Military Review

In Turkey, the rebels could seize the American nuclear arsenal

63
In Turkey, the rebels could seize the American nuclear arsenal

B-61 nuclear bombs are designed to contain Russia.


A wave of panic publications swept through the American media in connection with information received from Turkey about temporary measures by the Turkish authorities, which during the recent rebellion blocked the Incirlik airbase, turned off the power and closed the airspace for the military aviation USA. The primary concern was the fact that the American tactical nuclear stockpile was stockpiled on this basis. weapon (TNW).

According to the Director of the Nuclear Information Project at the Federation of American Scientists, Hans M. Christensen, B-50 is located in underground storage facilities at the Incirlik airbase (over other data - 70 bombs). It is known that this class of weapons, located in Turkey, is 61% of the entire arsenal of tactical nuclear weapons (TNW), which Washington holds in Europe under the auspices of NATO. The same repositories are located in Germany, the Netherlands, Belgium and Italy. According to the New Yorker magazine, up to 25 units of TNW are placed in the Old World, according to other data, their number exceeds 200 units. This weapon is aimed at deterring Russia, but the American media did not focus on this fact. Their concern is not connected with the fact that the Incirlik airbase is located near the Syrian border, that is, in the immediate vicinity of the combat zone. The American publications drew attention to the actions of the Turkish authorities related to the blocking of the military airbase, as a result of which, although a hypothetical, but still a threat to the safety of the US nuclear warheads arose.

Attempts to agree on the reduction of TNW on the European continent between Washington and Moscow were made in Soviet times. One of them - known as the “presidential initiative” - was almost a success in 1991 – 1992, but it was not subject to inspection and did not continue. According to the head of the group of advisers to the Director of the Russian Institute for Strategic Studies, Vladimir Kozin, earlier the inability to agree on a reduction of this class of weapons in Europe was due to the fact that “as a prerequisite for starting negotiations on reducing tactical nuclear weapons, the United States repeatedly asked tactical nuclear weapons from the European continent. "

After the events of the winter of 2014, the situation has changed a lot. Now Washington and Brussels do not exclude forceful containment of Moscow. The armed forces of the NATO countries in the aggregate far exceed the Armed forces of Russia, which, in turn, views its own TNW as a means of deterring possible alliance aggression. Russia does not deny that, with a threat to its existence, it may be the first to use the nuclear potential. According to many military experts, for Moscow this weapon has become political. For the United States, TNW always deployed in Europe has been largely classified as a strategic weapon, in view of the fact that it can be delivered to virtually any part of the European territory of Russia. Whereas for the Russian TNW the territory of the United States is inaccessible.
Author:
Originator:
http://nvo.ng.ru/realty/2016-07-22/3_turkey.html
63 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. Shurik70
    Shurik70 24 July 2016 12: 11
    +16
    In Turkey, the rebels could seize the American nuclear arsenal

    Nonsense.
    The rebels, as well as the special services opposing them, were controlled from Washington.
    But these guys are still afraid of the atomic bomb in the wrong hands.
    1. Major Yurik
      Major Yurik 24 July 2016 12: 17
      +12
      The Yankees scattered their nuclear weapons in Europe, like drunk socks around the apartment, and the safety control for them was strained, expensive, and if it smells, it is far from them. After all, they’ll finish the game, and they will be reached in any way! am
      1. cniza
        cniza 24 July 2016 12: 46
        +11
        Quote: Major Yurik
        The Yankees scattered their nuclear weapons in Europe, like drunk socks around the apartment, and the safety control for them was strained, expensive, and if it smells, it is far from them. After all, they’ll finish the game, and they will be reached in any way! am


        And the media also tells the barmaleas that it is not far from the border with Syria.
        1. Orionvit
          Orionvit 24 July 2016 15: 31
          +5

          And the media also tells the barmaleas that it’s not far from the border with Syria
          All this is chatter. In order to detonate a nuclear weapon, even if you have one, you need every bit of different "little things". Starting with the presence of the ammunition itself, and ending with access codes that are not posted on the Internet.
      2. The comment was deleted.
      3. corporal
        corporal 24 July 2016 12: 46
        +3
        Quote: Major Yurik
        , and control over their safety harnessed,

        Do you know what amers have the security regime in storage?
        1. Major Yurik
          Major Yurik 24 July 2016 12: 54
          +6
          I know, Svyatoslav, how they lose their bombs during flights, how they scratch themselves when asked about the total number of nuclear weapons in bases around the world, and so on. Well, from all this I draw conclusions in general. Something like this! hi
          1. corporal
            corporal 24 July 2016 13: 27
            +3
            Quote: Major Yurik
            how they lose their bombs when flying

            Well, do not compare warm with soft.
            It is one thing to "lose the YAZ together with the carrier, but another thing is to" pick out "the bomb from the guarded storage.
            By the way, we also "lost" our warheads along with the damaged submarines. hi
            1. Major Yurik
              Major Yurik 24 July 2016 13: 32
              +2
              I am glad that the Yankees order for you is immutable and unshakable, and is a model, but I remain in my opinion! hi
            2. askort154
              askort154 24 July 2016 14: 52
              +3
              corporal ... It's one thing to "lose the YAZ along with the carrier, and another thing is to" pick out "the bomb from the guarded storage.
              By the way, we also "lost" our warheads along with the damaged submarines.

              You are right, but!
              Disconnect the NATO military base?! Where are 25% of NATO nuclear weapons in Europe! This has not happened in the history of NATO.
              Yes, the base has independent redundant power supplies, but it
              not for everyday life. Erdogan plays on this weak link in the United States.
              Erdogan realized that his program to become the Sultan of "New Osmania" had failed, and Turkey had been kept on the doorstep of the EU for "eleven years". They begin to understand that they are being used purely against Russia (USSR) and are stupidly taught how to live. Turks are strong in their patriotism in
              differences from the motley EU and the US. It is better for us to keep such a neighbor as a "friend" than an enemy. I'm sure our Su is shot down, this is a setup for a break
              relations between Russia and Turkey. Erdogan realized this only now, after the coup attempt (or before him, having arranged it himself?) And is drawing the "correct" conclusions. I think this is Erdogan's next step, a complete break with the United States (the reason is not to hand over the enemy to Turkey) by withdrawing from NATO and rapprochement with the SCO. The CIA will have one task in Turkey, the physical elimination of Erdogan.
              1. clidon
                clidon 24 July 2016 17: 24
                +2
                Until recently, the Strategic Missile Forces bases "were de-energized. For failure to pay. And here is an emergency.
          2. clidon
            clidon 24 July 2016 17: 23
            0
            That is, it is kept badly with us, because at the bottom of the oceans there are most of our charges?
      4. Old
        Old 24 July 2016 14: 57
        +1
        Socks around the apartment and so on right away and a wino ?! I don’t agree! Drunkards don’t need socks at all!
      5. Very old
        Very old 24 July 2016 18: 07
        0
        That's right.
        You can keep a fig in your pocket.
        Boys, don't keep the Kid close to the basket
  2. Banishing liberoids
    Banishing liberoids 24 July 2016 12: 12
    +6
    The last phrase that our tiao does not reach the United States is very controversial ...
  3. svp67
    svp67 24 July 2016 12: 17
    +4
    Speak to the United States, they were scared of capturing their nuclear weapons, so it might be worth asking a question, but whether there are a lot of them scattered around the world.
    1. Yura
      Yura 24 July 2016 13: 42
      +2
      Quote: svp67
      Speak the United States scared of capturing its nuclear weapons, so maybe it’s worth asking a question

      And a question of this kind, and not because of these charges (well, apart from other accompanying goals to destabilize the Middle East) all this boring stuff in Turkey? Look from this "fright" it will be possible for the concerned States to relocate these warheads to Germany, Romania, Poland or the Baltic states, as an option to Moldova or Ukraine (in the last two countries under great doubt, but what the hell is not joking) quietly, there is a motive and seems to be justified ...
  4. Banishing liberoids
    Banishing liberoids 24 July 2016 12: 22
    +2
    Didn't a certain amount of nuclear weapons "go away" from there during the time "into third hands?" Maybe it was part of a "rebellion?"
  5. antiexpert
    antiexpert 24 July 2016 12: 32
    -3
    there are two options
    1. The United States was not at all worried that the putschists could seize nuclear weapons
    2. there has been no nuclear weapons there for a long time, all the more so - aerial bombs with nuclear weapons are now just ridiculous - except to fight with natives like Saddam)))
    1. corporal
      corporal 24 July 2016 12: 49
      +2
      Quote: antiexpert
      moreover - air bombs with nuclear weapons are now just ridiculous

      fool
      In the back of the van, in the middle of the million-plus city, you just have a good laugh. negative
    2. Bongo
      Bongo 24 July 2016 14: 18
      +2
      Quote: antiexpert
      there are two options
      1. The United States was not at all worried that the putschists could seize nuclear weapons
      2. there has been no nuclear weapons there for a long time, all the more so - aerial bombs with nuclear weapons are now just ridiculous - except to fight with natives like Saddam)))

      Especially for you (clickable)
      Tactical nuclear weapons in Europe
  6. yuriy55
    yuriy55 24 July 2016 12: 37
    +3
    About the American nuclear weapons scattered around the world, one can argue for a long time, counting its quantity and power. For what purpose this has been done - even a halfwit is understandable. Perhaps it’s useful for someone, and there, overseas, they are white and fluffy ... No.
    Strained this:
    Now, Washington and Brussels do not rule out the power containment of Moscow. The armed forces of NATO countries in total are significantly superior to the armed forces of Russia, which, in turn, considers its own nuclear weapons as a means of deterring the possible aggression of the alliance.


    It may be Washington wants to restrain Moscow by force. Presumably, the Yankees themselves spread rumors about Brussels. Whether or not the forces of the NATO countries exceed the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation, qualitatively or still quantitatively, is written with a pitchfork on the water. They will rake both, they won’t even have time to rejoice. The author does not repeat these overseas ravings about the super power of the NATO bloc ... No.
  7. The comment was deleted.
  8. Hauptam
    Hauptam 24 July 2016 12: 47
    0
    US nuclear weapons must be transferred under the control of the International Community - where is Lavrov, it is necessary to bring the issue to the UN as not ensuring its safety. (so they wanted to do with us)
  9. voronbel53
    voronbel53 24 July 2016 12: 47
    0
    And from the eastern territories of Russia or from submarines in the immediate vicinity of the United States, what tactical nuclear weapons do we have? I will not believe!..
  10. Wildfox
    Wildfox 24 July 2016 12: 51
    0
    Quote: yuriy55
    About the American nuclear weapons scattered around the world, one can argue for a long time, counting its quantity and power. For what purpose this has been done - even a halfwit is understandable. Perhaps it’s useful for someone, and there, overseas, they are white and fluffy ... No.
    Strained this:
    Now, Washington and Brussels do not rule out the power containment of Moscow. The armed forces of NATO countries in total are significantly superior to the armed forces of Russia, which, in turn, considers its own nuclear weapons as a means of deterring the possible aggression of the alliance.


    It may be Washington wants to restrain Moscow by force. Presumably, the Yankees themselves spread rumors about Brussels. Whether or not the forces of the NATO countries exceed the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation, qualitatively or still quantitatively, is written with a pitchfork on the water. They will rake both, they won’t even have time to rejoice. The author does not repeat these overseas ravings about the super power of the NATO bloc ... No.

    Hooray, Hooray, we will defeat everyone !!! Maybe we believe people who are responsible for the defense all the same head? If the military says that it is like a bone in the throat to us, can it really be?

    According to the article, it seems to me that Erdogan pulled the states for nuclear weapons
    speed up the issuance of Gullen, and it's just that such a "Oh" strange jumped out of them.
    Nuclear weapons "just" so no one captures and uses, to be responsible for it directly or indirectly all hi equal to the USA.
    1. Nyrobsky
      Nyrobsky 24 July 2016 18: 31
      0
      Quote: WildFox
      According to the article, it seems to me that Erdogan pulled the states for nuclear weapons
      speed up the issuance of Gullen, and it's just that such a "Oh" strange jumped out of them.
      YAO "just" so no one captures and uses, responsible for it directly or indirectly anyway the United States.

      Alas, the United States has always been characterized by pathological irresponsibility, both in words and in actions. The last 25 years have shown that in connection with the collapse of the USSR, the mattresses having pulled on the cap of the "hegemon", destroying international law, brought chaos and chaos into the world, brought the world close to a nuclear disaster.
      What kind of responsibility can we talk about?
  11. sabakina
    sabakina 24 July 2016 13: 00
    +1
    For the United States, TNWs deployed in Europe have always been classified as strategic weapons to a large extent, since they can be delivered to almost any part of the European territory of Russia.

    It would be interesting to observe how they will deliver it?
    PiSi. Kostroma. Saturday, 23.07.16. Time is about 8.00 I'm sitting on VO. From the street, in the distance, single and short bursts of machine gun fire can be heard. "Obviously, they are carrying out something demonstrative in the 331st regiment," I thought.
    The time is around 9.00 I am sitting on the VO. Single and short automatic bursts are heard under the balcony ... belay (I have 2 floor). What will you tell me to think? ... Gathering all the courage into a fist, I go out onto the balcony ... Three men in camouflage and helmets are beating blanks at the “enemy” across the road. He exhaled: "Thank God, ours." That was my Saturday morning.
    There is a video, but on the phone.
    1. rruvim
      rruvim 24 July 2016 13: 08
      0
      I should have thrown them an empty beer can from the second floor. With a shout: "Get down!"
      1. sabakina
        sabakina 24 July 2016 13: 15
        +1
        What for? The guys were practicing street fights. I didn’t even bother them, asking “what are you doing here?”. k / f "Welcome or unauthorized entry is prohibited."
  12. rruvim
    rruvim 24 July 2016 13: 11
    0
    There is no TNW in Incirlik. Some "speculations".
  13. Koshak
    Koshak 24 July 2016 14: 51
    +1
    But it’s a pity that we didn’t capture it, then we would have a concrete reason to strike a fucking blow at this base
    1. clidon
      clidon 24 July 2016 17: 25
      0
      Who has it for "you"?
  14. Operator
    Operator 24 July 2016 15: 30
    0
    The value of nuclear weapons lies in their short reaction time (flight time) and their protection against interception during use. This is achieved only by combining nuclear charges with launch vehicles.

    U.S. nuclear bombs are an outdated type of ammunition, on the one hand, and the threat of falling into the hands of ISIS, on the other hand (Incirlik air base is located in close proximity to the border with Syria, where Islamic state militants are still based). In addition, a full-scale civil war is taking place in Turkey with the participation of the Kurdish minority, which may well have views on finished nuclear weapons in order to achieve an advantage in the war.

    Plus, the Turks themselves in the process of military insurrection and its suppression demonstrated how it can easily go into the hands of one of the warring parties in the intra-Turkish conflict.

    Therefore, the US’s motives to keep from 50 to 80 TNW units (militarily ineffective) almost on the front line are absolutely not clear.
    1. clidon
      clidon 24 July 2016 17: 27
      0
      Why do you think that tactical bombs are "an obsolete type of ammunition"? Explode badly?
      This arsenal did not go anywhere and was not going to. For the American base as it was and remained American.

      But even if we assume that the rebels took it and seized these ammunition, what will they do then with them?
      1. Operator
        Operator 24 July 2016 18: 15
        0
        Are you familiar with the concept of "carrier"?

        And the fact that Incirlik is a Turkish air base, only part of which is occupied by the US military?

        Blackmail is the first consequence of nuclear weapons falling into the hands of Kurdish rebels, ISIS terrorists or the party that lost in the intra-Turkish confrontation.
        1. clidon
          clidon 24 July 2016 19: 06
          0
          So what? Is a modern airplane an obsolete weapon?

          That is, "the base was American" and "part of the base was American" this is just philology. On the American zone, no rebels poked their noses.

          Blackmail with what? What can rebels do with modern aircraft ammunition? To make out?
          1. Operator
            Operator 24 July 2016 19: 52
            0
            Aircraft as carriers of nuclear weapons became an obsolete type of armament back in 1962 during the so-called Caribbean crisis (Soviet-American war).

            Your "philology" is good - whole and part of the whole laughing

            After the seizure of nuclear weapons, rebels, rebels and terrorists can blackmail with a large-scale terrorist act and radioactive pollution of the environment (in the case of a ground explosion of a nuclear munition) - they have enough suicide bombers, and the charge itself can be detonated directly at the storage site.
            1. clidon
              clidon 24 July 2016 20: 09
              0
              A non-nuclear means quite modern. An interesting conclusion. )

              Your "philology" is good - whole and part of the whole

              The meaning is absolutely the same.

              and the charge itself can be exploded directly at the storage site.

              You are apparently not very well versed in initiating modern nuclear weapons. It is impossible to blow it up without knowing access codes.
              1. Operator
                Operator 24 July 2016 23: 29
                0
                There are orders of magnitude more non-nuclear charges than nuclear ones. Here for the first such carriers as airplanes are intended. And valuable, highly efficient and, most importantly, piece nuclear charges require the appropriate type of carrier (rocket), which guarantees safe and fast delivery to the calculated point.

                The tactical sense is actually different - in one case, the air base (with a guarded perimeter and runway) is completely at the disposal of the Americans, in the other - at the disposal of the Turks.

                Having access codes is good; it’s even better to have an access code holder - an American soldier.
                1. clidon
                  clidon 25 July 2016 20: 09
                  0
                  That is, in your opinion, nuclear ammunition (of which there are hundreds of weapons) is a piece, and aircraft worth tens of millions of dollars are consumables. Why, then, do not they remove nuclear bombs from the armament of them and ours?

                  The tactical sense is actually different

                  In terms of access to nuclear weapons - the same - the repository is located in a separate zone protected by the Americans.


                  Having access codes is good; it’s even better to have an access code holder - an American soldier.

                  Offer rebels to fly to the Pentagon?
                  1. Operator
                    Operator 25 July 2016 21: 07
                    0
                    I mean that the number of TNWs is single-order with the number of tactical aircraft, and the number of conventional bombs is two to three orders of magnitude higher than the number of these aircraft.

                    Naturally, nuclear bombs are stored at Incirlik airbase in a special zone guarded by the Americans. However, the Americans themselves in this zone are "guarded" by the Turks, who have all the possibilities (special forces, armored vehicles, engineering units) to take this zone under their control and capture American TNW operators.

                    Incirlik's nuclear bomb activation codes are in Washington?
                    1. clidon
                      clidon 25 July 2016 21: 40
                      0
                      Modern aviation is quite capable of carrying out an operation to deliver nuclear weapons to tactical depth. That is why free-fall bombs are not replaced (and were not replaced earlier) without exception for other delivery vehicles. And of course the fact that other non-aviation tactical means are now also banned plays a role. Therefore, the Yankees are switching to "control" the bomb (in the 12th version), but no more. It will be necessary to apply - they will decide with an outfit of forces. In this case, control over the "product" will be until the last seconds or minutes for a person.

                      First, I wrote that in real life there was nothing. No storming of the American base zone.
                      Secondly, TNW operators will have a lot of time during such an assault to render ammunition unusable. And this can be done by different methods.

                      Incirlik's nuclear bomb activation codes are in Washington?

                      Of course yes. As with any nuclear weapon in peacetime. And in the threatened period, most likely too. And then someone else will start to freak out or want a monument in history and Hello. )
                      1. Operator
                        Operator 25 July 2016 22: 29
                        0
                        Modern aviation in a nuclear conflict doesn’t have enough time to deliver tactical nuclear weapons to targets at tactical depth for a simple reason - targets (OTRKs) will have time to shoot off much earlier than planes reach them, not to mention the result of the confrontation between aircraft and air defense systems, especially such as C-350 and C-400.

                        The ban applies only to ground-based RSDs. There are no prohibitions for airborne RSDs of the Caliber-A and JASSM-ER types, as well as sea-based RSDs of the Caliber and Tomahawk types.

                        A thermonuclear charge can be brought into an unfit state only in one way - by an non-concentric explosion of conventional explosives intended for implosion of the first plutonium stage. At the same time, plutonium itself remains intact and intact; its shape can be restored mechanically. A high-pressure cylinder with a deuterium-tritium booster, as well as an outer shell of lead, is also damaged.
                        The second stage of lithium deuteride with an internal plutonium fuse remains intact.
                        As a result, with a small investment of time, you can reconfigure the thermonuclear charge - there are enough physicists and mechanics in Turkey.

                        So the presence or absence of access codes does not affect the possibility of using the American nuclear weapons in the event of its transfer to the hands of the Turks.
                      2. clidon
                        clidon 26 July 2016 16: 05
                        0
                        What nuclear conflict? If this is an "apocalypse" with the exchange of nuclear strikes, then the value of tactical nuclear weapons is reduced, and some hundreds of nuclear tactical bombs will not do the weather. If there is a limited nuclear war, then, and what exactly is the OTRK? The targets for nuclear strikes will be much larger.

                        The ban applies only to ground-based RSDs. There are no prohibitions for airborne RSDs of the Caliber-A and JASSM-ER types, as well as sea-based RSDs of the Caliber and Tomahawk types.

                        The ban applies to all tactical nuclear weapons except naval (with the withdrawal to the arsenals) and aviation. So our OTRK do not have nuclear charges. Cruise missiles no longer fall under the tactical framework. Actually, only strategic aviation uses them in our country. At the same time, as in the case of aviation, no one will give any guarantees that the ammunition will not be shot down along the road.

                        As a result, with a small investment of time, you can reconfigure the thermonuclear charge - there are enough physicists and mechanics in Turkey.

                        Well, here we are somehow going into a more reasonable course. That is, the rebels, in your opinion, must first crack the bombs (without detonating them) or collect the wreckage after the initiation (very powerful charges of initiation). Then, all this somewhere to collect, pour (need to know how), grind (you need to have equipment and know how) and assemble a new primitive low-power plutonium ammunition.
                        In fact, we are not talking about the receipt of nuclear weapons by the rebels, but of their access to nuclear materials, which they will have to turn for at least some time into at least some kind of weapon. And how to deliver this weapon to the enemy. After all, the bomb will turn out to be of considerable size.

                        PS And what do we have in service with the Caliber-A?
                      3. Operator
                        Operator 26 July 2016 16: 44
                        0
                        Nuclear conflict in modern conditions will not be unambiguously apocalyptic, but escalation - with the possibility of termination at one of the phases of escalation.

                        The current US military doctrine provides for the escalation of a military conflict with a technologically advanced enemy according to the scheme: preventive strike with high-precision conventional weapons - TNW strike - SNF strike.
                        The Russian military doctrine also provides for escalation, but according to a shortened scheme: a retaliatory counter-strike of a tactical nuclear weapon - a strike of strategic nuclear forces.
                        The key point is the retaliatory strike by the Russian tactical nuclear weapons in the person of the OTRK, since the JASSM and Tomahawk cruise missiles with a large approach time and the mass launch of the missiles with the use of the SPRN (three redundant subsystems - satellites, over-the-horizon radar, over-the-horizon radar) will carry out a preemptive strike with American precision-guided missile systems.
                        A crucial moment for the Russian Federation is to have time to deliver a nuclear strike to NATO military facilities (primarily to the places where the TNW carriers are based) before the unit moves to the second phase of the escalation of the conflict.

                        KR "Caliber-A" and JASSM are intended for use by tactical aircraft. The revolving launchers of strategic bombers are tailored to the dimensions of other cruise missiles such as the Kh-102 and AGM-129.
                        I am sure that all Iskander-M OTRKs have nuclear warheads.

                        In a specific B61 bomb, a very primitive first stage of a thermonuclear charge was used in the form of a hollow plutonium cylinder, crushed by a radial explosion using detonation of an external hollow cylinder from ordinary explosives. With non-concentric explosive detonation, the plutonium cylinder is crushed only partially without the formation of a critical mass.
                        It is not difficult to restore the geometric shape of a cylinder made of metal plutonium, as well as to impose explosives with detonators connected to an electric fuse with wires of equal length.
                        The only problem is in the second stage booster - a high-pressure cylinder filled with deuterium-tritium gas, which can be damaged by an explosion, as well as in the neutron lens. But in principle, they only increase the charge power to the maximum, i.e. it is quite possible to do without them by converting a "pure" thermonuclear charge into the so-called. a dirty bomb of relatively high yield from 50 to 100 kt.

                        PS About the adoption of the "Caliber-A" at the time, nothing is known (just as it was not known until 2015 about the adoption of the "Caliber" with a flight range of 1600 km).
                      4. clidon
                        clidon 26 July 2016 19: 46
                        0
                        Nuclear conflict in modern conditions will not be unambiguously apocalyptic, but escalation - with the possibility of termination at one of the phases of escalation.

                        I agree - escalation is one of the most likely scenarios.

                        The key point is the retaliatory strike by the Russian tactical nuclear weapons in the person of OTRK,
                        .
                        You are here writing everything beautifully, but how can the OTRK retaliation be the key if the nuclear munitions of these complexes are withdrawn from service?

                        I am sure that all Iskander-M OTRKs have nuclear warheads.

                        You are somehow very harmoniously building everything on the basis of only your guesses-confidence. So much to guess. Russia is so far bound by an agreement on tactical nuclear weapons. Do not find that we would have to declare it invalid for starters. After all, to hide such preparations is not so simple.

                        A very primitive first stage of a thermonuclear charge in the form of a hollow plutonium cylinder is used in a specific bomb B61 ...

                        So. Let me guess - you are definitely not a specialist in nuclear weapons. “Just imposing explosives is somehow completely frivolous.” You how to restore it - will increase? How to pour then even if this cylinder (and I won’t even argue about the B-61 device) How to melt and pour? How will the parameters of metallic plutonium change with such a transfusion? This is even without taking into account the nuances of charge oxidation and other isotopic charms.

                        The problem will not only be in the second stage - it will be necessary to cast from the existing plutonium a monolithic subcritical mass that does not require a high degree of crimping, while being viscous enough not to crumble with a cannon charge circuit. You’ll gut all the bombs (and they will still explode non-acidic when you try to parse), because there the initiating charges are not of such modest power.

                        PS
                        Reporters? Well, maybe. In the meantime, aviation uses its missiles. In the meantime, we have rather modest volumes of production of these KR. The fleet would provide even bread.
                      5. Operator
                        Operator 26 July 2016 20: 18
                        0
                        There is no cannon scheme in the first stage of B61, there is only a hollow cylinder such as a glass without a bottom made of metal plutonium.

                        The metal cup does not need to be melted, it only needs to be straightened - to restore the shape of the body of revolution by the method of puncture.
                      6. clidon
                        clidon 27 July 2016 20: 11
                        0
                        There is no cannon scheme in the first stage of B61, there is only a hollow cylinder such as a glass without a bottom made of metal plutonium.

                        Of course, there is no such scheme in a bomb. This is one of the few options for creating a working home-made device. If you are lucky of course.

                        The metal cup does not need to be melted, it only needs to be straightened - to restore the shape of the body of revolution by the method of puncture.

                        Do you know about allotropic modifications of plutonium? What pins are in the alpha state - the cylinder will crack, even doped (I won't write anything), and even earlier it will fly apart when the initiating charges are detonated. Therefore, the only way to get something "terrible" is metallurgy with subsequent machining - to take more fragments (and if you are lucky with whole nuclei) and melt them into large "near-critical" sphere-cylinders. Of course, under the supervision of specialists in such casting, otherwise they will turn out to be too fragile and scatter before ... And only then make a "gun" and believe that "It will work out!" It's easy to sense with such a charge there will be zilch in the literal and figurative sense.
                      7. Operator
                        Operator 27 July 2016 20: 55
                        +1
                        In a bomb with a diameter of 33 cm, this is the only way (in the form of a hollow plutonium cylinder) that the first step of a thermonuclear charge looks like.

                        In the first stage, an alloy of plutonium with galium is used (0,9 - 1,0 percent) to give plasticity to plutonium in its alotropic α-modification.

                        The cannon scheme for bringing the plutonium charge to a critical mass has not been used for 40 years.

                        PS We’ll have to post an article on the design of nuclear and thermonuclear charges on VO.
                      8. clidon
                        clidon 28 July 2016 19: 50
                        0
                        So I’m just about the fact that even the doped Pu will not tolerate being beaten on it for the purpose of “editing”.

                        I am talking about the "gun" only as the method of the Turkish "do-it-yourselfers".
  • v02000
    v02000 24 July 2016 17: 00
    -1
    The wind was blowing from the sea ... Hemp was pulling ... The United States chose the time and place of nuclear strikes, and not ........... uneducated ....... monkeys. He lowered his mats.
  • viktor.
    viktor. 24 July 2016 17: 29
    0
    And the media also tells the barmaleans that it is not far from the border with Syria. [/ Quote]
    barmalei already know where what lies, they simply take advantage of the fact that the hosts will send from overseas, give chemistry, hope nuclear weapons will not throw what
  • sergo1914
    sergo1914 24 July 2016 20: 46
    0
    Eh ... And this could be a reason ...
    ps In the course of Ergodash should Constantinople ...
    pss Judging by the press.
  • sergo1914
    sergo1914 24 July 2016 20: 49
    0
    Quote: anna1980
    barmalei already know where what lies


    So the aibolites do not sleep
  • Lord_Bran
    Lord_Bran 24 July 2016 21: 37
    0
    Here the problem is something else: they would have stolen the charge and look for wind whistles in the field. And if he later "surfaced" in Syria under not the most rosy circumstances?
  • Old26
    Old26 25 July 2016 20: 46
    0
    Quote: Operator
    US nuclear bombs are an obsolete type of ammunition

    What about the Russians?
  • Operator
    Operator 25 July 2016 20: 58
    0
    And Russian, as well as French, British, Chinese, Indian, Pakistani and Israeli.
  • Old26
    Old26 25 July 2016 21: 15
    0
    Quote: Operator
    And Russian, as well as French, British, Chinese, Indian, Pakistani and Israeli.

    But here's what is most characteristic. None of the countries considers these weapons to be obsolete and does not dispose of. Why do you think? Maybe because it is not outdated and there are situations when they (bombs) can be used to the fullest? Do you think that a couple of F-16 groups going to the SMV over the Black Sea are not capable of attacking targets on the Black Sea coast of the Caucasus or in the North Caucasus ?? (this is so, for example). Or such an aircraft (a group of aircraft) is not capable of striking the enemy's front edge ???
    1. Operator
      Operator 25 July 2016 22: 04
      0
      I do not know if the "two or three groups" F-400 (most likely not) is capable of breaking through the S-16 air defense system (most likely not), which took off from the Incirlik airbase and was discovered on takeoff by the over-the-horizon "Container" radar near Voronezh, but I know for sure that even before these aircraft approach the air defense zone, the Russian Iskander-M missile systems will take off with an approach time of 5-10 minutes and will turn all land, sea and air bases of Turkey into a heap of ash.
      Then what is the point of an air attack - the disposal of nuclear weapons for empty targets?

      Why use 340 kt nuclear bombs to strike at the front line of the enemy’s defense - to destroy their units within 10 km?
  • Old26
    Old26 25 July 2016 23: 04
    0
    Quote: Operator
    I do not know if the "two or three groups" F-400 is capable of breaking through the S-16 air defense system (most likely not)

    Yeah, the whole North Caucasus is continuous S-400 regiments ... Tell me where this regiment is located and its destruction zones, or will you find it yourself ??

    Quote: Operator
    The over-the-horizon "Container" radar station, which took off from the Incirlik airbase and was discovered during takeoff in the Voronezh region

    Well, of course, another "wunderwaffe", how can it be without her. Is it okay that the work of this station is real only in peacetime? And what depends on the state of the ionosphere? And what's getting jammed?
    By the way, in the Voronezh region it never was and never is ...

    Quote: Operator
    But I know for sure that even before these aircraft approach the air defense zone, the Russian Iskander-M missile systems will take off with an approach time of 5-10 minutes and will turn all land, sea and air bases in Turkey into a heap of ash.

    Do you know exactly ?? Russian OTRK in the amount of one brigade ... In the region of Krasnadar ... And what kind of bases of Turkey will they turn into a heap of ash? Especially when you consider that in order to at least something decent to hit in Turkey, you need to transfer these complexes almost to the Sukhumi region. We heard about such a city in Abkhazia ...

    Quote: Operator
    Then what is the point of an air attack - the disposal of nuclear weapons for empty targets?

    And military bases, army headquarters, million-plus cities are empty goals ???

    Quote: Operator
    Why use 340 kt nuclear bombs to strike at the front line of the enemy’s defense - to destroy their units within 10 km?

    Yah? Do you, in your reality, already on the F-16 strategic bombs are suspended? And does religion already not allow to suspend a bomb with an adjustable power installed, for example, at 1,5 or 10 kt?
    You seem to consider everyone in the world to be fools, since they do not write off, as you say, obsolete weapons, but give them abilities that they did not have before ...
    1. Operator
      Operator 26 July 2016 12: 17
      0
      In addition to Iskander-M, sea- and air-based “Calibers” are also launching in Turkey against targets - the route has already been tested in practice.

      Million-plus cities are under the gun of the strategic nuclear forces. And nuclear weapons are intended to destroy military facilities. The primary military targets are the locations of TNW carriers - the OTRK launchers (which still need to be found because they are mobile) and tactical aviation aerodromes with nuclear weapons storage bases (which do not need to be searched because they are stationary). And all sorts of headquarters belong to secondary goals, since with a high degree of probability they can be withdrawn from places of permanent deployment in the field. This is a classic.

      I am not referring to abstract strategic, but specific tactical nuclear bombs deployed at Incirlik air base - B61 with a maximum power of 340 ct and a number from 50 to 80 units. The fact that the deuterium-tritium booster and some other elements of a thermonuclear charge can reduce the maximum power of its explosion is no secret.
      It's just that there’s no meaning at all:
      - for use at the front edge of the front line there are 3-kt charges as part of 155-m artillery shells, 100-kt short-range missile warheads are used in the tactical depth of defense, and 340-kt medium-range missile warheads are used in operational depth.
      Spend a scarce 340 ct charge on horseradish with artificially reduced power to break the front line of defense?

      In addition, you do not take into account the radioactive consequences of reducing the power of a thermonuclear charge - the first step from plutonium weighing 5 kg instead of completely reacting with the production of short-lived isotopes of zinc, strontium and iodine, will fall in the form of plutonium dust weighing 4,5 kg on the heads of the enemy and your troops guaranteed death for them within two to four weeks.

      PS Unlike you, I do not appreciate the mental abilities of current employees of the US Defense Ministry, who managed to adopt the F-35, SM-3 and Gerald Ford.
  • Old26
    Old26 26 July 2016 19: 10
    0
    [quote = Operator] In addition to Iskander-M, sea- and air-based “Calibers” are also launching for targets in Turkey - the route has already been tested in practice. [/ quote]
    "Airborne Calibers"? Hey !!!! Where are you???? It is very creative in Turkey through Iran. Remember, the Turkish army is not the bearded ISIS. And straight through the Black Sea ... I wonder where these "Calibers" will end up ... And how many "Calibers" can we fire in one salvo, and how many will reach the Turkish naval bases ... especially in the Mediterranean theater of operations. ..

    [quote = Operator] Million-plus cities are in the focus of strategic nuclear forces. And nuclear weapons are intended to destroy military facilities. The primary military targets are the locations of TNW carriers - the OTRK launchers (which still need to be found because they are mobile) and tactical aviation aerodromes with nuclear weapons storage bases (which do not need to be searched because they are stationary). And all sorts of headquarters belong to secondary goals, since with a high degree of probability they can be withdrawn from places of permanent deployment in the field. This is a classic. [/ Quote]
    Classic, of course. I will say even more - this is THEORY. But realities differ from theory, like heaven and earth. What will be initially struck and what is in the second tier is known only in the nuclear planning group. In addition to the OTRK, airfields and other things, there are a huge number of targets for the same tactical aviation-based nuclear weapons. Which will be struck not by strategic forces, but by aviation. Take, for example, the same area known as Greater Sochi. As a goal for strategists, it may not be interesting. And for tactical air strikes - universally. And there are goals. A pair of ports only in Big Sochi, the airport, the ports of nearby Tuapse, Gelendzhik. And the airports at the same time. A railroad route running along the entire coast is a strategic branch that is easiest to cover with a single kiloton bomb than spending dozens of FABs on it.
    There are still sub-million cities. Which officially do not reach millionaires, but in reality they exceed. Among them are many having industrial enterprises. There are even smaller cities in which there is industry and for which no strategic nuclear weapons will be spent. But they are located in 2-3 hundred kilometers from the coast.

    [quote = Operator] I do not mean abstract strategic, but specific tactical nuclear bombs deployed at Incirlik - B61 airbase with a maximum power of 340 ct and a number from 50 to 80 units. / quote]
    So it turns out that you say one thing and give another example as an example. It was not for nothing that I asked, "Are you going to hang strategic bombs on the F-16?" And you continue in the same spirit now. Speaking of Injerlik Base and tactical bombs, you continue to cite the power of a strategic bomb as an example.

    To you for information.
    Currently in service with the US Air Force are 5 modifications of the B-61 bomb. Of these, THREE modifications are tactical and TWO are strategic.
    Of the tactical armament bombs of the following modifications: B61-3, B61-4 and B61-10
    Power (maximum) for model 3 is 170 kt, for model 4 - 45 kt, for model 10 - 80 kt. The latter is in reserve.
    Model 7 (B61-7) - a strategic bomb with a capacity of 340 ct. Variant of anti-bunker bomb B61-7 is designated B61-11. Their capacities are the same - 340 ct. But they are in the arsenal of US strategic aviation and are all stored in the United States.
    After 2005, the materials about American tactical weapons in Europe did not even mention the presence of the B61-3 in Europe. Exclusively only about models 4 and 10. So with almost 100% probability we can say that in Europe, and even more so in Turkey, these ammunition is not. And the maximum power of the B61-4 model is sorry 45 kt, not 340, which you give as an example.
    1. Operator
      Operator 26 July 2016 20: 34
      0
      The type of model V61 based on Incirlik is by and large unknown, but even at least 45 ct X 50 units in the hands of Turks, Kurds or Ishilov’s are a powerful argument for blackmail.

      In my comments I have already described the modern American scenario of an escalation war: a conventional strike - a tactical nuclear strike - a strategic nuclear strike. To counter this scenario, the rapid elimination of US nuclear weapons by retaliatory counter-strike is required even before the moment when conventional ammunition reaches its targets in Russia. This can be achieved in only one way - to use OTRK with special warheads.

      The composition of goals on Russian territory with this approach does not matter.
  • Old26
    Old26 26 July 2016 19: 14
    0
    Quote: Operator
    The fact that the deuterium-tritium booster and some other elements of a thermonuclear charge can reduce the maximum power of its explosion is no secret.
    It's just that there’s no meaning at all:
    - for use at the front edge of the front line there are 3-kt charges as part of 155-m artillery shells, 100-kt short-range missile warheads are used in the tactical depth of defense, and 340-kt medium-range missile warheads are used in operational depth.
    Spend a scarce 340 ct charge on horseradish with artificially reduced power to break the front line of defense?

    And here, Andrei, I apologize, theorizing and sorry philosophizing have begun. there would be no meaning - no one would do ammunition with variable power. In the presence of nuclear artillery shells are now gone. All of them were decommissioned in 1992 and I am afraid that they were disposed of, since I have not seen references to them over the past 10 years. And it’s not always possible to use artillery along the front line. Short-range missiles (tactical) - we must generally look at what is left in service and with whom. Neither Americans, nor ours, nor European countries have medium-range missiles. Their main producers are China, the DPRK, perhaps the South Caucasus, Pakistan, India, Iran and Israel have something. So it makes sense to spend a charge, even if it will not be full power yet.

    Quote: Operator
    In addition, you do not take into account the radioactive consequences of reducing the power of a thermonuclear charge - the first step from plutonium weighing 5 kg instead of completely reacting with the production of short-lived isotopes of zinc, strontium and iodine, will fall in the form of plutonium dust weighing 4,5 kg on the heads of the enemy and your troops guaranteed death for them within two to four weeks.

    This is sorry, intellectually. If it is tactically beneficial, no one will bother - will there be rainfall, will there be any ...

    Quote: Operator
    PS Unlike you, I do not appreciate the mental abilities of current employees of the US Defense Ministry, who managed to adopt the F-35, SM-3 and Gerald Ford.

    You should not measure everyone with one yardstick. This is fraught with the fact that the hap-covering and calming with its power gradually begins. And I think quite highly of the US Department of Defense. They do, sometimes with mistakes, but they do. We're talking. They have the F-35 - this is the fourth machine made using stealth technology, and we all continue to argue that our stealth T-50 will "tear" them all. But only their cars are in service, some are even written off as having exhausted their resource, and we don't even have it in the series.
    And what do you dislike about the same "Standard" missile family. For decades, modernization has been going on, new models have been put into service, some of which have higher performance characteristics than ours.
    Well, Ford. He is still not accepted into the fleet. It was built, by the way, in half the time that we build the lead frigate ...
    1. Operator
      Operator 26 July 2016 21: 07
      0
      155-mm as well as 152-mm nuclear artillery shells were mass-produced. Even if they are withdrawn from service, their bodies are in storage (including booster cylinders), and simple plutonium charges (in the form of a hollow cylinder) weighing 5-6 kg each can be made in the shortest time from stockpiles of weapons-grade plutonium (in volume several hundred tons). The only problem is the production of tritium for boosters based on the calculation of 3-4 grams per shell.

      We and the Americans have a bulk of short-range "missiles" - rockets for the Smerch MLRS and ATACMS.

      You contradict yourself, first arguing about the usefulness of regulating the power of nuclear charges in order to not cause harm to your troops by shock waves, light radiation and penetrating radiation, and then claiming that no one would bother with protecting your troops from plutonium dust while reducing the power of nuclear charges .

      I never claimed that the Penguin would tear the T-50 (which is not there yet), I argued that the Penguin would tear the Su-35С (which already exists) and this is precisely the problem of the F-35.
      The problem of SM-3 lies in the warhead - the transatmospheric kinetic interceptor, which cannot intercept warheads in the atmosphere from the word at all, and in space cannot select them from false targets.
      The Gerald Ford aircraft carrier can be good in everything (in the future tense), except for one thing - with a high-altitude nuclear explosion generating EMP, all of its electromagnetic catapults will burn with a clear flame.