Military Review

Atom in the bosom

94
Neither common sense, nor Russia's consistent implementation of the Minsk agreements, nor its membership in the WTO, do not change the sanctions approach. The United States continues to strangle us, forcing Europe, Canada, other countries to act the same. In doing so, having separated, as they believe in Washington, Russia from the high-tech market, they themselves quietly modernize their nuclear weapontrying to circumvent the Treaty on the restriction and non-proliferation in every possible way.


The United States currently has 5113 nuclear weapons, including strategic, tactical and stockpiled weapons. 1654 are deployed on 792 deployed strategic delivery vehicles: ICBMs and SSBN missiles, strategic bombers. According to the data of the Federation of American Scientists, about 2800 nuclear ammunition lies in warehouses and in storage, and the arsenal of tactical missiles is about 750 units.

As for Russia, we have, according to some data, about 1480 ready for launching YABCh on strategic means. Another 1022 warheads are not deployed on the respective carriers, around 2000 are intended for tactical delivery vehicles. An additional amount of nuclear weapons (as in the United States) is in a state of repair, dismantling, or maintenance.

No initiative

Americans not only store and repair nuclear weapons, but also actively improve them. In particular, they are upgrading the B61 thermonuclear bombs, which went into series in 1967 and are in service with the strategic bombers B-2 and B-52. In the arsenals of the US Air Force - 750 bombs of this type. According to the plans of the Pentagon, they will remain in service until the 2020-s. And not because Americans want to save. The depth of modernization can be judged by this fact. In the design of B61, brought to the level B61-12, six thousand elements will be replaced! Essentially, our "partners" will have ammunition with completely new characteristics.



In order to hide this, the Pentagon states that it is planned to use such nuclear bombs to destroy well-protected and buried objects (missile silos, underground command posts). However, serious experts say the opposite: created ВХNUMX-61 are intended mainly for the destruction of settlements and people living in them. Bombs are planned to arm the new American F-12 and use both in European theater and in the Middle East.

From 1945 to 1986, the United States produced and supplied 60 262 71 type nuclear weapons for 116 types of weapons in the United States. Of these, 42 types were decommissioned and subsequently dismantled, the remaining 29 were in service with US and NATO units and formations designated for conducting combat operations using nuclear weapons. 43 designed for the US Air Force, 34 - for the Navy and Marines, 21 - for the ground forces.

The US continues to be engaged in testing nuclear weapons. Now it is done at the computer level, but in its time and field tests were carried out. On 1 January, 1986 in the USA was undermined in various versions of the 820 nuclear products. 774 tested on US test sites. The results are used in the interests of the US military.

Nuclear munitions are developed, tested and manufactured at state-owned factories that are leased to private companies (Government owned - contractor operated, GOCO). There, with respect to such important defense enterprises, the word “privatization” does not sound like ours. Only we are recommended to privatize the defense complex, and the ears of Western owners and competitors stick out for the leading investors.

US nuclear plants are located in the 13 states of the country and have a total area of ​​about 3900 square miles (about 7800 sq. Km). The complex for the creation and production of nuclear ammunition employs about 90 thousands of workers and employees. All this eloquently suggests that despite the existence of treaties with Russia, in the United States there is no stagnation in the improvement or storage of nuclear weapons. This arsenal is there in the everyday constant movement: some ammunition is developed, produced and put into service, others are dismantled. Moreover, the nuclear reserve, as well as the pace of individual events, is perhaps the highest in the last 40 – 50 years of its existence.

Smoke screen

Currently, the rate of production, decommissioning and modernization of the US nuclear arsenal depends on the amount of work done, the availability of space for the production of ammunition, time and activities. On average, this circuit is approximately 3500 – 4000 units of nuclear ammunition (nuclear warheads) in a calendar year. To maintain this pace, the Department of Energy is requesting appropriate cash from US Congress for inflation and other expenses. So, for 1986 fiscal year, about 7,2 billion dollars were requested. And for the next four years - 36 more billions more. Approximately the same funds were allocated in subsequent years.

Atom in the bosom


Even when adjusted for inflation, these amounts exceed those that were invested by the US government in the Manhattan project and are close in volume to US spending on nuclear programs at the end of 50-x and the beginning of 60-x, when work in this direction reached its peak. Then, we recall, the capabilities of the US nuclear complex made it possible to produce about six thousand munitions per year, most of which were new items that were not in service with the US military.

What prompted the Americans today to proposals for a significant reduction in operational-tactical and tactical nuclear weapons?

According to experts, behind this is the desire to minimize the threat to their own troops from a possible nuclear strike on them in Europe. At the last negotiations on tactical and strategic nuclear weapons, Washington’s desire to once again mislead the Russian side and conceal its true intentions was easily visible. In particular, the American military-political leadership would like us to remove Russian tactical and operational nuclear weapons from our arsenals. Why today?

Casket opens simply. If the United States succeeds in achieving a favorable ratio of nuclear offensive weapons for them, then Russia cannot even theoretically stand up to NATO forces in Europe, where, probably, the main hostilities will unfold. The main events of the fourth world war, analysts say, will take place precisely in the European theater of operations. This explains the activity of the Americans at the diplomatic level, their desire to involve us in the negotiation process. And, alas, testifies to the beginning of the preparation of the United States for the impending war. This is also confirmed by the unprecedented in numbers of troops attracted large-scale NATO exercises in the Baltic States.

Having even a relatively small stock of nuclear weapons, the United States will receive significant advantages, and the united group of NATO countries in Europe, opposing Russia, will not only feel more confident, but also be able to dictate terms. Indeed, without tactical and operational-tactical nuclear weapons, our country will significantly reduce its combat potential. In general, according to the plans of the American strategists, the Russian Federation will then have one of two things: either to completely abandon the armed struggle and lay down their arms, or to start hostilities, foreseeing the defeat and complete defeat.

Silent Arsenals

There is another aspect. In the area of ​​reducing the strategic nuclear forces, we have reached the stage at which similar steps should begin on the part of other nuclear powers. For some reason, it is not customary to recall them, although already after 1998 there were two more of them (India and Pakistan). It is worth mentioning the shadow members of the “nuclear club”, such as Israel, and more recently, the DPRK.

All of this suggests that multi-level configurations have emerged, in which ensuring strategic stability is determined by a much more complex formula than in relations between the United States and Russia. To negotiate only with the Americans today is already unproductive without taking into account the factor of other nuclear powers. But this question has not yet been worked out even in a purely preliminary political-diplomatic plan. Moreover, there is no certainty that some nuclear powers, including permanent members of the UN Security Council, are ready to join this process.

How, for example, does Britain intend to use nuclear weapons, which are fully integrated into the American nuclear planning system, technologically dependent on the United States? The British submarine missile is American, but the warheads and boats themselves are British. London is not abandoning nuclear weapons, although the Russian side has raised this issue many times. Therefore, we must consider the British nuclear forces as an actual addition to the American potential. According to some reports, in the armed forces of Britain deployed on strategic means of delivery of about 160 nuclear weapons, and their total number is 225 units.

France declaratively adheres to an independent nuclear policy, having about 300 nuclear weapons, which, however, can not be served without US participation and are deeply integrated into the NATO system.

Unlike Russia and the United States, China and the DPRK, India and Pakistan do not advertise plans to use nuclear weapons at all. Not to mention its other owners, such as Israel, South Africa, Saudi Arabia, Iran. These states are hardly ready to announce the presence and quantity of their nuclear weapons, especially consent to negotiations on limitation and reduction.

Thus, the American proposals for further reduction of nuclear weapons, especially tactical and operational-tactical nuclear weapons, are well seen as a desire to secure themselves above all. And most importantly, to reduce our potential to a minimum and thereby push Europe towards the start of hostilities with Russia drained of blood. This will certainly remove the threat from the continental US, as it was during the Second World War.

Recall that the START-3 Treaty has limited deployed strategic carriers in 700 units and in 1550 nuclear warheads on them. And the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty has not yet been ratified by the United States, China, Israel, Iran and other countries.

Russia can not allow even the slightest arrogance and carelessness. Any American initiative to negotiate the limitation of Russian tactical, operational-tactical nuclear weapons is aimed at one thing - at reducing our defense capability.
Author:
Originator:
http://vpk-news.ru/articles/31216
94 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. Mikhail Krapivin
    Mikhail Krapivin 30 June 2016 21: 47
    -6
    After a feint with my ears with Turkey, I look forward to a revelation from our authorities that America is a stronghold of peace and democracy, we were all wrong, so it's time to put up and saw all our nuclear weapons as a sign of reconciliation. About twenty years ago.
    1. vovanpain
      vovanpain 30 June 2016 22: 03
      +33
      It has been shortened, enough, our nuclear weapons are the only thing that holds back the naughty Saxons, therefore, to negotiate with mattresses to no avail, they will bustle, try to deceive, they have no faith. Yes, and never did. yes
      1. Major Yurik
        Major Yurik 30 June 2016 22: 32
        +26
        Good bitches ... s children of uncle sam are very curious and sow "democracy" right and left. And therefore, native spaces should be protected from their natural curiosity! We will be more whole! negative
        1. Tatyana
          Tatyana 30 June 2016 22: 50
          +10
          I absolutely agree with the author! The USA and Great Britain - and their allies in the EU - are actively preparing in all aspects for a nuclear war with Russia. In Washington and London, their hybrid war against Russia is developing strictly according to plan - right up to the exchange of nuclear strikes.
          And even Britain’s exit from the EU fits into this plan of preparation for this war.
        2. Lukich
          Lukich 1 July 2016 00: 06
          +6
          American scientists are looking for oil

          how lucky the penguins are that they have no oil there
          1. papas-57
            papas-57 1 July 2016 04: 42
            +2
            `` how lucky the penguins are that they don't have oil there. '' If the Americans need it, they will easily find anywhere not only oil, but also the violation of the rights of anyone with the subsequent `` carrying of democracy '' in any region.
            1. Temples
              Temples 1 July 2016 07: 16
              -6
              5113 nuclear weapons, including strategic, tactical and in stock.


              This category of nuclear weapons is the worst!

              Tactical, strategic all this is crap in comparison with "in stock" !!!

              There is apparently (in stock) something that defies understanding and definition! Not tactical or strategic, but something mythical!
              The Americans are keeping a tight grip on the way this "in stock" is used.
              Elders say that the creator died without revealing the secrets of creation!

              Warehouse located! Horror and protrusion!




          2. The comment was deleted.
          3. guzik007
            guzik007 1 July 2016 07: 55
            0
            how lucky the penguins are that they have no oil there
            -------------------------------------------------
            It runs out of oil, go to penguin fat. So the grandmother said in two.
    2. jaguar
      jaguar 30 June 2016 23: 04
      +7
      From me to you plus !!!! But I want to ask minusers, maybe they are in the know ... and on what conditions did Russia join the WTO? Why, after the announcement of sanctions to us, are we still in this organization ?????? We are establishing relations with Turkey .. well, but did anyone answer for the killed pilot ?????
      1. Mikhail Krapivin
        Mikhail Krapivin 1 July 2016 01: 08
        +10
        Thank. And I want to say the following to all those who have fallen, even the USA, the most corrupt, deceitful and hypocritical country in the world, would not forgive Turkey so easily and quickly. Someday, after a long and painful apology, after many years of obstruction, after billions of billions of indemnities - maybe. But just like ours did, this is unacceptable. Turn the contents of the letter in your favor, long and derogatoryly beg for compensation, threaten with terrible punishments and change the position in Turkey by 360 degrees in five minutes. This is disrespect for our country, this is complete disrespect for the citizens of our country, and this is complete crap, finally. After that, I really won’t be surprised at anything, right up to our application for NATO membership. Why not? Judging by the number of minusers, many will perceive this idea with enthusiasm ...
        1. Ami du peuple
          Ami du peuple 1 July 2016 01: 39
          +6
          Quote: Mikhail Krapivin
          ..even the United States, the most corrupt, deceitful and hypocritical country in the world would not forgive Turkey so easily and quickly
          However, the States easily and quickly forgave the assassination of their ambassador Stevens of post-Gaddaf Libya. Moreover, the brutal public murder, associated with humiliation and rape.
          Quote: Mikhail Krapivin
          After that, I really won’t be surprised at anything, right up to our application for NATO membership. Why not?
          Indeed, why not? Join the North Atlantic Alliance and then destroy it from the inside! Isn't that a great idea? wink
          1. ivselim
            ivselim 1 July 2016 04: 35
            -4
            And in Libya who to ask? ... he was killed by "their" jihadists.
        2. korvin1976
          korvin1976 1 July 2016 07: 22
          +12
          Quote: Mikhail Krapivin
          and in five minutes, change the position in Turkey by 360 degrees.


          5 points, 360 degrees is powerful, it is not clear then what does not suit you in this situation. Judging by what your knowledge of geometry is, you can make what your knowledge of geopolitics is.
          It is too early to draw conclusions from what is known about "warming" relations with Turkey, too early. On the other hand, no one else could reproach VVP for being a weak player. And if he decided at the moment to play such a card, then there are reasons for that.
          And yet, to always sulk and be offended, especially in geopolitics, is simply not permissible.
          There is a Russian proverb: "they carry water to the offended and ... put it"
          For the most part, those requirements that Russia stated are fulfilled, one way or another, and Russia is not the Baltics for you to play around and turn on "Wishlist" and "Back" all the time.
          No one says that relations with Turkey are back on track and now they will be the same and better. They will not be the same, they will not be unequivocal.
        3. derik1970
          derik1970 1 July 2016 07: 22
          -7
          It is not sad but you are right. And I'm not surprised. Putin’s cunning plan was successful, Russian fools, well, and our elite is on horseback, it solves its problems ... After all this, who is there to fight in our country for? Whom to protect? These corrupt creatures in the Kremlin !? They once again surrendered our country. Put on a laughing stock. And they’ll justify themselves a hundred times ...
          1. KAV
            KAV 1 July 2016 10: 32
            +1
            after all this, for whom is there to fight in our country? Whom to protect?
            And you are not going to protect your children, wives and mothers, may I ask you?
        4. bolgove
          bolgove 1 July 2016 09: 48
          +4
          Do not rush things.
          What do we know?
          Chuchmen Khan, at the direction of the mattresses, shot down our plane. I didn’t receive the promised European integrations, ours hit him on the head in Syria, only losses. The rooster pecked and he (if you look through the news bulletins) for half a year tried to get through to the Kremlin. Volodya, do not let your face fall into the mud, forgive the fool. Volodya stood clearly on his demands, payments, guilty, apologies.
          What we have? begin to comply with all these points.

          Is it a shame? Yes, I would personally with a saber on the halo and screaming shit you shook flew to cut black-browed, but this is delirious.

          We as a power, what do we need? Yes, we need a pipe. Press on Kiev and Geyropa to her. We need all this to end in Syria, and if in a 40-minute telephone conversation we received these guarantees, and our requirements, albeit not all publicly, are met, we will win. 10 hot spots around the country we can’t take out.

          Why in three weeks only permits trips to Turkey? It’s very simple, three weeks to withdraw your Taliban, sign the docks on the pipe, and so on. Follow - the tourists will go. Yes, we turned out to be a commodity in politics, we were allowed, then we were forbidden to go there. I was not upset at Krymnash hit the road, but I feel like you are all involved in this victory. Yes, victory, in our time this is what victory looks like when another country begins to serve for the good of your country.
          1. Giants
            Giants 1 July 2016 22: 45
            0
            Quote: bolgove
            We as a power, what do we need? Yes, we need a pipe.

            What kind of power are we if we depend on the pipe?
    3. derik1970
      derik1970 1 July 2016 07: 12
      -5
      The people didn’t understand what was the multi-pathway in Turkey and who had bent someone ... there will still be roofing felts ... And yet ... sending their tourists to a country full of ISIS fighters is cool ... and oddly enough they will go tourists will later talk about how cool they rested ... sadly but there is no unity among the people ... what kind of event should happen that would unite the people in one opinion that Turkey is bad and there is no need to bring money there, how much should fall planes and terrorist attacks that would somehow break through the thick skin of the layman ... why the layman? because the state does not care about the population, it solves its personal issues in no way connected with the population living in this state ... hi
      1. korvin1976
        korvin1976 1 July 2016 07: 32
        +7
        Quote: derik1970
        And yet ... sending your tourists to a country full of ISIS fighters is cool ... and oddly enough, tourists will go


        To send? You haven’t messed up anything? He will drag our people to Turkey in the lasso?
        After a six-month "blockade" of Turkey and certain information, normal people will not go there, believe me. Those who have gone there before will go through Minsk or other transshipment bases.
        1. guzik007
          guzik007 1 July 2016 07: 59
          -8
          To send? You haven’t messed up anything? He will drag our people to Turkey in the lasso?
          ----------------------------
          do you read the news? All travel agencies work in three shifts - there are no people wanting to go out.
          1. Cat man null
            Cat man null 1 July 2016 08: 02
            +4
            Quote: guzik007
            do you read the news? All travel agencies work in three shifts;

            - Can you share a reference? Where is "no end"? wink
            1. guzik007
              guzik007 1 July 2016 10: 09
              -4
              - Can you share a reference? Where is "no end"?
              ------------------------------------------
              Read news sites, otherwise it looks like your computer is only VO-enabled.: =)
              1. Cat man null
                Cat man null 1 July 2016 10: 17
                0
                Quote: guzik007
                do you read the news? All travel agencies work in three shifts;

                Quote: guzik007
                Read news sites, otherwise it looks like your computer is only VO-enabled.: =)

                - the combination of these two of your messages is not translated otherwise than "get in the ass". Flattered, thank you yes
                - You were answered below:

                Quote: bolgove
                You tell me this. I have a travel agency, as it were. There is no end to Seliger, not to Turkey

                - any comments? wink
              2. Foxmara
                Foxmara 2 July 2016 19: 13
                0
                [media=http://www.mk.ru/upload/entities/2016/06/28/articlesImages/image/ea/50/57
                /5f/5266042_6192988.jpg]
                However, as the first euphoria subsided, the barometer began to incline to the fact that Turkey was unlikely to be opened in the near future. The most optimistic forecast is the beginning of autumn, more realistic - only next year.
                ..
                “We are not talking about some kind of bulk purchases, and, of course, Russian tourists are waiting for the opening of charter programs that will make the Turkish tourist product really cheap, budget-friendly,” says Larisa Akhanova, PR Director of Tez Tour. “Because, of course , the main trend now for any traveler is the price. "
                ..
                Tour operators say that they will be ready to launch charters within one to two weeks. But first, you need permission from the Federal Air Transport Agency, but it is not.
          2. bolgove
            bolgove 1 July 2016 09: 50
            +4
            You tell me this. I have a travel agency, as it were. There is no end to Seliger, not to Turkey.
          3. korvin1976
            korvin1976 1 July 2016 11: 33
            +1
            Quote: guzik007
            do you read the news? All travel agencies work in three shifts - there are no people wanting to go out.


            Here about these here, I wrote below in my comment. Such were, are and will be.
            Such people will now be "written" where necessary, and then they will do what is needed. We have, by definition, "These very" "totalitarian and police state"
    4. guzik007
      guzik007 1 July 2016 07: 57
      -5
      After a feint with my ears with Turkey, I look forward to revelation from our authorities that America is a stronghold of peace and democracy, we were all wrong.
      ------------------------------
      Very possible.
      Obama should just call ...
    5. Foxmara
      Foxmara 1 July 2016 14: 10
      -1
      and you do not bzd .. worry in vain. we all understand. It is necessary to understand not only the situation but also to relate our capabilities, and hence the strategy. This is only on the forum you can throw caps. In reality, you need to take into account the opinions and desires of other players, not just the United States. Multipolarity is at hand.
  2. Stoler
    Stoler 30 June 2016 21: 50
    +21
    Nuclear weapons are the only thing that keeps our "partners" from destroying Russia as a country and Russians as a nationality !! And to abandon it or cut it is like putting your head in a loop yourself !!! ONLY INCREASE AND IMPROVE !!! FOR ALL ENOUGH !!!!
    1. hirurg
      hirurg 30 June 2016 22: 08
      +15
      Believe me, we have something to answer. Not about quantity, but in quality terms.
      It is necessary to reduce "partners".
      1. Stoler
        Stoler 30 June 2016 22: 52
        +5
        I will not believe. You don’t scare these perverts with a belt laughingOnly infuriate! laughing
      2. Lukich
        Lukich 30 June 2016 23: 46
        +7
        Quote: hirurg
        Believe me, we have something to answer. Not about quantity, but in quality terms.
        You need to reduce "partners"

        absolutely agree with you
    2. The comment was deleted.
  3. faterdom
    faterdom 30 June 2016 21: 52
    +10
    We don’t need to reduce anything else, and we must constantly upgrade it. The main thing is that the level of our security should be sufficient, and who is the American president there, and how he will try to entice and excuse us - his personal difficulties.
    1. Lukich
      Lukich 30 June 2016 23: 36
      +5
      Quote: faterdom
      The main thing is that the level of our security should be sufficient,

      and the enemy, most likely behind a large puddle, guaranteed destroyed
    2. sharp-lad
      sharp-lad 1 July 2016 00: 19
      +1
      But what about the planned reduction of the States? belay
  4. Karasik
    Karasik 30 June 2016 21: 53
    +2
    Currently, the United States has 5113 nuclear weapons, including strategic, tactical, and in stock ... As for Russia, according to some sources, we have about 1480 ready to launch nuclear warheads on strategic assets. More 1022 warheads are not deployed on appropriate media, about 2000 are designed for operational tactical delivery vehicles ...

    In total, it is enough for Armageddon. Do Americans really not understand that this will be the end of all mankind? Miraculously, survivors will produce fire by friction, and hunt rats with stone axes!
    1. Vadim237
      Vadim237 30 June 2016 22: 51
      +2
      In general, according to the latest data, Russia has strategic 1730 carriers of nuclear charges with a total capacity of 830 megatons, while the United States has 1640 with a capacity of 1606 megatons.
      1. Karasik
        Karasik 30 June 2016 23: 01
        +1
        Quote: Vadim237
        In general, according to the latest data, Russia has strategic 1730 carriers of nuclear charges with a total capacity of 830 megatons, while the United States has 1640 with a capacity of 1606 megatons.

        Maybe so, Vadim. I took the data from the article. But this does not change the essence. In case of war, the Stone Age is provided to humanity! hi
        1. Vadim237
          Vadim237 30 June 2016 23: 07
          +2
          Most likely there will be no Stone Age, but the century of struggle with the consequences will be one hundred percent.
      2. Lukich
        Lukich 30 June 2016 23: 39
        0
        Quote: Vadim237
        In general, according to the latest data, Russia has strategic 1730 carriers of nuclear charges with a total capacity of 830 megatons, while the United States has 1640 with a capacity of 1606 megatons.

        what's the difference. the main thing is that 10 parts will be enough to drive everyone left in the Stone Age
        1. Vadim237
          Vadim237 1 July 2016 10: 27
          0
          Calculations show that with an explosion of 1600 megatons, over the territory of Russia, it will cause 16 million tons of CO2, 960 million tons of dust to be emitted into the atmosphere, the area of ​​the radioactive fallout will be 28 million square kilometers with an annual radiation dose of 4 X-rays - that is, during the first year after the nuclear attacks, the entire territory of Russia and adjacent to it will not be suitable for life, this is not counting the numerous man-made and natural fires that can occur during the attack and these fires will carry radioactive fallout from place to place, and there will also be strong soot - chemical - radioactive rains throughout Russia and even the formation of thunderstorm supercells - in those conditions only those who have a bunker or a bomb shelter, or at worst at least a basement with everything necessary will survive, in the first two weeks - a month after the attack, it’s better not to go outside go out - during this time, radioactive Iodine 131 will decay and most of the radioactive dust will settle on and the earth’s surface will either fall in the form of precipitation with showers, and most of the man-made and natural fires will burn out.
  5. Kos_kalinki9
    Kos_kalinki9 30 June 2016 21: 54
    +4
    Russia can not allow even the slightest arrogance and carelessness. Any American initiative to negotiate the limitation of Russian tactical, operational-tactical nuclear weapons is aimed at one thing - at reducing our defense capability.

    All this, I mean arrogance, carelessness, and most importantly, a blind faith in the "honesty" of "friends" and "partners", we went through in the days of hump and EBN. When sawing everything that could and should not be sawed. Now we are frantically making up for what we ourselves have neglected and lost. God forbid, liberals and traitors will again come to power. How long can Russia be tested for a fortress.
    1. Lukich
      Lukich 30 June 2016 23: 41
      0
      Quote: Kos_kalinki9
      All this, I mean arrogance, carelessness, and most importantly, a blind faith in the "honesty" of "friends" and "partners", we went through in the days of hump and EBN.

      Yes, it’s not in our tradition to dance on a rake smile
  6. Monos
    Monos 30 June 2016 21: 55
    +7
    Any American initiative on negotiations to limit Russian tactical, operational-tactical nuclear weapons is aimed at one thing - to reduce our defenses.


    Why is it so long? In short, I would say: "Any American initiative for negotiations is aimed at one thing - to reduce our defenses."
  7. Banderas
    Banderas 30 June 2016 22: 00
    -8
    I hope everything is not so bad and we will not have to defend ourselves with such a piece of "Dead Hand" ...
    1. SSR
      SSR 30 June 2016 22: 35
      +5
      Quote: Banderas
      I hope everything is not so bad and we will not have to defend ourselves with such a piece of "Dead Hand" ...

      Do you at least understand what is in the photo and what is the meaning of the "dead hand"? How did you decide that this is an element of the "dead hand"? If you meant that the type of nuclear "weapon" did not turn out to be an exaggerated fiction ... Well, it would be a little more accurate to put it IMH. hi
      1. Cat man null
        Cat man null 30 June 2016 22: 42
        +5
        Quote: SSR
        Well, type a little more precisely it would be worth saying IMHA

        - and it’s more correct to choose a photo ... since what is inflated in the picture is obviously not related to the Dead Hand. That is completely laughing
    2. Vadim237
      Vadim237 30 June 2016 22: 59
      +2
      The Perimeter RC system was removed from service in 1995; now a different system is in service.
  8. Starik72
    Starik72 30 June 2016 22: 04
    +4
    I think that there are no fools in the Russian Military Leadership, they are all US actions, they analyze and compare perfectly, and accordingly with the situation, they are preparing and preparing adequate actions.
  9. Arkan
    Arkan 30 June 2016 22: 19
    +3
    We are peaceful people, we live peacefully
    But if necessary, stick a nuclear stake.

    The stakes should be enough to pile on all "partners" without exception, that is, all at once.
  10. Flinky
    Flinky 30 June 2016 22: 28
    0
    Grishenka Yakovlev, apparently, is not at all in the subject. A similar article would have been relevant a quarter century ago. But not today.
  11. My doctor
    My doctor 30 June 2016 22: 33
    +3
    For more than a year I have not read articles written in a similar style. The only thing jarring is that the numbers for financing for 1986 are nothing new, but with missile defense in Europe and the presence of mines for launchers there, banned under multilateral agreements in aggregate reduces Russia's nuclear potential. And as soon as the partners consider that they have sufficiently eliminated the threat from the Russian side, they will immediately notify us.
  12. berezin1987
    berezin1987 30 June 2016 22: 37
    +4
    The nuclear arsenal should not be reduced, but increased to 10-15 thousand warheads. It is necessary to resume the production of weapons-grade plutonium and tritium in industrial volumes. The power of thermonuclear charges should provide guaranteed complete destruction of the enemy’s infrastructure. Then the West certainly will not get to test Russia for strength. Relations with the mattress and geyropeytsami should be at the level of November 62-th year. They are afraid of destruction and death at home, this is our trump card. As President Eisenhower said, in the event of a war with the USSR, we will use bulldozers to remove corpses from the streets of our cities mixed with concrete. These words are the best confirmation of the strategic nuclear deterrence strategy.
    1. Vadim237
      Vadim237 30 June 2016 23: 03
      -2
      To increase the number of nuclear charges to 10–15 thousand — that’s not a problem — only their cost of fifteen trillion rubles is not a lifting amount for Russia.
      1. berezin1987
        berezin1987 30 June 2016 23: 32
        -2
        Yes, there is no such cost. Nobody talks about installing all the charges on an ICBM. Part of the charges are on artillery shells, part are the warheads of non-strategic missiles, the rest are free-fall / planning nuclear bombs for aviation. Do you think precision weapons are cheaper to use than tiao? It is much simpler and cheaper to demolish hundreds of enemy tanks with a single hit of nuclear weapons than to destroy each unit with precision weapons. For nuclear weapons, the accuracy of the hit and the security of the object are not so critical. Almost any object can be destroyed by a nuclear charge with the required option to detonate. The manufacturing technology of charges has long been worked out, the automation of detonation is placed inside an artillery shell. What is stopping, for example, from planning a nuclear bomb like an American sdb with a nuclear charge or an air-to-surface missile? Aircraft no longer need to fly over a target
  13. Prisoner
    Prisoner 30 June 2016 22: 43
    -1
    Can send everyone to ... blue distances and live on their own. It turns out for the North Koreans, but with us in our bowels God himself commanded! Just our tops need to believe the bottom.
  14. Yak28
    Yak28 30 June 2016 22: 47
    0
    Quote: Starik72
    I think that in the Russian military leadership are not fools

    When Russia actively disarmed in the 90s and 2000s, its defense capability was undermined at the highest level. Then, weren't the fools in the Russian Military Leadership? Is everything all right now, is everything different? request
    1. Muvka
      Muvka 30 June 2016 22: 52
      0
      And you compare the budgets of the 90s with the current ones and understand everything. I'm talking about the military budget.
  15. atamankko
    atamankko 30 June 2016 22: 53
    +4
    Russia does not need to consult with anyone, but pursue its nuclear policy,
    The US and NATO will still be deceived in spite of any treaties,
    these people really believe that they are allowed everything.
  16. sabakina
    sabakina 30 June 2016 22: 58
    +1
    Bayan, of course, but the author is wrong. How will the FI-35 overcome the air defense system and drop the bomb? Just a bomb? Or the "axes" are over?
    1. Vadim237
      Vadim237 30 June 2016 23: 27
      -2
      This film is not relevant, all US bombers can carry nuclear-powered cruise missiles and bombers are constantly upgrading there, and they will not have to overcome the air defense zone itself, since it will be destroyed or incapacitated during the first strike with ICBM warheads, and bombers a few more hours will fly. And vryatli it will be difficult to remove all the warheads from the Minutemans 3 and install them on Trident 2 - they will simply increase the number of warheads by one or two per missile, and all 450 Minuteman ICBMs will be converted to GBI missiles.
      1. viktorR
        viktorR 1 July 2016 00: 07
        +2
        all US bombers can carry cruise missiles
        And here I would like more details.
        1. Vadim237
          Vadim237 1 July 2016 10: 43
          -1
          Please - the B2 bomb load includes 16 JASSM-ER cruise missiles with a launch range of 980 kilometers, the same missile in the amount of 24 pieces is included in the B1 bomb load, the same missiles can carry B52, as well as the AGM-86 ALCM with a launch range of 2700 kilometers , and in the future a new X51 hypersonic missile is possible. The US is armed with 150 strategic bombers.
          1. Alexey RA
            Alexey RA 1 July 2016 11: 29
            +1
            Quote: Vadim237
            B2 bomb load includes 16 JASSM-ER cruise missiles with a launch range of 980 kilometers

            What type of nuclear warhead is on this ALCM?
            Quote: Vadim237
            and also AGM-86 ALCM with a launch range of 2700 kilometers

            Which are the only (currently) US ALCMs with SBS. And which can only be carried by "fifteen hundred".
            1. Vadim237
              Vadim237 1 July 2016 15: 09
              -1
              "What type of nuclear warhead is on this ALCM" - if necessary, you can put nuclear warheads from B61 bombs into this missile - there is plenty of room for them.
              1. Alexey RA
                Alexey RA 1 July 2016 16: 32
                0
                Quote: Vadim237
                "What type of nuclear warhead is on this ALCM" - if necessary, you can put nuclear warheads from B61 bombs into this missile - there is plenty of room for them.

                Do you seriously think that to install the NBC you only need a place?
                In this case, practically all "large" and "medium" aircraft missiles can be considered nuclear - after all, they plenty of room for 152/155 mm nuclear shells. Even the X-25. smile
                1. berezin1987
                  berezin1987 1 July 2016 18: 09
                  0
                  A nuclear warhead usually weighs less than a standard HE. There is nothing complicated in installing NFC right now. The carrier only needs to be at least 152 mm in diameter, or maybe even smaller. Modern charges are able to withstand huge overloads, while maintaining operability.
                2. Vadim237
                  Vadim237 1 July 2016 19: 21
                  -1
                  So it is - no problems whatsoever in installation on serial missiles; there are no serial thermonuclear charges already.
  17. Erg
    Erg 30 June 2016 23: 21
    0
    Blank article. There will be no war. This is not the point. Russia is included in the general plan. Disappointing to read posts a la "kindergarten".
  18. Forever so
    Forever so 30 June 2016 23: 35
    +1
    The article is typical - Chef u has disappeared ..... I'm not going to argue with the author, but what does 1986 have to do with it, if today is 2016 ?? It’s just that there are other sources here, it has been repeatedly written about the degradation of the US nuclear program, well, even if this is not so, just recently, our president directly told the Americans - Any mess in Europe, America rakes in full. And there on Yelostone throw a warhead and the entire east coast is enough. Well, in the form of a joke that does not really joke. Well, why did D.A. Medvedev want to collect the entire population of Russia into 12 megalopolises ??
  19. The comment was deleted.
  20. berezin1987
    berezin1987 30 June 2016 23: 43
    0
    Nuclear ammunition in terms of manufacturing complexity is inferior to many types of modern high-precision weapons. Expensive are only nuclear materials. And when on the box some wise guy compares high-precision weapons / thermobaric bombs with nuclear ones in terms of efficiency, then it only makes me smile. Like even the most powerful 44 tonne TNT bomb, it can be destructive in comparison with the artillery shell for the 2с7 Peony with the 2 ct TNT. Of course, nuclear weapons require special storage conditions, regular maintenance and verification, but in terms of combat effectiveness is unparalleled
  21. Zomanus
    Zomanus 30 June 2016 23: 53
    +3
    The article is another horror story. The author has listed
    what is being developed against us but did not mention
    that we also constantly upgrade our strategic nuclear forces.
    And it seems to me that "Barguzin" and "Sarmat" can hardly be called our retreat on this issue.
    The article is simply not complete.
    Now in Turkey, since the topic has slipped through here.
    And who is going to rest there now?
    And then, Putin usually works in two steps.
    In the beginning, it gives a soft version for resolving misunderstandings.
    This is exactly what causes the howl about "drain".
    But if another torona begins to greyhound,
    then there is a tougher rhetoric.
    So let's not cry, let's see.
  22. Brigadier
    Brigadier 1 July 2016 00: 12
    +3
    Anyone who now argues about the impossibility of war may be very disappointed when it starts. Gunpowder must be kept dry ALWAYS! And our leadership needs to tell America directly and openly that if only any NATO country uses nuclear weapons against Russia, then our nuclear weapons will fly to America. So as not to hope to sit out overseas. We know very well that only America can order its servants to do this. So let the states know that there will be a response in any case! This will make them think strongly ... And there is no need to think about how the "world community" will look at it. Yes, we don't care how it looks! This community wants to destroy Russia, so we have nothing to stand on ceremony and choose streamlined phrases! The life of the country is at stake! Parabellum! No pasaran! angry
  23. Reptiloid
    Reptiloid 1 July 2016 01: 20
    0
    Thanks to the triad ---- Russia is within its current borders.
  24. shinobi
    shinobi 1 July 2016 01: 37
    -1
    The reduction of nuclear arseals is inevitable and has been going on for a long time without any agreements. Old ammunition is being removed from armament and storage. The filling is being used for new products, like in the Yankes, because they have long lost their cycle of production of weapons filling. Or it is diluted to the level of fuel for stations, as we have. .In the new warheads of the defense industry, our svezhachok is filling. The rest is all dances with tambourines. The same demonstration shooting "Caliber" indicates that we can end any attempt at aggression in 15-20 minutes.
    1. The comment was deleted.
  25. Wolka
    Wolka 1 July 2016 06: 25
    0
    vigilance gentlemen, again vigilance, who is warned is armed ...
  26. db1967
    db1967 1 July 2016 07: 14
    +1
    There, with respect to such important defense enterprises, the word “privatization” does not sound like ours.

    Dear author, MUCH wrong laughing
    Google United States Enrichment Corporation - what she does (in short - an analogue of the Lighthouse) and the history of its privatization.
    At the same time read in which ... the United States is now.
    At the moment, in the US there is NO capacity to enrich uranium to weapons grade.
    And will not be.
    And it is precisely with this that the United States attempts to steal with the treaty on the MOPP.
    Interested in recommending to find and read The Saga of Rosatom good
    1. Vadim237
      Vadim237 1 July 2016 19: 28
      0
      "At the moment, the US has NO facilities to enrich uranium to weapons grade."
      "And it won't." - The Pentagon told you that - there is no information in the public domain where the US is currently engaged in uranium enrichment - and there will not be.
  27. guzik007
    guzik007 1 July 2016 08: 12
    0
    And how beautiful everything was in the 80s ... I remembered my modest participation in the construction of rocket mines in the GDR
  28. Old26
    Old26 1 July 2016 09: 39
    +2
    Article set unfortunately MINUS. Why "Unfortunately? Yes, because you can only bet ONE minus. Article About nothing. Horror story with omissions, hints, news not even "third freshness". Not even designed for "dummies" и "housewives"but for those who sacredly believe everything they write. Even if this is nonsense.

    What did the author want to say? What is a nuclear weapon? Yes, yes. But much more interesting and informative was a series of articles on nuclear weapons from different countries by Sergey Linnik. And here are pieces of numbers (and the author is trying to submit them in such a way that it is impossible to verify).

    What did the author want to say? What is the reduction of nuclear weapons under the START-3 treaty? So everyone knows that. But why in the first two paragraphs to give data for March 2013, probably only the author knows?

    What else did the author want to say? What have the Americans done about 60 thousand charges all the time?
    Yes, but at the same time it would not hurt to give the dynamics of development for other countries, namely, how many nuclear weapons the USSR, France, England, and China had in a given period (or year). One of the rules of computer science is that information should be comparable. And with what to compare data on the amount of nuclear weapons in the United States for all the time?

    What else did the author want to say? The fact that the process of modernization of nuclear weapons in the United States?
    Yes, it does, and the last stage has been going on for at least 10 years. There is a program LEP. Work on it and go. Moreover, the preservation of the nuclear arsenal includes several areas. Modification, revision, alteration, re-equipment. And what, someone doubts that other nuclear countries are not engaged in the modernization of their nuclear arsenal? If there are any, then, sorry, these people are fools. All are engaged in this, without exception.

    What else did the author want to say? What do Americans dismantle and upgrade to 3500-4000 nuclear charges per year?
    Nonsense. Now Americans have the opportunity to upgrade and dismantle each year up to 350 weapons per year. With an increase in funding by almost half, this amount can be increased up to 600 per year. Which is significantly less than the peak of modernization and dismantling in the mid-90s, when this amount reached 1300 1400, but not 3500 4000 in year. Why at the same time give financing at the end of the 80s probably known exclusively to the author.

    What else did the author want to say? What other countries have nuclear weapons?
    Yes they do. But saying Аneed to say and Б. And not like the author, he said that there is a weapon and that’s it. What, too lazy to see open data on the number and structure of nuclear arsenals of the countries of the world?
  29. Old26
    Old26 1 July 2016 09: 45
    +2
    The author’s passage about countries with nuclear weapons was especially amused:
    Not to mention its other owners, such as Israel, South Africa, Saudi Arabia, Iran.

    Where does the author take such fossil grass? Ok, Israel. The country does not recognize the presence of nuclear weapons, but according to indirect data it possesses it in a fairly large amount. The author mentions South Africa. He doesn’t know that all of his nuclear weapons are in quantity 6 bombs were disassembled under international control a quarter of a century ago?
    The author knows about the presence of nuclear weapons in Iran and Saudi Arabia? Accidentally not from the mouth of the OBS agency? No one denies that Iran threshold country. But what about Saudi Arabia? Threshold too? And threshold - this does not mean that he has it. It only means that the country CAN to do it, has sufficient industrial and scientific potential for this, has a completed cycle for the production of nuclear weapons.

    What else did the author want to say? What Americans have not ratified the test ban treaty?
    Yes, they haven't. Moreover, our current "friends" the Chinese and Iranians have not ratified this treaty either. And the "friends" Indians and North Koreans did not sign at all. But even those who have not ratified or signed, except for the DPRK, observe the moratorium.

    Like the passage of the author
    According to some reports, the British armed forces deployed on strategic delivery vehicles around 160 nuclear weapons, and their total number is 225 units.

    What year is this data? Since 2015, the number of warheads deployed on British nuclear submarines has dropped to 120

    Quote: Tatiana
    I absolutely agree with the author! The USA and Great Britain - and their allies in the EU - are actively preparing in all aspects for a nuclear war with Russia. In Washington and London, their hybrid war against Russia is being crushed strictly according to plan - right up to the exchange of nuclear strikes.
    And even Britain’s exit from the EU fits into this plan of preparation for this war.

    And therefore, in preparation for a nuclear attack on Russia, the British are reducing the number of APs, reducing the number of missiles with warheads on boats. Well, these British are cunning ... laughing

    Quote: Vadim237
    The Perimeter RC system was removed from service in 1995; now a different system is in service.

    It is "Perimeter-RC" that stands now. And the system "Perimeter" was removed
  30. Old26
    Old26 1 July 2016 09: 47
    +1
    Quote: Vadim237
    This film is not relevant, all US bombers can carry nuclear-powered cruise missiles and bombers are constantly upgrading there, and they will not have to overcome the air defense zone itself, since it will be destroyed or incapacitated during the first strike with ICBM warheads, and bombers a few more hours will fly.


    Not all.
    B-1 cannot carry Ram. In order for him to be able to carry, his conversion to the factory is required.
    B-2 cannot carry existing types of strategic missiles. Those that he carried were taken out of service and disposed of

    Quote: Vadim237
    And vryatli it will be difficult to remove all the warheads from the Minutemans 3 and install them on Trident 2 - they will simply increase the number of warheads by one or two per missile, and all 450 Minuteman ICBMs will be converted to GBI missiles.

    Is. And a very significant work. The Minuteman-3 and Trident warheads have completely different control systems and they simply cannot be mechanically put on the stage of breeding. And the Minuteman-3 rocket is even more difficult to convert into GBI. It was during the first GBI test flights that the Minuteman stages were used. Later all engines were replaced with more powerful ones.
    1. Vadim237
      Vadim237 1 July 2016 10: 46
      0
      AGM-158B JASSM-ER cruise missiles are included in the combat load of all US bombers.
    2. Vadim237
      Vadim237 1 July 2016 10: 50
      0
      Yes, they can generally send warheads from the Minutemen to warehouses, and from the warehouses take the same number of W87 warheads for Tridents 2.
  31. Old26
    Old26 1 July 2016 10: 12
    +2
    Quote: Brigadier
    Those who now claim the impossibility of war can be very disappointed when it begins. Gunpowder should be kept ALWAYS dry!

    Do you always try to mix everything in one bottle? Like in these two sentences? After all, no one doubts that gunpowder should always be kept dry. But who claims the possibility of war against Russia at the present stage? Couch and other EXPERTS? Name at least one politician or group of people who are ready to start a war against Russia for the sake of war? Or do you think they don’t know what the answer will be?

    Quote: Brigadier
    And our leadership must directly and openly tell America that if only any NATO country applies nuclear weapons to Russia, then our nuclear weapons will fly to America.

    There is no need for this. The need to scream to the whole world that we will destroy you if you or your servants dare ... This is the lot of leaders like Kim Jong-un. He can threaten America with a fist, which will destroy her if she helps South Korea. We don't need this. Russia's "Military Doctrine" has been published. So - "he who has ears, let him hear". And Americans, be sure all the articles of this doctrine have been studied much better than our EXPERTS, which predict a close war with NATO.
  32. Old26
    Old26 1 July 2016 11: 21
    +2
    Quote: Vadim237
    AGM-158B JASSM-ER cruise missiles are included in the combat load of all US bombers.

    They are not strategic. And this is about strategic bombers

    Quote: Vadim237
    Yes, they can generally send warheads from the Minutemen to warehouses, and from the warehouses take the same number of W87 warheads for Tridents 2.

    Can not. Have you ever asked yourself why the Americans did not put BG W-87 / Mk.21 on their Tridents as soon as they were removed from the decommissioned MX? After all, the Americans did very little for the W-88 / Mk.5, only enough for 2 boats. What prevented them from immediately delivering? And then, to put blocks with different control systems on the stage of breeding - sorry, nonsense.

    Quote: guzik007
    And how beautiful everything was in the 80s ... I remembered my modest participation in the construction of rocket mines in the GDR

    And for what, if not secret?

    Quote: berezin1987
    The nuclear arsenal should not be reduced, but increased to 10-15 thousand warheads. It is necessary to resume production of weapons-grade plutonium and tritium in industrial volumes

    And what for, one may ask? Do you want another arms race, stores with a minimum of necessary products? What for? After all, an elementary calculation (there are such calculations on the network) shows that in order for the United States to cease to exist as a state, 266 to 426 charges of 100-400 ct are needed. 45 is enough for England, 42 for France, 86 for Germany, 47 for Turkey, 39 for Iran, 45 for Pakistan, 34 for the Saudis.
    If you add up, it turns out 764 charge. Or is it necessary to vitrify the surface? but do not forget that our opponent will increase his reserves in response. So it will not only be worse for them, but for us.
    And why reinstate plutonium production when Russia has about 160 tons of it? What is the need for?
    1. Vadim237
      Vadim237 1 July 2016 15: 24
      0
      In thermonuclear charges, not only plutonium is used, but several more elements, and so the program for the modernization of nuclear weapons and the creation of new ones continues - the US Administration in 2013 developed the so-called "3 + 2" strategy. It provides for the replacement of seven types of nuclear warheads at the Pentagon's disposal with five new ones over the next 25 years. In this regard, the NSNS intends, among other things, to build several new facilities of the nuclear military complex, as well as to increase the amount of tritium in warheads in order to increase their reliability.
    2. Tektor
      Tektor 2 July 2016 10: 08
      0
      Here you gave very interesting information about the number of special BGs, which are enough to cause unacceptable damage to the listed countries. But after all, they have to fly there, break through the missile defense system ... The effectiveness of the missile defense system is high at the initial moment, before the detonation of a nuclear warhead, after which plasma formation occurs in the atmosphere, reducing the transparency for the early warning system. The formation of "blind" zones through which warheads of the next stage can pass is possible - this is a tactic for breaking through an echeloned missile defense system. In this case, much will depend on the ability of the early warning and missile defense systems to issue target designation with the existing damaging factors of nuclear weapons, i.e. in conditions where radar is not possible. It is likely that only terrestrial (worse) or space IR television or laser ranging will be able to continue to work.
      From the above, there is an important conclusion: the number of available special warheads and their carriers is important. And reducing this arsenal to a certain limit is beneficial for us, because we get a chance to survive if we create a high-quality missile defense system. Here are the numbers: 1600 MT is enough for a radiation background of 4 X-rays per hour to form on an area of ​​28 million square kilometers. However, this is an average indicator: somewhere - more, and somewhere less. The area of ​​the Russian Federation is 17 million sq km, and having intercepted half of the BG, we will qualitatively change the situation. Let me remind you that the effectiveness of the missile defense system of the central industrial region is estimated to be no worse than 95% of BG interception in its normal mode of operation, i.e. without sabotage or weakening by non-nuclear means of a disarming, preventive strike.
      1. Operator
        Operator 2 July 2016 21: 14
        0
        The information that 1600 Mt will create a radiation background in 4 X-ray on an area of ​​28 million square kilometers does not mean anything.

        The indicated background created by unreacted plutonium in the charges (half-life of 24000 years) is one thing, and the background created by plutonium fission products (radioactive isotopes of zinc, strontium, iodine, etc. with a half-life of several hours to several days) is completely different.

        With an increase in the response coefficient of plutonium from 10 to 99 percent (thermonuclear charges with an increased tritium content), the radiation background from plutonium fission products decreases to 0,4 X-rays after a week.
    3. Operator
      Operator 2 July 2016 21: 01
      0
      The estimate of the number of nuclear charges is underestimated - China, India, Japan, North and South Korea, and Israel are not taken into account.

      Moreover, in the case of China and India, in addition to hundreds of thermonuclear nuclear weapons designed to destroy military and industrial centers, several thousand more neutron-type tactical charges will be needed to neutralize the army, militia and mobilization contingent of up to one billion people in total.
  33. Al1977
    Al1977 1 July 2016 12: 11
    0
    Hooray!
    War is coming !!!! It’s time for the planet to clear itself of this infection, which calls itself a man !!
    With all hands FOR !!!!
    1. Vadim237
      Vadim237 1 July 2016 15: 13
      0
      This war will not cleanse the planet from humanity.
  34. Old26
    Old26 2 July 2016 20: 06
    0
    Quote: Tektor
    Here you gave very interesting information about the number of special BGs, which are enough to cause unacceptable damage to the listed countries. But after all, they have to fly there, break through the missile defense system ... The effectiveness of the missile defense system is high at the initial moment, before the detonation of a nuclear warhead, after which plasma formation occurs in the atmosphere, reducing the transparency for the early warning system. The formation of "blind" zones through which warheads of the next stage can pass is possible - this is a tactic for breaking through an echeloned missile defense system. In this case, much will depend on the ability of the early warning and missile defense systems to issue target designation with the existing damaging factors of nuclear weapons, i.e. in conditions where radar is not possible. It is likely that only terrestrial (worse) or space IR television or laser ranging will be able to continue to work.

    If you look at the probability of hitting a target with one interceptor, it becomes clear that practically any missile defense system is not capable of intercepting a massive raid. If the probability of hitting a target of an interceptor missile is 0,85, then to achieve a probability of hitting a target of 0,998 (a good probability of hitting) is required FOUR interceptor. That is, it becomes clear that any missile defense system based on the use of interceptor missiles is capable of intercepting single targets ... Of the number of APs given by me, the majority will not be intercepted, if only because there is nothing to intercept. European now - a theater of missile defense, capable of intercepting a maximum of ballistic missile defense

    Quote: Tektor
    Here are the numbers: 1600 MT is enough

    These figures were not given by me, but by Vadim237. And I do not agree with them, because what Vadim cited earlier does not correspond to reality

    Quote: Tektor
    and intercepting half of the BG, we will qualitatively change the situation.

    It's just not real
  35. Old26
    Old26 3 July 2016 13: 22
    0
    Quote: Operator
    The estimate of the number of nuclear charges is underestimated - China, India, Japan, North and South Korea, and Israel are not taken into account.

    And I did not write that these are all the charges that are needed. Specially did not write about China. There were no data on India, Japan and South Korea in the review, but in principle, you can calculate