the nucleus of hafnium-178 in the excited state with a stored energy of 2,446 MeV, which corresponds to more than gigajoules (approximately 250 kg of TNT equivalent) per gram of substance.

    Among the currently known nuclear isomers, 178m2Hf has the highest energy of the excited state - 2,446 MeV
  14. Alex
    Alex 3 February 2016 21: 00
    10
    Sergey, thank you so much for the whole cycle. I read all the articles voraciously, extremely interesting, reasoned and clear. good
  15. Old26
    Old26 3 February 2016 22: 41
    +7
    Quote: Operator
    The Sarmat ICBM with a launch weight of 200 tons will reach anywhere on Earth.

    Yeah ... Actually, they talk about the Sarmat as a rocket HUNDRED CLASS

    Quote: Operator
    10 tons of "Sarmat" payload is about seven thermonuclear warheads with a capacity of 5-10 Mt each or one BB with a capacity of 50-100 Mt. That is enough for the vitrification of seven million-plus cities or one megalopolis. The number of BB "Sarmatov" must correspond to the number of specified targets on the planet (minus the Russian ones)


    Already the mention by the Deputy Minister of Defense (former Deputy Minister of Commerce) of the phrase about 10 tons of payload says that to put it mildly "not in the subject". There is no such term in the Strategic Missile Forces system and strategic agreements - "payload". There is only cast weight... Purely theoretically, you can of course count the "payload" of a warhead. But that's when a complete sleep of reason begins

    So the "payload" is 10 tons
    Purely theoretically, the same rocket cannot be intercontinental or global. Previous experience shows that the casting weight of a global missile is about 2-2,5 times less than that of an ICBM. And the weight of the warheads THREE less than on ICBMs
    And what we get. If it is a Global Rocket, then the weight of the BG ("payload") is 10 tons. Then the throw weight will be only TWENTY-FIVE TONS? Great, right?
    Well, if you consider that the weight thrown is 3.5-4% (well, let it be 5%, taking into account new technologies), then what is the starting weight? Total 500 tons

    Well, even if the "payload" is equal to the cast weight, the starting weight will be at least 250 tons.

    If we talk about the "Sarmat" as an ICBM to replace the "Voyevoda", then the parameters of the starting and throwing weight can be calculated accordingly. This is how the phrase about a 10-ton payload, "spoken for the sake of it," says a lot

    Well, 100 Mt heads is nonsense. And what about the goals. On the net you can find calculations of how many targets are in each country. On the territory of the United States there are 165 EMNIP such targets, and England - 26, France - 36, Germany - 62, China - 142, Turkey - 31, Iran - 29, Saudi Arabia - 30, Pakistan - 29. Total 550 targets. The zone of continuous destruction of a 10 mt charge is about 6,2 km. I doubt that this will be enough to "vitrify" a million-plus city. I live in a city with about 500 thousand inhabitants. The diameter of the city is about 18-23 km. Can you find the diameter of the fireball required for "vitrification" yourself? Or suggest? So your calculations are frankly far-fetched

    So the Deputy Minister of Defense is still "yap" ...
    1. Vadim237
      Vadim237 3 February 2016 23: 41
      +1
      Well, Sarmat just wakes up to tons of 6 thrown weight, suddenly our scientists made a breakthrough in liquid rocket engines and fuel.
    2. Operator
      Operator 4 February 2016 02: 03
      0
      If we assume that the deputy minister is right in everything, including in the term "payload" (understood as the thrown weight of the BB plus the weight of false targets), and also take into account the fact that "Sarmat" without any connection with the deputy minister for sure will be installed in the Voevoda mines (starting weight of 211 tons), then 10 tons of payload is quite correlated with the 210-220 starting weight of the Sarmat (less than 5 percent of it).

      Now about the global rocket:
      - firstly, I would call the "Sarmat" a suborbital missile, so as not to violate the treaty banning the withdrawal of nuclear weapons into a circular orbit;
      - secondly, it is likely that the specific impulse of the Sarmat engines exceeds the specific impulse of the Voevoda engines (after all, 40 years have passed since the development of the last missile) and the maximum range of the Sarmat exceeds the maximum range of the Voevoda;
      - thirdly, the announced value of the "payload" may correspond to an intercontinental flight of 11000 km, for the case of a suborbital flight of 20000 km it will be reduced.

      Vitrification is a figurative expression. According to the experience of testing the Tsar Bomb (50 Mt), the diameter of the fireball was 4,6 km, the ground light flashing diameter was about 10 km, the calculated diameter of the solid destruction zone is equal to the city of Paris, the diameter of the destruction of the above-ground structures exceeds the size of the Paris megalopolis.

      Indeed, a million-plus city (for example, Prague) may have dimensions equal to a ten-million city (for example, Moscow). However, the administrative and business center, where a bunch of people live during the day, has comparable sizes in million-plus cities - just about 6-8 km (zone of continuous charge destruction in 10 Mt). And the marginal sleeping areas during the daytime are mostly filled with pensioners, housewives and children (non-consuming contingent).
      Accordingly, 100 MT for a metropolis such as New York, London, Tokyo, etc. will be just right for the formation of a zone of continuous destruction. By the way, do you know how the buildings in New York look like outside the business center?

      The well-known list of 550 targets for nuclear strikes is completely different. The list includes only primary relatively compact targets - command posts, communication centers, early warning radars, strategic aviation and submarine bases, nuclear weapons storage facilities, nuclear production facilities, etc. For these purposes, 100-300 Kt charges ("dirty" by the method of detonation - ground and underground) of existing ground, sea and air-based medium and intercontinental-range missiles are quite suitable.

      And "pure" 10-100 Mt air blast charges are intended for another category of targets - area targets, including cities, megalopolises, industrial areas.

      We also do not forget about aircraft carriers, airfields of tactical aviation, positions of operational tactical missiles, etc. (from 100 and below CT) so that no one leaves offended.

      And yes, a reserve is still needed to contain countries that remained neutral in the first stage of world war. And so it turns out several tens of thousands of nuclear charges.
  16. Old26
    Old26 3 February 2016 22: 45
    +7
    Quote: Magic Archer
    I agree with all who plus the articles! Great series! If I didn’t learn much for myself, but I found out, I was SURPRISED !!! SWEDEN !!! Cool, damn it! I didn’t know that this small and beloved country of mine (I often go there ) developed its own yao! And this with their much-praised neutrality (in quotation marks)! It’s clear against whom this weapon was developed! You think what happened and is happening in the world, your hair stands on end .. request

    It was not Sweden that struck me at one time, but Burma (Myanmar)

    Quote: Bongo
    This Treaty, corresponding to the realities of the Cold War, is outdated. And the current means of nuclear attack have become much more flexible. In any case, especially in the Far East, the MRBM would not hurt us, and we already have CDs that go beyond the scope of this treaty.

    The agreement, Sergei, may be outdated, but withdrawing from it is now not beneficial to Russia. Although, of course, when it was concluded there weren’t so many countries with infantry fighting systems.
  17. Scraptor
    Scraptor 4 February 2016 07: 32
    -2
    The author is upset - the undermining of hundreds of YBCh within 2 weeks, then for half a year will destroy all living things radiologically.
    The "stupid person" also considered nuclear winter, and he was then slammed for this in the hotel.
    1. Cat man null
      Cat man null 4 February 2016 07: 51
      0
      Quote: Scraptor
      The "stupid man" did not consider the nuclear winter either, and he was then slammed for this in the hotel

      Scha will come Vadim273 and will begin to authoritatively broadcast that a nuclear winter is impossible laughing
      1. Vadim237
        Vadim237 4 February 2016 18: 53
        +7
        And what to broadcast there - everything is confirmed in practice, the explosion of the Tambora volcano in 1815 and 150 million tons of oil burned out in 1991 - that I do not observe global dimming and ice ages - early February - +2 degrees outside - a bruised winter.
        1. Scraptor
          Scraptor 4 February 2016 21: 48
          0
          Something apparently someone here did not read anything about another New Zealand Wukan
          https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Массовое_вымирание
          or here about another
          https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Тоба_(вулкан)
          https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Мегаизвержение
          1. Vadim237
            Vadim237 4 February 2016 22: 30
            +4
            Volcanic eruptions never led to the complete death of mankind, in modern conditions they will not even lead to it, even if a super volcano explodes.
            1. Scraptor
              Scraptor 4 February 2016 22: 43
              -1
              Supervolcanoes ... One led to a reduction in the population to just 10 pairs. Even with the fact that they are usually not radioactive.
        2. Scraptor
          Scraptor 5 February 2016 00: 11
          -1
          Read about Tambor too:

          “The eruption spawned global climatic anomalies, including the phenomenon of 'volcanic winter': 1816 became known as the 'year without summer' due to the unprecedented cold temperatures in Europe and North America. The extraordinary cold resulted in catastrophic crop failure. In 1817, grain prices increased tenfold, and famine broke out among the population. [5] Tens of thousands of Europeans, who were still suffering from the devastation of the Napoleonic wars, emigrated to America. "

          https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Год_без_лета
          1. Vadim237
            Vadim237 5 February 2016 11: 07
            +5
            And then the explosion of this volcano and the emission into the atmosphere of 140 billion tons of soot and ash dust to a height of 48 kilometers did not lead to a protracted ice age to the death of plants and animals on earth, and in the dreamers of nuclear winter to a cold -40 -50 degrees in the northern parts planet and minus 20 at the equator, causes the emission of 150 million tons of soot and 500 million tons of dust into the stratosphere - that is, 215 times less than the volcano Tambora thrown above the stratosphere - how to understand this?
            1. Bongo
              5 February 2016 11: 10
              +5
              Quote: Vadim237
              And then the explosion of this volcano and the emission into the atmosphere of 140 billion tons of soot and ash dust to a height of 48 kilometers did not lead to a protracted ice age to the death of plants and animals on earth, and in the dreamers of nuclear winter to a cold -40 -50 degrees in the northern parts planet and minus 20 at the equator, causes the emission of 150 million tons of soot and 500 million tons of dust into the stratosphere - that is, 215 times less than the volcano Tambora thrown above the stratosphere - how to understand this?

              No way ... request what are you trying to prove to people who live in another universe with different physical laws? Spit ...
              1. Operator
                Operator 5 February 2016 11: 31
                -1
                It is necessary to repeat these figures more often: Tambor - 450 million tons of ash / dust (150 cubic km), nuclear winter - 750 million soot / dust.

                After the eruption of the Tambora volcano in 1815, a volcanic "winter" took place in 1816 - the so-called. a year without summer, including an average decrease in planetary temperature by 0,7 degrees and frosts on the soil in the month of July at mid-latitudes.
                1. Operator
                  Operator 5 February 2016 12: 01
                  0
                  I apologize - the release of Tambory was 450 billion tons.
                  1. Vadim237
                    Vadim237 5 February 2016 13: 50
                    +5
                    "It is estimated that 150-180 cubic kilometers of volcanic material with a total mass of 1,4 × 10 in 14 kg was erupted." Where did you get 450 billion tons from?
                    1. Operator
                      Operator 5 February 2016 18: 11
                      -1
                      1 cubic km is equal to 1 billion cubic meters, the density of silicon dioxide (constituting 95% of volcanic lava) is equal to 2,65 tons per cubic meter, then the mass of 150-180 cubic km is approximately equal to 450 billion tons.

                      But I agree to the estimate given by you in 140 billion tons, based on the density of silicon dioxide in the form of volcanic pumice.
              2. The comment was deleted.
    2. zyablik.olga
      zyablik.olga 4 February 2016 09: 34
      +4
      Quote: Scraptor
      The author is upset - the undermining of hundreds of YBCh within 2 weeks, then for half a year will destroy all living things radiologically.
      The "stupid person" also considered nuclear winter, and he was then slammed for this in the hotel.

      I'm sure - the author of your conspiracy theories will not be upset at all, rather have some fun. lol
      1. Scraptor
        Scraptor 4 February 2016 10: 59
        -1
        Quote: zyablik.olga
        conspiracy

        paly, paly ... somehow participated in the slamming of Soviet hotel experts?
    3. Bongo
      4 February 2016 11: 32
      +5
      Quote: Scraptor
      The author is upset - the undermining of hundreds of YBCh within 2 weeks, then for half a year will destroy all living things radiologically.

      And you did not bother to count how many atmospheric tests were carried out on the planet and how many of them were "dirty" ground explosions?
      Quote: Scraptor
      The "stupid person" also considered nuclear winter, and he was then slammed for this in the hotel.

      I will not even comment on this, in the publication on this matter everything is "laid out on the shelves", although of course very briefly. But this is, excuse me, not my fault, an article with more than 10 "Word sheets" is not accepted. request
      1. Scraptor
        Scraptor 4 February 2016 11: 58
        0
        And was it all in 2 weeks?

        That is, he was not smart and in the hotel, so it was not necessary to kill him but you?
        1. Bongo
          4 February 2016 12: 08
          +4
          Quote: Scraptor
          And was it all in 2 weeks?

          What's the difference? Until the early 80s, several hundred atmospheric nuclear explosions, including those of the megaton class, were carried out. The first nuclear charges were much more "dirty" in comparison with modern ones, but this increased the radiation load on the majority of the population by only a few%, i.e. very insignificantly. Read the article again, there it is quite understandable in my opinion about air explosions, and about the distribution and decay time of radionuclides too.
          Quote: Scraptor
          That is, he was not smart and at the hotel, therefore, it was necessary to kill him and not you?

          I do not wander around hotels, modern research does not confirm the theory of "nuclear winter". No. Moreover, the number of nuclear charges in 25 years in the world has decreased significantly.
          1. Scraptor
            Scraptor 4 February 2016 12: 33
            -2
            And why should there really be no difference? ... in the accumulation of radionuclides in food chains for example.

            Even when modeling the climate of exoplanets and the history of the Earth’s ELE, even NASA for some reason is trying to pass off these calculations as their own.
            1. Bongo
              4 February 2016 12: 39
              +5
              Quote: Scraptor
              And why should there really be no difference? ... in the accumulation of radionuclides in food chains for example.

              Are you familiar with data on US nuclear tests in the Marshall Islands? They are very revealing in this regard. What isotopes specifically are you talking about? Most of the radionuclides generated by air explosions of modern nuclear charges are short-lived.
              Quote: Scraptor
              They even confirm that even when modeling the exoplanet climate, only for some reason NASA is trying to pass off these calculations as its own.

              Can I take a look at these calculations?
              1. Scraptor
                Scraptor 4 February 2016 21: 27
                -1
                What are they indicative of? Was there 100 YABs in 2 weeks? Tests in 3 environments therefore prohibited that there was a sharp rise in the background and mutations started, especially in Mirkromir. In the macrocosm, isotopes are also incorporated in organs and accumulate in different ways that were not taken into account in the 50s.

                You can google, as well as about the Soviet. NASA website you know. They really do not like it when they are pointed out to this plagiarism, so now they have pushed it away to the site of the climatology laboratory. You can also just read about ELE on Wikipedia, preferably in English, there are plenty of links.
                1. Bongo
                  5 February 2016 02: 21
                  +1
                  Quote: Scraptor
                  What are they indicative of? Was there 100 YABs in 2 weeks?

                  In the course of communicating with you, I developed a persistent déjà vu, and before we continue to communicate with you please answer my question. Weren't you known in the past on the site under the nickname "Cassandra"?
                  1. Scraptor
                    Scraptor 5 February 2016 03: 21
                    0
                    Let me see .... - no! Why didn’t she suit you?
                    1. Bongo
                      5 February 2016 03: 29
                      +3
                      Quote: Scraptor
                      Let me see .... - no! Why didn’t she suit you?

                      You can directly answer a direct question?
                      1. Scraptor
                        Scraptor 5 February 2016 03: 32
                        -1
                        The first sentence was the answer, can you answer the second?
                      2. Bongo
                        5 February 2016 03: 33
                        +3
                        Quote: Scraptor
                        The first sentence was the answer, can you answer the second?

                        Those. in "past life" are you "Cassandra"?
                      3. Scraptor
                        Scraptor 5 February 2016 03: 35
                        0
                        Also no. Okay, I read the old comments.
                      4. Bongo
                        5 February 2016 03: 38
                        +3
                        Quote: Scraptor
                        Also no. Okay, I read the old comments.

                        Well, no, no, I dare not insist, although this is easy to verify. Your manner of communicating and arguing with Cassanra is practically the same. All the best.
                      5. Scraptor
                        Scraptor 5 February 2016 03: 42
                        -1
                        All in all ... read and even already answered lol
                        After this, I do not even insist.

                        In general, "Sweet 16" has already answered this topic (accounts, not air defense of Gibraltar).

                        And on the account of the arguments themselves, of course, they left the topic, apparently the pause taken by all nuclear countries in 1959-1960 in the tests (before the ban in 1963) was because fissile materials suddenly ended!
  • Operator
    Operator 4 February 2016 12: 33
    0
    Fans of the end of the world as a result of nuclear war proceed from the false assumption that the end of the world will be the goal of the parties involved in it.

    However, based on common sense, each of the parties will strive to solve the dual problem - to eliminate the enemy and survive itself. Therefore, dirty ground and underground explosions will be used in strictly limited quantities (maximum 550 units) and power (no more than 300 Kt). The main amount of nuclear charges (the most powerful ones from 1 Mt and above) will be detonated in the air without long-term radioactive contamination of the soil.

    Naturally, thermonuclear fired without a third dirty uranium stage will be used as ammunition.

    If one of the parties foolishly strikes the enemy's nuclear power plants and permanently contaminates its territory for a long time, the latter, after winning a nuclear war (since it uses its nuclear missile potential more rationally), will simply move to the remaining clean territory of the opposite side.

    As for the nuclear winter: what will it be, what will not, the people of Russia, Scandinavia, Alaska and Canada will not get used to it, in extreme cases they will move to the equatorial regions of the Earth, whose climate even in the worst case will resemble Siberia.

    And then, any winter necessarily ends in the spring, do not go to the fortuneteller.

    PS Separate respect to the author of the cycle of articles for their super-relevance - the annual report of the NATO Secretary General, which deals with the simulation of a nuclear strike on Sweden, has just been published. am

    http://www.nato.int/nato_static_fl2014/assets/pdf/pdf_2016_01/20160128_SG_Annual
    Report_2015_en.pdf # page = 7
    1. 5234
      5234 5 February 2016 01: 01
      -3
      Funny you say, honestly!)))
      About the end of the world, no one wrote in the article, just like in the comments to it. The author argued, relying on some calculations, that humanity would survive, and even probably, it’s not bad for yourself ...
      But!
      Survivors, even if they remain from the point of view of biology, a kind of living beings, does not mean that they will be humans, and even more so, humanity!)
      It is obvious that mutations are inevitable among the survivors. Contemporaries are always able to give a fitting rebuff to long-known mutations, and what to talk about after irradiation? What calculations, at least someone can present now ???
      1. Operator
        Operator 5 February 2016 01: 19
        +1
        Welcome to the era of mutants - the other day the United Kingdom (the second country after China) allowed to carry out genetic modification of human embryos used in the in vitro fertilization procedure (a rapidly developing technology due to the growth of infertility), under the pretext of correcting their pathologies.

        So after several generations (each on an average of 25 years), the consequences of a nuclear war will seem like flowers against the background of genetically modified sapiens.
        1. 5234
          5234 5 February 2016 17: 11
          0
          It may be so, but the article and the discussion are not about that.
      2. Scraptor
        Scraptor 5 February 2016 02: 02
        -1
        It is not clear where? Lack of data and analytics? fool


        Nuclear weapon tests were most intense in the early 1960s. In the years 1961-1962. 56 atmospheric explosions with a total capacity of about 300 Mt of TNT, including a thermonuclear explosion with a capacity of more than 50 Mt, were carried out on Novaya Zemlya. Environmental pollution began to take on rampant proportions, and in 1963 the USSR, the USA and Great Britain signed an agreement in Moscow to ban nuclear weapons tests in the atmosphere, in space and under water.

        After the signing of the Moscow Treaty, the USSR, the United States and Great Britain conducted exclusively underground nuclear explosions, while China and France, not joining the agreement, subsequently conducted a series of atmospheric tests.

        Since 1963, there has been a gradual decline in the intensity of global fallout of radionuclides.

        http://hirosima.scepsis.ru/threat/effect.html

        You can see from the diagram that in 1959-60 there was a break for 2 years to track how the dangerously rising background would return to normal, and in 1963 almost passing over the edge, all tests except underground were immediately banned.
        are you almost all type-trolling here or have you decided to lead everyone to perdition?
        1. Scraptor
          Scraptor 5 February 2016 03: 14
          -1
          well yes - Babel minus this is our everything ... fool laughing fellow
  • Old26
    Old26 4 February 2016 19: 58
    +7
    Quote: Operator
    If we assume that the deputy minister is right in everything, including in the term "payload" (understood as the thrown weight of the BB plus the weight of false targets), and also take into account the fact that "Sarmat" without any connection with the deputy minister for sure will be installed in the Voevoda mines (starting weight of 211 tons), then 10 tons of payload is quite correlated with the 210-220 starting weight of the Sarmat (less than 5 percent of it).


    You see, dear Andrei, the fact of the matter is that the deputy minister is wrong about the term. With regard to strategic missiles, there is no such term "payload". This term is more appropriate for astronautics.

    There is no such term in any of the existing strategic arms treaties. There is only a "consensus" term for "throw weight". And the term "cast weight" implies that it includes the following components:
    - combat equipment
    - false goals
    breeding rate


    If the stage of disengagement is "one whole" with the last stage of the rocket, then the stage is included in the "throw weight".
    It is also known that military equipment (according to the articles of the contract) is not more than 40% of the weight thrown.

    And now let's return to "our rams", that is, to the statement of Deputy Defense Minister Yuri Borisov
    They were told something like the following: "Sarmat" is capable of delivering a payload of 10 tons, on the enemy's heads both through the north and through the south pole.

    Let us leave the North Pole alone. So - through the south pole. Knowing the places where these missiles will be based, you can simply calculate the distance through the south pole. Let's not waste time - let it be 30000 km.

    In total, according to the Deputy Minister, "Sarmat" is capable of throwing a payload, that is, a warhead, at this distance. For they, not decoys or breeding stages, are the "payload."
    So - 10 tons - this is just 40% of the cast weight. Therefore, the abandoned weight, as I wrote earlier, will be about 25 tons. And the starting weight, even if it is estimated that the cast weight is 5% of the starting weight, is about 500 tons.

    What then turns out? With a range of 12-15 thousand kilometers, the cast weight will be 2-2,5 times more than the global one, that is, a missile will be able to carry more than 60 tons to the enemy? And then what will be the starting weight?
    1. Operator
      Operator 4 February 2016 21: 50
      0
      I and Wikipedia claim that the starting weight of the "Sarmat" will be at the level of 210 tons (and I am the first who expressed this assumption on one of the forums) laughing

      According to my forecast (based on the information of Yuri Borisov and the assessment of the missile's weight perfection), the total weight of the warheads and false targets of the "Sarmat" will be about 10 tons at a range of 11000 km. With a suborbital range, their weight will be less.

      The remaining 200 tons is the weight of the first and second stages, as well as the upper stage (breeding stage).

      IMHO, naturally.
  • Old26
    Old26 4 February 2016 20: 05
    +5
    Quote: Operator
    Now about the global rocket: - firstly, I would call the Sarmat a suborbital rocket, so as not to violate the treaty banning the launching of nuclear weapons into a circular orbit; - secondly, it is likely that the specific impulse of the Sarmat engines exceeds the specific impulse of the engines " Voevoda "(after all, 40 years have passed since the development of the last missile) and the maximum range of the Sarmat exceeds the maximum range of the Voevoda; - thirdly, the announced value of the" payload "can correspond to an intercontinental flight of 11000 km, for the case of a suborbital flight to 20000 km it will be reduced.

    1) In principle, it is permissible to apply both of these terms. A suborbital rocket will always be global, because delivery through the south pole (that is, when the orbit is not completed and it is impossible to blame for the release of nuclear weapons into space) implies a range of about 30000 km. And according to accepted terminology, missiles with a range of more than 20000 km are considered (called) global
    2) The "Sarmat" has the same engines as the "Voevoda". as far as I remember the motor design bureau
    carried out research work on the adaptation of the Voevoda engines to the Sarmat. So it is unlikely that, even despite the modernization, the UI will grow much.
    3) It is possible that the range will be higher than that of the "Voevoda", but so far there is no data
    4) Alas, but this payload is voiced precisely when shooting through the South Pole
    1. Operator
      Operator 4 February 2016 21: 30
      0
      By suborbitality, I meant first of all the possibility of hitting any object on the surface of the Earth (even in Australia), and flying to the US via the South Pole is unnecessary in a situation where you can throw much more weight across the North Pole.

      The layout of the engines in the "Voevoda" ICBM differs from the layout of the engines in the "Sarmat" ICBM - in the latter, the engines are recessed in fuel tanks (a proprietary solution of the Makeev SRC).
      At least for this reason, the engines must be modified, not to mention the fact that due to the new construction materials, you can increase the performance of turbopumps, the pressure in the combustion chambers and the degree of expansion of the nozzles (their dimensions are no longer important, since they are recessed in the tanks and do not affect on the linear dimensions of the rocket).
      All this adds up to the specific impulse increment.
  • Old26
    Old26 4 February 2016 20: 10
    +5
    Quote: Operator
    Glass transition is a figurative expression. According to the experience of the Tsar bomb test (50 Mt), the diameter of the fireball was 4,6 km, the diameter of the soil melting by light radiation was about 10 km, the calculated diameter of the continuous destruction zone is equal to the city of Paris, the diameter of the destruction of aboveground structures exceeds the size of the Paris metropolis. A million-plus city (for example, Prague) can have dimensions equal to a ten-million-strong city (for example, Moscow). However, the administrative and business center, where the population is crowded during the day, has comparable sizes in million-plus cities - exactly about 6-8 km (a zone of continuous charge destruction of 10 Mt). And the outlying sleeping areas in the afternoon are mostly filled with pensioners, housewives and children (non-conscripted contingent). Accordingly, 100 MT for a metropolis such as New York, London, Tokyo, etc. will be just right for the formation of a zone of continuous destruction. By the way, do you know what the development of New York looks like outside the business center?

    The thing is that megaton charges of such power (50-100) megatons have never been in a series. The maximum that the R-36M ICBM carried was 18-20 megatons (BB 15F141). Yes, and they were deployed in the amount of 10-24 units. So everything else is theorizing. And sometimes it’s more profitable to strike 10 blocks of 750 kt than a hypothetical 100 megatons. What NY buildings will look like - I don’t know, but even if there are such collages somewhere - they are hardly true. The example of Seoul is indicative in this regard.

    Quote: Operator
    The well-known list of 550 targets for nuclear strikes is completely different. The list includes only priority relatively compact targets - command posts, communication centers, early warning radars, strategic aviation and submarine bases, nuclear weapons storage facilities, nuclear production facilities, etc.

    In general, not quite so, but close. Among the goals are million-plus cities, large and industrial targets, large transportation hubs, power plants, and of course large military facilities (bases, naval and air bases)
    1. Operator
      Operator 4 February 2016 21: 08
      0
      All charges larger than 1 Mt will need to be developed anew, since the scheme of a "pure" thermonuclear charge (with X-ray compression of the second stage and an increased neutron yield) has been worked out only for tactical nuclear charges - the so-called neutron ones.

      I mean that 10 Mt and 100 Mt charges are designed to ventilate the brains of the population of a potential enemy - in the sense of the uniqueness and inevitability of the fate of the overwhelming part of it in the event of a nuclear conflict with Russia. Military strategy of intimidation, nothing personal.

      And it is wiser to destroy specific military and military-industrial facilities with less powerful nuclear charges, here I absolutely agree with you.
      1. Bongo
        5 February 2016 03: 18
        +3
        Quote: Operator
        I mean, 10 Mt and 100 Mt charges are designed to ventilate the brains of the population of a potential enemy


        Building a charge power above 500 ct from a military point of view is a pointless exercise. As you know, to increase the affected area by 2 times, it is necessary to increase the charge power by 10 times.
        1. Operator
          Operator 5 February 2016 09: 22
          0
          More precisely, 8 times (2 in a cube).

          The strategy of intimidation is also a military strategy - a projection of force, speaking diplomatically.
    2. Vadim237
      Vadim237 4 February 2016 22: 44
      +3
      In the cities now, no one will do anything - the primary targets are military, moreover, for each military target, the expenditure is 2 to 4 warheads, with such a cost the United States and we do not have enough warheads to hit all military targets since the warhead for 2015 USA - 1640, Russia 1680 - there will be no charges left for civilian purposes, and atomic bombs must be delivered to the target - in case of a nuclear war this is a dead number.
      1. Scraptor
        Scraptor 4 February 2016 23: 25
        0
        And before they gathered, and even put ... bully
        The United States simply removed its warheads from carriers, unlike the Russian ones, they were not disposed of (and plutonium and uranium went to those de USA, supposedly at nuclear power plants).
        For military purposes, tactical nuclear weapons are used.
      2. Operator
        Operator 5 February 2016 01: 07
        0
        I agree with your assessment of the current situation.
        To change it, the deployment of Sarmat ICBMs and sea-based cruise missiles can serve - all within the framework of the SALT-2 and LRMD treaties.
      3. The comment was deleted.
  • 5234
    5234 5 February 2016 01: 19
    0
    Only China alone, by a few percent, for the first time in many years, only LOWED THE ECONOMIC GROWTH, and the entire economy of the world, at one moment, faced the crisis, according to various estimates, unprecedented for many decades.
    Everything is down, the recession, there is no money, and as they scare, it won’t be long.
    The global crisis.
    And statements are being written that after the NUCLEAR WAR (!!!), and everyone will have to take part in it, because each man will survive for himself, mankind ...
    A new look, a new science, making fun of the clichés of the Cold War. New Enlighteners ...
    Yes, yes, of course it will survive. And after the nuclear winter, everyone will go to the southern coast of Crimea, in the summer, therefore ...
    1. Operator
      Operator 5 February 2016 02: 58
      0
      At the beginning of the 1980s, the USSR and the USA had a whole mountain of nuclear warheads, but there was no Third World War, ISIS, cheeks inflated by various turkey, mass migrations and other cataclysms.

      This is called mutual deterrence.

      Now to Russia and the United States (including Britain and France), added China, Pakistan, India, Israel, North Korea, Iran is torn.

      It is time to reconsider approaches to the concept of "parity in nuclear weapons", or even better, to reduce the list of members of the nuclear club to three, using a strategy of deterrence, but, if necessary, not stopping before a local nuclear conflict (in agreement between Russia, the United States and China). Including in order to discourage interest in nuclear weapons from other countries.

      You look, and the Third World is not needed.
      1. Bongo
        5 February 2016 03: 02
        +5
        Quote: Operator
        It is time to reconsider approaches to the concept of "parity in nuclear weapons", or even better, to reduce the list of members of the nuclear club to three, using a strategy of deterrence, but, if necessary, not stopping before a local nuclear conflict (in agreement between Russia, the United States and China). Including in order to discourage interest in nuclear weapons from other countries.

        You look and World War III is not needed.


        Andrey, do you seriously believe that this is possible? No. Maybe Russia and the PRC would like to relieve Israel, but will the Americans agree to this? Will China actually armed Pakistan against India deliver a nuclear strike on Islamabad? And will we "vitrify" the DPRK? No.
        1. Operator
          Operator 5 February 2016 09: 36
          0
          There is no ideological disagreement between Russia, the United States and China, as in Soviet times.

          North Korea is a protégé of China and it is up to him to decide what to do with the local nuclear program.

          Israel is a protégé of the United States, whom they increasingly ache (such as ignoring the position of Israel on the issue of lifting sanctions against Iran).

          Britain and France are US satellites who do not have the means to maintain full-fledged nuclear weapons.

          Pakistan is a satellite of China.

          And we have no interest in anyone as a member of a nuclear club (India is questionable). So we can support any decision of the United States and China to establish a three-polar world.

          If this is not the case, then we need nuclear parity with all the LISTED countries. In this matter, the "Sarmat" and sea-based cruise missiles will be just right.
          1. NordOst16
            NordOst16 17 February 2016 20: 44
            0
            1) "North Korea is China's protégé and it is up to him to decide what to do with the local nuclear program." - even though China does not put much pressure on Korea.
            2) "Britain and France are US satellites, which do not have the funds to maintain full-fledged nuclear weapons." - Do you mean by full-fledged the presence of ground and air (bombers) nuclear forces in addition to missile submarines? Well, they don't need any more, they have retained the most effective nuclear deterrent forces. Any enemy (even Russia) will have enough of this.
            3) "And we have no interest in anyone as a member of the nuclear club (India is questionable). So we can support any decision of the United States and China to establish a three-polar world." - Well, besides this troika, there are other countries that sooner or later may ask themselves the question: "Why are we worse?", like China in its time.
            4) And hell France, UK, Pakistan, Israel, India so simply refuse it, and attempts to put pressure on them can lead to a temporary alliance between them for the speedy development of effective means of delivering this gun anywhere, good in Ukraine, you can buy technology.
            I believe that nuclear weapons in the hands of a stable government are a guarantee of security and peace for the peoples of these countries themselves.
  • Riv
    Riv 5 February 2016 14: 32
    0
    The author is too optimistic about the consequences of the massive use of weapons of mass destruction. In fact, there are no statistics for obvious reasons. The only combat uses of nuclear weapons in Japan are single explosions. No one has ever tested several dozen devices in a limited area at the same time.

    However, the environmental consequences are rather underestimated. The nuclear winter is not terrible, but the mass extinction of species during its course. In Pripyat, 10 years after the Chernobyl disaster, it was quite possible to live, but what would happen if instead of radioactive fallout it would have been covered by a firestorm and induced radiation from nuclear explosions? No one will give an answer.

    The shock wave will cover not only city blocks. All industrial enterprises will be one of the first goals. The same nuclear power plants. Imagine that no one is involved in the Chernobyl nuclear power plant after the accident. The reactor is destroyed and stands itself, glows. It pours rain, the breeze carries radioactive dust ... Presented? One power unit was enough for half of Europe to feel the consequences, and dozens would be destroyed. The consequences of the destruction of the chemical industry are no less dire. Bhopal remember? And there only one tank was overheated and not so big. Did you imagine tons of forty boiling mercury in the atmosphere (and this is not much)? Didn’t you feel sick?

    Such are the things. The author, of course, prepared a good article, but in vain included the conclusions in it.
    1. 5234
      5234 5 February 2016 17: 38
      -3
      Great comment!) Bravo!)
      You are right: while the author was copying information from open sources, everything seemed to be going well. Well, the facts. Well, some people who are not yet known, normal. A wonderful attempt to acquaint the reader with, of course, systematized material, thanks for which.
      But as soon as the conclusions began (presumably from the analysis of the situation), and after them the statements, it began to turn out, not really ...
      This is what we are talking about!
      Neither the military, nor science, no one else, had the experience of a massive nuclear strike. It is a fact. But who is unable to calculate the consequences of this blow, or war, if you will. Of course, purely arithmetic, you can calculate the area of ​​destruction and the number of destroyed objects, as well as the half-lives of the elements, and the geography of the most affected areas of the planet, but let's not forget that in addition to arithmetic, there is also algebra, the beginning of analysis, higher mathematics and the theory of large numbers . And much more, let's not go deep ... who is able to calculate the consequences? And based on what data? Of the number of warheads and their power, or what?
      A dangerous, very dangerous misconception that humanity will survive.
      The statement of this is not scientific. Therefore, the author is not right.
      1. Operator
        Operator 5 February 2016 18: 40
        +1
        Your opinion contradicts the results of thermonuclear weapons tests on Novaya Zemlya and the Bikini Atoll - i.e. where pure air explosions took place.

        In addition, it is necessary to distinguish the consequences of the application:
        - nuclear weapons based on the fission of uranium / plutonium and 100 percent of polluting the environment with radioactive fission products;
        - thermonuclear weapons, in which plutonium is used only as a fuse to start the synthesis reaction in lithium hydride, while radioactive contamination is reduced to a few percent (with equal power of charges).
        Nuclear weapons are actually decommissioned in Russia, the USA, China, Great Britain and France.

        The radioactive uranium / plutonium fission products arising in a nuclear reactor and in a nuclear explosion differ sharply from each other during the decay period - in the first case most of them are long-lived (up to 225 thousand years), in the second case - short-lived (up to 100 years).

        You are right that the greatest danger to all (attacked, attacking and neutral side) is the destruction of nuclear reactors - well, you don’t need to strike at them, since nuclear power plants are built far from military bases and residential areas. And for single blows thugs there is a missile defense system.

        By the way, nuclear power plants can be destroyed by conventional non-nuclear means - see the example of the Israeli Air Force attack on the Iraqi reactor under construction.

        The consequences of the destruction of chemical objects is another topic altogether.
        1. Riv
          Riv 6 February 2016 09: 19
          +1
          Nuclear weapons DISCONTINUED WITH ARMS ??? Truth?
          1. Operator
            Operator 6 February 2016 12: 21
            0
            In addition to nuclear there is also thermonuclear.
            1. Riv
              Riv 7 February 2016 05: 54
              0
              Hi Cap!
              But are nuclear weapons precisely disarmed?
              1. Bongo
                7 February 2016 06: 21
                +3
                Quote: Riv
                But are nuclear weapons precisely disarmed?

                Why did it happen? No. In addition to strategic warheads of ICBMs and SLBMs, there are relatively low-power charges in which the fusion reaction is not used.
                1. Riv
                  Riv 8 February 2016 06: 00
                  0
                  But the cap above says that it’s filmed ...
        2. NordOst16
          NordOst16 17 February 2016 20: 32
          0
          If I am not mistaken, then in modern thermonuclear warheads the share of energy output from the fusion of light nuclei is no more than 10%, the rest comes from fission of 235 uranium / 239 plutonium and 238 uranium nuclei. So modern warheads are most likely very "dirty".
          Fission fragments, both in a reactor and in a nuclear explosion, are similar, but in reactors a "background" from irradiated structural parts of the reactor is added to the fission fragments (and they are rather "long-playing").
          And attacking a nuclear power plant is a very good option if the country does not have relatively large stockpiles of nuclear weapons, but the enemy has plenty of nuclear power)))
      2. Vadim237
        Vadim237 5 February 2016 18: 59
        0
        Here's something about the modernization of the US nuclear arsenal - http://vpk.name/news/148735_yadernyii_konveier_ssha_obnovitsya.html, And here is a vidos from a well-known channel, for the guys in the "topic" about "Nuclear Winter" - http://lovekino.tv/ tv_peredachi / dokumentalnye / 32562-yadernaya-zima-buduschee-nei
        zbezhno-18122015.html
    2. zyablik.olga
      zyablik.olga 6 February 2016 13: 37
      +4
      Quote: Riv
      The author is overly optimistic about the consequences of the massive use of weapons of mass destruction.

      Sorry, but I didn’t notice any particular optimism about Sergey. No. Quote author:
      The parties can apply up to each other up to 4000 nuclear warheads. it will be disastrous for developed countries of the world. In a short time period, about 700 million people will die, most of the industrial and infrastructural potential of “Western civilization” will be destroyed.
      Where is the optimism? what
      Quote: Riv
      The same NPP. Imagine that the Chernobyl nuclear power plant after the accident, no one is engaged. The reactor is destroyed and stands itself, glows. It pours rain, the breeze carries radioactive dust ...

      To strike at nuclear power plants is the worst form of suicide ... I do not think that our and the US military do not understand this.
      Quote: Riv
      Tons of forty boiling mercury in the atmosphere presented (and this is not much)?

      This is the enterprise in which such stocks are available? In addition, boiled mercury quickly falls in the vicinity. Every year, a huge amount of mercury enters the environment from devices and especially from fluorescent lamps. This is of course very sad and the population is certainly being poisoned, but mercury can be contained in the atmosphere from 0,4 to 3 years depending on the temperature, after which it goes into a connected state interacting with hydrogen sulfide and other compounds. Every year only in Russia several tons of mercury enter the atmosphere and it is not strange that we have not died out yet.
  • 5234
    5234 6 February 2016 14: 12
    0
    Olga, judging by your comments, you are still so young that even joyfully for you, honestly!)))

    The author writes about the victims, according to him, about a billion ... this is fantastic optimism! War has a right, always its own scores. At nuclear, especially.

    Do you think nuclear strikes are not a form of suicide? Well, even if so, let it be your way ... but do you seriously think that if such a war starts, then all the warheads will fly past the nuclear power plant?) Is curious, and the military of all countries with nuclear weapons think the same?)
    One great poet said: Well, if the shooting goes, the bullet will find a hole ... ,,
    you can’t say better.
    Nuclear war does not set itself the goal of seizing territories — it is a war to zero the enemy, or several. All these tales, about unacceptable damage, and give rise to ideas that the author allegedly supports the survival of mankind ... complete zeroing, you know? Otherwise, the meaning is lost, because the survivors, if any, come out, will win)))
  • 5234
    5234 6 February 2016 14: 34
    0
    You, Olga, were trying to write something here, about my lack of education.
    It seems you have it, it is not. Otherwise, you would be aware that the meaning of nuclear deterrence is based precisely on the guaranteed destruction of the enemy.
    You are so easy to operate with numbers from textbooks, convincing that all these factors: radiation, contamination of the area with decay products, chemical and biological contamination that is inevitable in a nuclear war, and after the mutations that remain unhappy, all this will very quickly evaporate, in a few years, not superimposing on each other at all ... and after a very short nuclear winter, someone who had not yet been gnawed underground, from insanity, would jump out and reveal himself to humanity.
    You still do not consider a child an insult.
    1. Vadim237
      Vadim237 6 February 2016 18: 26
      +3
      There will be no nuclear winter; numerous super-powerful volcanic eruptions could not make it - this is already a confirmed historical fact.
    2. Vadim237
      Vadim237 6 February 2016 18: 53
      0
      In the event of a nuclear war, Russia has a state reserve, which is protected even from the most powerful bombing - there are water, food, cars, machines, medicines, construction equipment, fuel, power plants, generators, even bridges across all the rivers of Russia and means of deactivating the country's territory from nuclear chemical and other influences and all this in huge quantities.
  • 5234
    5234 6 February 2016 21: 20
    0
    Medicines, of course, will remain ....
    Only now, there will be no one to get high, alas) ...