Military Review

Washington wants to achieve invulnerability

53
Washington wants to achieve invulnerability

Loading the interceptor missile into the mine. Positional area in Fort Greely, Alaska.


Recently, like 10 – 15 years ago, the issue of anti-missile defense (PRO) is among the top-priority problems of world politics and future international security discussed by politicians, political scientists and the media.

The immediate reason for such attention to missile defense is the 12 announced this May by Washington. the commissioning of the American strategic missile defense system in Romania and the construction plans (from 13 May) of a similar complex in Poland. All this is in addition to the US strategic missile defense complexes on the Aleutian Islands and naval warships

USA.

TAKE ALL FOR FOOLS


Washington politicians and strategists, and after them some of his henchmen in European capitals, continue, speaking not quite in parliamentary language, to “sculpt a hunchbacked man”, apparently taking the world community for foolishness, as if the US missile defense complexes deployed in Europe are designed to protect it from mythical Iranian ballistic missiles. This American missile defense system does not pose any threat to Russia. Strangely enough, in Russia itself, among the pseudoliberals are the advocates of the Washington strategic missile defense planners.

However, one wonders: not being ashamed to carry a Russian passport in your pocket and being protected by the Constitution of the Russian Federation, these people do not hesitate to openly express their burning, fierce, pathological hatred of Russia, its past, present and future, the Russian people, everything Russian being.

However, you can simply forget about them, as something of little significance. But this cannot be said about missile defense, since the creation of a modern strategic missile defense system, and that is what the US is building, can lead to a fundamental change in the whole picture of the world, to the destruction of the current, albeit fragile international security system. As a consequence, it will threaten the very existence of life on Earth.

EXCURS V HISTORY

The idea of ​​creating an antimissile defense originated in the USA and the USSR at the turn of the 60s of the last century, immediately after the creation and deployment by both countries of long-range ballistic missiles, primarily intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBM).

The eternal confrontation of defenses (defense) and means of attack (offensive) - for example, armor - bullet, shell; air defense (air defense) - aircraft, aviation; anti-tank defense (PTO) - Tanks, armored combat vehicles - in the nuclear missile age was expressed in the development of missile defense systems as counteraction to ballistic missiles. In all cases, it was a question of the maximum possible, but always only a partial decrease in the effectiveness of the use of attack means.

At the very beginning of work on missile defense systems both in the USA and in the USSR they came to the conclusion that anti-missiles, even the most effective, cannot completely neutralize the means of attack - ballistic missiles of the other side. The missile defense equipment was only able to limit the damage from a nuclear strike by the other side on a limited area. At that time, the United States was developing the Safeguard system for the defense of only one (out of six) positional areas (missile bases) of the Minitman ICBM, and the USSR - a missile defense system around Moscow. Both sides - both the USSR and the USA - understood that providing complete protection against a missile strike is an impossible task: any, even the most effective missile defense system can be overcome by further deploying attack weapons and / or improving their missile defense systems.

Realizing this, the USSR and the United States conducted intensive negotiations throughout the entire 2,5 years (November 1969 - May 1972), developed and signed two documents - the Interim Agreement on certain measures in the field of limiting strategic offensive arms (limiting the number of strategic parties land-based and sea-based ballistic missiles) and the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, to which the missile defense systems of the parties were limited to the positional areas available to the parties (one each from the US and the USSR). Subsequently, an additional protocol from 1974 of the year supplemented this contract with new obligations.

The main thing in the ABM Treaty is the prohibition of the development and creation of anti-missile systems and radar stations providing missile defense throughout the country. In other words, the ABM Treaty prohibited the creation of a strategic missile defense system. At the same time, security was ensured by deterring each other with the threat of guaranteed retaliation against the aggressor.

At the same time, as the strategic nuclear potential grows, the Pentagon in 1970 – 1980 develops, and the US administration adopts various plans for the combat use of strategic offensive forces (SIOP plans) with the inclusion of so-called limited, selective, first disarming forces in addition to a massive nuclear missile strike. (on the enemy’s strategic means), blinding (on the centers and objects of the highest state and military leadership) nuclear strikes.

The development and advance inclusion of such options into the SIOP plan significantly expanded the possibilities of the multivariate use of US strategic offensive forces, depending on the current situation. But they did not guarantee the United States from retaliation if they resorted to delivering the first, for example, “disarming” nuclear attack on the USSR’s strategic nuclear forces. During the Cold War, both the United States and the Soviet Union had such arsenals of strategic means of delivering nuclear weapons. weaponsthat even in retaliation with preserved ground-based and sea-based ballistic missiles, the aggressor could have suffered a crushing blow, irreparable damage.

In search of ways to transform strategic nuclear potential from a means of exclusively deterrence to a “battlefield” weapon that could simultaneously completely neutralize the adversary’s appropriate means and eliminate the possibility of a retaliatory nuclear retaliation, the American strategists at the turn of 80 set themselves up to complement their strategic offensive forces strategic defensive system (strategic missile defense), which would ensure the achievement of victory in a nuclear war of any scale. Washington decided that in principle this is possible: a well-organized first “disarming” and “blinding” strike at the enemy leads to a sharp weakening of its nuclear arsenal and a significant disruption of the entire system of higher state and military control. And, as a result, if the enemy is able to organize a retaliatory strike with his remaining insignificant strategic means, then they will be intercepted by a previously deployed, fairly effective strategic missile defense system.

In such a “bundle” with the means of attack, a seemingly purely defensive system — antimissile defense — becomes, as it were, a trigger for strategic offensive forces and for the aggressor to deliver the first nuclear strike. In other words, the missile defense system provokes its owner to directly use at its discretion strategic nuclear forces in the hope of gratuitous, unpunished provision of narrow-minded "vital interests of the United States."

NEW INITIATIVE

On March 1, 1983, at the end of the second year at the White House, President Ronald Reagan announces the so-called strategic defense initiative (SOI). The "Initiative" envisaged a broad program of research in the interests of searching for and developing technologies for creating an effective missile defense system throughout the United States. The 1972 ABM Treaty did not ban scientific research, but the very fact of announcing the SDI program spoke of the possibility that the United States could withdraw from this treaty in the future if the US military-industrial complex achieved technological breakthroughs in missile defense and other favorable ones ( ) conditions for undermining the ABM Treaty. This conclusion is also confirmed by the analysis of the US National Security Strategy that had been formed by that time and the practical activities of Washington to implement it.

In summary, the main content of this strategy, the most important provisions of which are still being preserved, is in the ways and means for the United States to achieve Washington’s openly aggressive foreign policy, ensuring the so-called vital, vital, vital interests of the United States, which the White House spreads to the entire globe.

For this purpose, the whole set of means of influence on other countries - the subjects of the world community: political, diplomatic, economic, propaganda (in recent years in the form of information war) tools are used. They are also complemented by non-advertised blackmail (through their foreign agents), subversive (even sabotage) actions, bribing high-ranking officials, initiating and even organizing color revolutions, etc.

But as the main factor, the most powerful weapon of influence on the chosen “victim”, on which all of the above are based, to ensure their “interests”, wherever and in respect of anyone, Washington always uses and uses “unsurpassed military power” - regardless of which party administration is the White House - democratic or republican. “Our influence (in the world. - F.L.) will be maximized, - is directly emphasized in“ National Security Strategy - 2015 ”, - when we combine all our strategic advantages. Our armed forces will remain ready to protect our national interests, providing effective levers for diplomacy. ”

POWER POLICY

The military force of the United States on the independent state they chose to ensure there the “national interests of the United States” is carried out, as a rule, by escalating the conflict from relatively “low intensity”, followed by frank demonstration of force with its amplification to a direct threat, culminating in the direct use of the sun. USA to commit aggression.

The “lowest” level of tension is maintained by the United States due to the maintenance of armed forces, constantly on high alert, as part of the so-called main commands (GC) of the US armed forces in the zone of the Pacific, Atlantic and Indian oceans, in the European zone, Central America. The sphere of their “responsibility” is the future theaters of war (TV) and / or military operations (theaters), previously “sliced” on all continents and sea areas. In particular, the theater of war for the US Armed Forces in the Pacific is defined from the west coast of the United States to the Urals, and the US Armed Forces in Europe from the Atlantic to the Urals. “Our first foreign policy tool is principled and open diplomacy combined with the advanced bases of the armed forces, which protects and promotes America’s interests,” the US National Security Strategy as amended for 2015 year does not hide.

The next level of conflict is open blackmail by military force by strengthening advanced troop groupings or by transferring military contingents to new areas near the borders of an elected potential enemy (a fresh example is the transfer of ground forces and heavy military equipment to the Baltic countries in May of this year) or by conducting military exercises involving different types of forces - ground forces, combat aviation and ship groups. Anaconda exercises of the US, Poland and Baltic countries in June of this year can serve as an example of such actions. in close proximity to the land and sea borders of Russia with a noose, the Kaliningrad region. Earlier, during the years of the Cold War and even in the post-Soviet period, the United States and NATO avoided carrying out such threatening actions directly against our country.

Further escalation of tension, “intensity of the conflict” is a demonstration of political determination and readiness to use military force, including NATO allies, accompanied by the transfer to the area of ​​potential aggression of a sufficient number of new combat units and naval and air forces, and then also the US Army combat and logistic support structures. The most recent example is the decision of the NATO Summit in Warsaw on 8 – 9 in July of this year. on the deployment of four battalions of NATO countries in Poland, Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia (and this is only the beginning!).

In the event that none of the options for formally “peaceful” methods of military force can achieve the goals set, the United States resorts to direct involvement of the forces and means created by them to commit aggression, as a rule, by massive air strikes by aircraft and ship groups with the subsequent escalation of hostilities up to forcing the enemy to surrender, physically eliminate, remove the regime or completely defeat his armed forces and destroy I am of the military-industrial complex (for example, the US aggression against Iraq in 2003).

As the practice of Washington’s implementation of its “national security strategy” shows, the higher the level of “peaceful” military-force impact conflicts, the higher the likelihood of low-intensity conflicts organized by the White House that the United States initiates destructive military actions with decisive goals. US aggression against Grenada (1983), Panama (1989), Yugoslavia (1999), Iraq (2003), Libya (air strike in 1986 year, as well as operation in 2011 year) - not a complete list of unprovoked wars and military actions US only for the last 30 years. It is important to note here that during the period of the Cold War and the confrontation with the Soviet Union, the United States still showed, if not restraint in its aggressive actions, then a certain caution - at least with respect to the USSR-friendly states, now they have rejected this “shyness” its behavior in relation to other countries of the world, excluding Russia and China as major nuclear powers.

BETTING ON SYNERGY AND SUBKOP UNDER "CONTRACT"

In an effort to “project” the full extent of the National Security Strategy primarily on the USSR, and now on Russia and China, political hawks and strategists in Washington initially theoretically, and in the course of real strategic planning they rely on the implementation of the idea of ​​synergistic combining of the shock potentials of strategic offensive forces and defensive capabilities of missile defense systems in the hope of creating sufficiently effective, victorious strategic means of warfare.

Already at the end of the last century, the Americans, who had begun as part of the research conducted under the aforementioned Reagan SOI program, achieved certain technological results that they considered “encouraging” to develop and create in the future means of strategic ground-based and ship-based missile defense.
Signing the 1972 ABM Treaty.
Then it seemed to many that a peaceful future for the planet was guaranteed.


However, the creation and even the development of strategic missile defense systems was prohibited by the Soviet-American ABM Treaty 1972. The Americans began the “digging” under it at the very beginning of the 90s of the last century. In the course of the Soviet-American negotiations on the elaboration of the Treaty on the Limitation and Reduction of Strategic Offensive Arms (START-1), the American side opposed the inclusion in the treaty of a provision on the inviolability of keeping the ABM Treaty in force as an obligatory condition. At the same time, they proposed to allow the development of missile defense systems and its limited deployment (200 – 300 antimissiles). Even then, our negotiating partners justified this by the need to protect against possible missile threats from "third" countries - Iran, Iraq, North Korea and even Brazil.

The Soviet side struggled to achieve the inclusion in the START-1 Treaty of the provisions on the inviolability of the ABM Treaty only in the form of a unilateral statement. The attempt by the Americans to impose an agreement on a "limited" missile defense system was also rejected.

The appetite of the United States for the creation of missile defense flared up especially after reaching 1992 in the year (last year when George Bush Sr. was in office as US President and in the first year of Boris Yeltsin’s presidency in post-Soviet Russia) agreement to replace START-1 with START-2. This agreement provided for the elimination by the parties of all ICBMs with separable warheads of individual targeting (MILP), which in the USSR formed the basis of the strategic nuclear potential, and the subsequent total ban on the creation, production and deployment of such missiles. Shortly concluded by the START-2 Treaty, the total number of nuclear warheads on all strategic carriers of both sides was threefold lower than in the START-1 Treaty - from 6000 to 1700 – 2200 units.

With such reductions in the strategic nuclear capabilities of the parties, Washington saw the possibility of realizing in the future the concept of real use of a strategic weapon system, which, as already noted, provides for a symbiosis of interconnected strategic offensive weapons and strategic missile defense systems used according to a single plan and plan.

To remove the last obstacle (the Soviet-American treaty 1972 of the year) on the path of far-reaching aspirations, the new US President George W. Bush announced the forthcoming (after six months) withdrawal from the ABM Treaty in February 2001. Russian President Vladimir Putin immediately sharply condemned these intentions of the United States, assessing them as an extremely dangerous step leading to the undermining of the entire security system in the world, since the ABM Treaty is the pivot that holds together the entire range of international treaties and agreements on limiting and reducing various types of weapons, reducing the risk of military activities. Washington did not heed these warnings, including considering it advantageous for itself that by that time the arsenal of strategic nuclear weapons of Russia was significantly reduced due to the natural loss, primarily of ICBMs with an RCGH IN and already operating under the START-2 Treaty (although , ratified, has not yet entered into force) a ban on the deployment of new ICBMs with separable warheads.

In June 2002, the United States withdrew from the ABM Treaty. Unfortunately, the leadership of our country regarded this extremely dangerous step of Washington with far-reaching, unpredictable consequences for all mankind only as a “serious mistake of the United States”. And one of the high-ranking Russian statesmen, apparently to reassure the citizens of his own country, even spoke in the sense that there was no serious danger for Russia in this Washington decision.

READY TO HIT FIRST

In 2010, Russia and the United States concluded the Prague Treaty on START (START-3). This agreement, which came into force in February 2011 of the year with a validity of 10 years, the total number of nuclear weapons on strategic carriers of each of the parties is limited to the level of 1550 units. Completing his second term as President of the United States, Barack Obama, eight years ago a priori “appointed” Nobel Peace Prize laureate, proposes to extend for five years, that is, up to 2026, the START-3 agreement. This is another additional, but convincing confirmation of far-reaching strategic plans related to the deployment of a missile defense system. The goal is to limit in advance the possibilities of Russia for neutralizing the threat created for our country with the deployment of the American missile defense system. As for Obama’s stated possibility of the United States refusing to be the first to use nuclear weapons, this is an official recognition by the White House of the fact that the Kremlin was the first to use atomic weapons against Japan in August 1945, the United States never refused from the next 70 years plans to be the first against the USSR, and now against Russia nuclear strikes, from the so-called limited to massed.

Soon after the breakdown of the ABM Treaty, Washington, with the consent of its NATO allies, announced plans to deploy a European missile defense, continuing to shamelessly, if not brazenly, to assure us that all this does not pose any threat to Russia, but only provides Europe with protection missile attacks of Iran. It was even announced plans to build positional areas of radio-electronic means of detection, guidance, control, and missile launchers in a number of countries in Eastern Europe. With the US 2016, these plans are already being implemented.

The combination of a European missile defense system, the reality of which creation is beyond doubt, with the strategic missile defense system deployed in Alaska and deployed on board warships (Aegis), can be perceived by the American ruling elite in not such a long-term perspective - about ten years - in such a way that they managed to create such a set of interrelated strategic nuclear forces and strategic missile defense, which they Udut can and will be used against another nuclear power based on the total neutralization of its strategic potential and depriving them of the possibility to carry out an act of retaliation retaliatory nuclear strike.

Despite the seemingly speculative use of such a strategic weapon systems (nuclear strike systems in conjunction with defensive missile defense), he not only captured the minds of American politician hawks and military strategists, but also included them in strategic wartime plans. Among other things, in fact, why are expensive missile defense facilities being created, why are expensive shipboard anti-missile systems being implemented and positional areas are being created not only in the US, but also in European territory? Is it only to meet the ever-growing needs of the US military-industrial complex at the expense of the American taxpayers and / or more precisely tie its European allies to Washington and its hegemonic policy? The US military-industrial complex is not in trouble, and as for the Allies in the North Atlantic alliance, they are so tied to the US without it that Washington treats European capitals as if they were their vassals.

There is no doubt that Russia and, of course, China will not continue to allow the United States to ever have a real opportunity to completely neutralize their deterrence potential by retaining, even under the most adverse conditions, sufficient potential to guarantee deterrence by inflicting crushing retaliation on the aggressor in retaliation and even in retaliatory strikes. And for this, as Russian President Vladimir Putin has repeatedly stressed, Russia will not be drawn into a reckless, costly arms race, which, among other things, is expected in Washington in the hope of economically exhausting our country. Russia has enough other ways and possibilities to keep the enemy, the United States and NATO, in any situation from a reckless step.

Nevertheless, Washington’s illusory hope of politicians and strategists to turn a strategic weapon, complemented by a missile defense system, from deterrence into a destructive “battlefield weapon” to achieve victory over a nuclear power (Russia, China) exposes the whole world, human civilization if not real danger of destruction, the threat of dropping it in a primitive state.

No less, and probably more dangerous, is that the calculations of the Washington hawks on the mythical opportunity to hide under the antimissile shield sharply reduce the threshold for the United States to launch a war of varying intensity (up to large-scale) using only conventional non-nuclear weapons, including against the nuclear powers, in the expectation of capitulation from them even before the transition to the use of nuclear weapons. The natural consequence of lowering the threshold of an ordinary war is the lowering of the threshold for an ordinary war to develop into a nuclear war, “with zero result” for life itself on our planet.

In this regard, the official Washington, the White House (whatever party the president is there) is relevant to the question: “Do you at least understand what you are up to?” No, they probably do not understand. They do not understand: believing in their impunity to act in accordance with their national security strategy in relation to non-nuclear states, Washington set out to materialize the possibilities of its realization in full with respect to the nuclear powers - Russia and China. A deadly delusion.

They do not understand what danger, not only their own population, but also the people of the whole "united" Europe, the rulers of Romania and Poland, are endangered, providing the territory of their countries for the positional areas of the American missile defense system. In Washington’s plans, European missile defense is not a means of protecting European NATO countries from the "Russian threat" being forced from overseas, but just a trigger for the United States strategic nuclear forces. Official Bucharest and Warsaw should have thought about the role that they assign to their countries and peoples, substituting them as a service to North American nuclear adventurers.

It is clear (and this is an axiom of modern military affairs) - in any case, no matter what the scale of nuclear attack by the United States is Russia, it is always on the list of priority targets to be destroyed in a reciprocal nuclear strike the aggressor, wherever its missile defense systems are located.

As for our country, no matter how sophisticated plans of forceful influence on us, including blackmail and military threat (even nuclear), overseas lovers of the sole management of the world, plantations of “democracy in American style” are not developed, they, any plans and intentions aggressor, doomed to failure. The lessons of national humiliation, "presented" in the 90-s of the last century to the Russian people, to the entire Russian people, by American advisers and managers, who opened our doors to Russia with our homegrown nineteenth-century pseudoliberals to rule the country from across the ocean, played, strangely enough , the role of beneficial "serum". The immunity developed by our people for the recovery of Russian society will last for dozens, if not hundreds of years, in order not only to resist, but also to give, when necessary, sufficient resistance to any attempts to threaten us with force. Russian history gives many examples of this.

Russia has always been, is and will be great! Russia is the seventh part of the land, and its natural wealth, and a long history, and Russian culture, without which world culture is inconceivable. And, most importantly, Russia is a peace-loving, talented, hardworking, unique people. The people of inflexible will, courage and resilience, ready and able not only to skillfully defend themselves, but also smash the aggressor right up to hoisting the Banner of Victory over his capital.

We have and will have the necessary arsenal of the most modern means of warfare, our army and navy are sufficiently well prepared to guarantee reliable protection of our country, its independence, integrity and security. No one should forget this!
Author:
Originator:
http://nvo.ng.ru/gpolit/2016-07-22/1_washington.html
53 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. aszzz888
    aszzz888 30 July 2016 05: 53
    +27
    not ashamed of carrying a Russian passport in their pocket and being protected by the Constitution of the Russian Federation, these people are not shy about openly expressing their burning, fierce, pathological hatred of Russia, its past, present and future, the Russian people, and all of Russian life.

    By the way, it may not be a good example, but Erdogan, spitting on ALL, including on his masters, the merikatos, cleans out the like. Everyone who is objectionable also falls under the distribution, but I think it’s better to digest than not to cook, otherwise it will turn sour again.
    1. dmi.pris
      dmi.pris 30 July 2016 06: 43
      +5
      Well, the list is in the studio! The country should know these "heroes".
      1. novobranets
        novobranets 30 July 2016 08: 31
        +19
        Here, on VO, as well as on other forums, people expressed a good, in my opinion, idea about these "heroes". Take them under the white handles, bring them to the airport, put them on the plane, and at parting, confiscate the passport and give such a good kick (better with a soldier's tarpaulin of the last forty size) to the stern area. Cheap and cheerful. A ticket can even be at the expense of the state, it will be cheaper than feeding and enduring these constantly spoiling creatures nearby. There was also the thought of a leaky decommissioned barge in a stormy ocean, which is also not bad.
        "... We will put you in a tub,
        let’s go into the sea, and Adyu.
        You’ll get around the tub,
        do not give you a rook. "
      2. INVESTOR
        INVESTOR 30 July 2016 10: 23
        +2
        Earlier, during the years of the Cold War and even in the post-Soviet period, the United States and NATO avoided carrying out such threatening actions directly against our country.

        And now they are insolent in the lid, even operations in Georgia and Crimea have made a limited impression on them. Conclusion, Russia is not the USSR, and we all need to strain our rolls in order to survive.
        1. 78bor1973
          78bor1973 31 July 2016 07: 40
          +1
          I agree, and now they are giving out RSDs as a missile defense system, only in my opinion these goblins lack missile defense at the north pole, why not !? As far as I know, the missile defense was originally designed to bring down 500 targets and that’s it.
      3. sgazeev
        sgazeev 1 August 2016 09: 50
        0
        Quote: dmi.pris
        Well, the list is in the studio! The country should know these "heroes".
  2. Fei_Wong
    Fei_Wong 30 July 2016 06: 06
    +9
    "Status-6" will make all this wildly expensive mouse fuss just another uselessness. The key to the success and survival of Russia and its fraternal countries lies in "asymmetric responses." The main thing is to have time to bring to mind and production.
    Yes, the United States has a very enviable geographical location - the mainland, surrounded by oceans. With a good climate and therefore cheap (based on kilocalories) production. But most of the largest industrial, economic, and simply the most populated areas are precisely that of the coast. Russia, with all the problems of its geography, is first of all a HUGE continental power, and this is also its strength.
    1. max2215
      max2215 30 July 2016 08: 42
      +10
      You should not rely on this system - it is, because it is very vulnerable. To our great regret, the Americans have a very developed stationary tracking system for submarines, and the multipurpose submarine forces are quite powerful. And this, in fact, without a pilot nuclear submarine, which at full speed will be heard even on the moon (185 km / h, roughly 90 knots are assumed) Although, of course, if several dozen of them go, then there is a high probability that several units will fulfill their mission ... But wouldn't it be easier, now, in deep-water depressions along the Atlantic coast of the SGA, to flood several Tsarbombs (as Sakharov suggested) and let them wait in the wings. And provide information leakage. I think it will sober up like the Caribbean crisis (naturally they will look for them, most likely they will find them, but after all, no one has canceled the "buttons" for retrieval)
      The answer should be reasonably cheap and asymmetric ...
      1. sgazeev
        sgazeev 1 August 2016 09: 59
        0
        Russian boats constantly probe the American coast

        Russian experts are not inclined to trust the statements of the American military and note that Russian nuclear submarines are, in fact, frequent guests off the US coast, they just rarely "come across". "Our multipurpose nuclear submarines are there all the time. This means that the" best in the world "American underwater sonar systems simply do not see them," the observer of Rossiyskaya Gazeta notes.

        According to the journalist, the submariners themselves told him about the American campaigns of the Russian nuclear submarines. They reported that in the area where the Akula was allegedly sighted, the unique base of strategic nuclear submarines carrying strategic intercontinental missiles is of interest to Russian boats. The entrance to the base is carved into the rock and is located under water - just like in Jules Verne's novel Captain Nemo. It is believed that on this base there is a whole flotilla of strategic submarines, ready to rush into the depths of the oceans on order, the journalist writes.

        Sources told him that for a long time the Americans were sure that they knew nothing about this mysterious base in the USSR, especially since it was all surrounded by sensitive sonars. Noisy submarines of the first generations would hardly have been able to approach this base, but then titanium "Barracudas" appeared, and the place of their combat duty was precisely the entrance to this base, and at the same time the entire US West Coast, the author of the WG notes. And they were replaced by steel "Sharks" - powerful, fast and almost silent, which became even more difficult to detect.

        "Yes, it was simply impossible to find it. The Shark is the quietest submarine of this class in the world, and it is constantly being improved. And the American naval forces have no way of keeping up with the Russians," quotes "Kommersant FM" as an expert on weapons, Eric Verzema.



        More details: http://www.newsru.com/world/16aug2012/shark.html
    2. Vadim237
      Vadim237 30 July 2016 09: 14
      +2
      Status 6 is a project and most likely will remain so.
    3. Orionvit
      Orionvit 30 July 2016 23: 26
      +1
      The key to success and survival of Russia and its fraternal countries
      Excuse me, but where are the fraternal countries of Russia? In words, there seem to be allies, but in reality, everyone is flirting with the West and looking into Washington's mouth. So to speak, both ours and yours, which always comes out sideways. Please name at least one "fraternal" country that, in the event of an armed conflict, will not hesitate to take the side of Russia.
      1. The stranger
        The stranger 1 August 2016 01: 52
        0
        And you continue, moaning, to call everyone enemies, and then you definitely will not have a single friend.
        At this forum, World War II was discussed dozens of times, and the role of Bulgaria, for example, in it. And dozens of times, with facts and documents, the friendly behavior of the Kingdom of Bulgaria towards the USSR was proved in 41-44. But no, every time there are idiots who consider it their duty to declare "I do not know if Bulgaria fought at all, but she is something wrong!" And then they don't even apologize. Farted and ran away, conveniently, che.
        So you, personally, will have no brothers. Himself in the throes of anger and envy die, for example, I’m even too lazy to shoot you in the face.
        1. fzr1000
          fzr1000 1 August 2016 09: 18
          -1
          With such mad friends and enemies is not necessary.
  3. yuriy55
    yuriy55 30 July 2016 06: 14
    +11
    The idea of ​​the Americans to remain invulnerable, to do the "dirty work" by someone else's hands, is by no means new. This is the ideology of scoundrels, deprived of universal human morality, those who do not accept anyone's interests except their own. We can only hope that it will soon reach many that living in someone else's mind is not always useful for our own safety ...
    1. Amurets
      Amurets 30 July 2016 06: 29
      +11
      Quote: yuriy55
      The idea of ​​the Americans to remain invulnerable, to do the "dirty work" by someone else's hands, is by no means new. This is the ideology of scoundrels, deprived of universal human morality, those who do not accept anyone's interests except their own. We can only hope that it will soon reach many that living in someone else's mind is not always useful for our own safety ...

      I agree completely! Talking about missile defense as well as air defense that they will provide a 100% guarantee of invulnerability is a myth. That the Americans have an ocean barrier is also a myth. I don’t know how the Americans can be brought to the conclusion that there are no winners in the new world war will be
      1. SPACE
        SPACE 30 July 2016 08: 07
        +2
        Quote: Amurets
        Talking about missile defense as well as air defense, that they will provide 100% guarantee of invulnerability, is a myth.

        They also believe in myths, the problem of missile defense is that it can give them hope that they can survive this nuclear nightmare, and this also means the main problem that the threshold for the need to use nuclear weapons first can be lowered for them, respectively the likelihood of a nuclear war escalating.
        And now we recognize the fact that the significance and hegemony of the United States has declined, as a result of the following reasons, they are far from the powerful economic centers of the Eurasian continent, where most of the people and markets, resources, technologies and industries are concentrated, a developed network of communications is gradually leading to irreversible pushing USA from the region and with leading positions in the world. Even an insignificant subsidence of its economy, especially taking into account gigantic debts, will lead the country to such a massive inflated military and other unjustified expenses, to a chain reaction with the subsequent increase in internal problems and contradictions and, as a result, the loss of external economic, military and all other advantages, and in end to the final collapse of the state. This natural course of events leading to the collapse of their state and now temporarily slowed down by their activation of various revolutionary processes, local ordinary warriors and terrorist activities, in the territories of their economic opponents, can be perceived by the top of the United States as unacceptable, and lead them to decide on the use of nuclear weapons and in general, total war and chaos, (hoping for remoteness, which in this case will be an advantage for them), for the destruction of territories of geopolitical opponents or guarantors of world peace Ava, (how ridiculous it is, created by the Americans themselves, who are now across their throats, beyond the framework of which they want to go and which Russia, China are upholding). So the development of missile defense for the United States, in their opinion, is the most important factor and the only option for their survival in the future.
      2. novobranets
        novobranets 30 July 2016 08: 48
        +5
        Quote: Amurets
        I don’t know how the Americans can already be told that there will be no winners in the new world war

        Even the average American, the man on whom America rests, is monstrously uneducated. That is, for example, if he works as a builder, he knows everything about the construction site, about building materials, or how to install supports and trusses. But he doesn't know at all why the plane is flying, or what a nuclear warhead is. About the latter, he knows that this is something grandiose banging. And it is dangerous only for the enemies of this very America, they themselves are "inviolable and inaccessible", the president and the missile defense system will protect them. And, unfortunate, he believes in it! Try to explain to this that the very first launch of a missile with a nuclear warhead is the end of human civilization.
        1. Tsoy
          Tsoy 30 July 2016 09: 26
          +5
          Quote: novobranets
          But he doesn’t know why the plane flies, or what a nuclear warhead is.


          Do many people even know how the nuclear fission energy works? It is better to be an expert in your field and not to know something left-handed, not related to your work, than incompetent even in your workplace. In the Russian Federation now such a dime a dozen. What to say stumbled upon a video where the schoolgirl asked what the Holocaust is, answered with wallpaper glue. Are you talking about nuclear weapons ...
          1. novobranets
            novobranets 30 July 2016 09: 46
            0
            Quote: Choi
            It is better to be an expert in your field and not know something left that is not related to your work than incompetent even in your workplace.

            These are exactly the Americans. Further than the nose, sorry, work and money, they see nothing, do not know, and do not want to know. These are easier to manage, the president said, the chipmunk flies, so he’s a bird, he said that missile defense will protect America, so you can sleep peacefully. And if they knew that missile defense was a soap bubble, and the answer wouldn’t pass their heads, would they have been calm about deploying carriers for nuclear munitions in Europe? It’s simply necessary to know some kind of at least a general idea of ​​the structure and properties of important things, if only in order to compose one’s own opinion rather than an imposed opinion.
            1. Tsoy
              Tsoy 30 July 2016 10: 59
              +5
              Quote: novobranets
              Further nose, sorry, work and money, see nothing, do not know, and do not want to know.


              Well, this applies to all countries of the world, including Russia. The culture of consumption in all its glory. As you said, a stupid flock is much easier to manage, for this purpose and carry out educational reforms and made one channel on the remote in the zomboyaschik.

              With regards to missile defense. So far, it only benefits weapons manufacturers. Lobbyists do not eat bread there for good reason. I hope no one will come to mind to test the system in action. hi
              1. the villain
                the villain 30 July 2016 23: 29
                +4
                Quote: Choi
                With regards to the PRO. So far, only manufacturers of weapons benefit from it. It’s not for nothing that the lobbyists eat bread.
            2. sgazeev
              sgazeev 1 August 2016 10: 11
              0
              Quote: novobranets
              Quote: Choi
              It is better to be an expert in your field and not know something left that is not related to your work than incompetent even in your workplace.

              These are exactly the Americans. Further than the nose, sorry, work and money, they see nothing, do not know, and do not want to know. These are easier to manage, the president said, the chipmunk flies, so he’s a bird, he said that missile defense will protect America, so you can sleep peacefully. And if they knew that missile defense was a soap bubble, and the answer wouldn’t pass their heads, would they have been calm about deploying carriers for nuclear munitions in Europe? It’s simply necessary to know some kind of at least a general idea of ​​the structure and properties of important things, if only in order to compose one’s own opinion rather than an imposed opinion.
          2. sabakina
            sabakina 30 July 2016 10: 01
            +6
            Quote: Choi
            Quote: novobranets
            But he doesn’t know why the plane flies, or what a nuclear warhead is.


            Do many people even know how the nuclear fission energy works? It is better to be an expert in your field and not to know something left-handed, not related to your work, than incompetent even in your workplace. In the Russian Federation now such a dime a dozen. What to say stumbled upon a video where the schoolgirl asked what the Holocaust is, answered with wallpaper glue. Are you talking about nuclear weapons ...

            I also do not know how the nuclear fission energy works, but I know that if this energy is released, only my shadow will remain of me. (and this is the "best" case, it is better to die instantly.)
          3. The comment was deleted.
  4. Tsoy
    Tsoy 30 July 2016 06: 26
    +7
    Earlier, during the years of the Cold War and even in the post-Soviet period, the United States and NATO avoided carrying out such threatening actions directly against our country.


    It was even worse. Flitex 82, 300 miles from Petropavlovsk Kamchatsky, two Aug conducted training flights.

    Anaconda surprises everyone, and with 81, such exercises are no less in scale; they were held annually in the Far East together with Japan. Here and Cayenne, Yamasakura, Orient Shield. The number of soldiers - 30 thousands. 100 aircraft, 100 warships. So it was all already, just a return to the past.
  5. rotmistr60
    rotmistr60 30 July 2016 06: 48
    +4
    Quote: aszzz888
    it’s better to digest than not to digest, otherwise it will turn sour again.

    Not just sour, but it will begin to wander actively and trample outward like from a barrel with a braga, for which they did not see it.
    1. novobranets
      novobranets 30 July 2016 08: 51
      +2
      Quote: rotmistr60
      Not just sour, but it will begin to wander actively and trample outward like from a barrel with a braga, for which they did not see it.

      More precisely, like a rustic toilet in a hot summer, in which young hooligans threw a pack of yeast. wassat
  6. Barakuda
    Barakuda 30 July 2016 07: 41
    +4
    After such a video in the minds of the American inhabitants - the wabla does not mind the ABM
  7. Budilnik
    Budilnik 30 July 2016 07: 56
    +1
    Thanks to the author, otherwise it seemed that in addition to GDP, no one sees the problem of the American missile defense anymore .. the main thing is to always keep yellowstone under
  8. Gormenghast
    Gormenghast 30 July 2016 08: 43
    +2
    The moral is: no agreements can be made with cheaters and aggressors.
  9. fsps
    fsps 30 July 2016 09: 00
    +1
    Getting ready ...
    http://www.news-usa.ru/dlya-kogo-v-ssha-zagotavlivayutsya-plastikovye-groby-i-st

    royat-kontslagerya.html
    It’s time for us to start. To begin with, at least neutralize the hostile agents and the other fifth column. And tighten the belts again.
    Only fear of retribution can stop these maniacs. Russian retaliation.
    1. The comment was deleted.
  10. Glaaki
    Glaaki 30 July 2016 11: 47
    -4
    Quote: novobranets
    Quote: Choi
    It is better to be an expert in your field and not know something left that is not related to your work than incompetent even in your workplace.

    These are exactly the Americans. Further than the nose, sorry, work and money, they see nothing, do not know, and do not want to know. These are easier to manage, the president said, the chipmunk flies, so he’s a bird, he said that missile defense will protect America, so you can sleep peacefully. And if they knew that missile defense was a soap bubble, and the answer wouldn’t pass their heads, would they have been calm about deploying carriers for nuclear munitions in Europe? It’s simply necessary to know some kind of at least a general idea of ​​the structure and properties of important things, if only in order to compose one’s own opinion rather than an imposed opinion.


    What a graceful transition from "stupid murikantsy" to missile defense.
    And answer me the question, does your mother know, say, about missile defense (BGG, pun)? Does she know the difference between an atomic bomb and a thermonuclear one? And you? Just like that, straight away, without looking at the wiki in articles about cannon and implosive schemes.

    And in general, this moan and gnashing of teeth touches me. If our state behaved in the same way as Murik, would many of the commentators here be indignant? Many would denounce us for what we profess "the ideology of villains deprived of universal morality, those who do not accept anyone's interests other than their own", and?
    But the essence is that - admit, deep down you agree with this - that we would like to behave in foreign policy in the same way (well, maybe a little more tactfully), but our Wishlist does not correlate with reality.
    1. max2215
      max2215 30 July 2016 12: 25
      +1
      But the essence is that - admit, deep down you agree with this - that we would like to behave in foreign policy as well
      I doubt that for this our government should know, but what, in fact, do we want? What is the goal that we want to build? The Communists had it — the world revolution, the Americans have it — to crush everyone (meaning the elite) and rule the whole world. And what do we want, well, besides, what would save the integrity of the country? For 25 years, they come up with nat. an idea, but there is nothing intelligible, and since it is not there, then there is no need to achieve anything either, therefore we are on the defensive, but we must attack, because defense is always a loss. In the current election I will not vote for EdRo exactly, for whom ?, it’s hard to say, because there are few alternatives, there are no pontential leaders - the media work exclusively on EdRo ....
    2. novobranets
      novobranets 30 July 2016 14: 16
      +4
      Quote: Glaaki
      Does your mother know, say, about missile defense (BGG, pun)? Does she know the difference between an atomic bomb and a thermonuclear one?

      Why would she know that? She is not a physicist. But she knows that to launch one rocket, a return launch will follow immediately, and away we go. And she knows what radioactive dust, radiation pollution and so on. joys. Does the average American know about this? That's what I wanted to say
      at least a general idea of ​​the structure and properties of important things
      Have you read at least, or ran your eyes and let's sprinkle smart words?
      Quote: Glaaki
      admit, deep down you agree with this - that we would like to behave in foreign policy as well

      Just like America? Then I confess. No. I would not want Russia to hate half the world. Like America, for her affairs.
  11. Blackmokona
    Blackmokona 30 July 2016 12: 22
    0
    Iranian mythical rockets
    Short Range Complexes:

    Tondar (up to 150 km)
    Fateh (less than 200 km)
    Complexes of medium range:

    Shahab
    Kader
    Ballistic:

    Near Range Hatf-II (180 km, 2012) [3]
    “Sajil” (range of 2 thousand km, 2008)
    Cruise missiles:

    Meskat ("Meshkat") with a range of 2000 km or more based on the Soviet X-55 purchased in Ukraine, missiles are ready after 2012. [4] [5]
    "Triumph" - the fastest in the world of sea-based KR. [6]
    There are reliably submarine-based missiles (not anti-ship missiles) [7].
    Nasr-e Basir - marine and land based missile defense with active maneuvering and homing.
    Qadir - sea and land based against sea targets (up to 300 km) [8].

    And to place anti-missile defense forces against Russia in Europe, can only be a person who has never seen a globe. wink
    PS: For those who are not familiar with the globe, Russian missiles fly through the north pole.
    1. max2215
      max2215 30 July 2016 12: 33
      +2
      So it’s like that, only launchers and tomahawks are suitable, and anti-missiles, they will intercept carriers on dispersal, and from Poland to the Urals, especially to the European part of our country, it’s very close. After all, not all of our potential in Siberia
      1. Blackmokona
        Blackmokona 30 July 2016 12: 48
        0
        The USA and so many thousands of PUs for the Tomahawks, ready to sail to our borders, a hundred other PUs with a fixed location of the weather will not do anything. We would like to build up launchers, would build a couple more missile-carrying nuclear submarines. They move unnoticed, and can suddenly strike.
        And in the dispersal, in order to intercept our missiles, the Strategic Missile Forces need to be relocated to Kaliningrad, and Crimea should be extended to Romania itself in order to deploy missiles there, so that SM-3 could catch up.
  12. voyaka uh
    voyaka uh 30 July 2016 12: 52
    +4
    Russia needs its own missile defense no less than the United States or Europe.

    Medium-range BRs are spreading rapidly around the world.
    They will soon be able to produce or buy any third world country,
    any ambitious leader or dictator.
    It’s unpleasant to get 500 kg of explosives in your capital just because
    that your president and some nervous leader quarreled. One rocket is not a victory
    in war, but a slap in the face for all ages. And if the warhead is somehow dirty-atomic (what to do
    it’s easy even by primitive means), a slap in the face turns into a problem for 10 years.

    It's nice to expose the Americans, but they look strategically forward, trying to get ahead
    future threats. And smart people in Russia also understand this.
    S-500 is not a threat to America, but the defense of Russia from the same dangerous types that they want
    protect yourself and your allies.
    1. Blackmokona
      Blackmokona 30 July 2016 13: 00
      0
      Rather, the problem is not 500 kg of explosives, but chemistry, pour chlorine or synthesize some Iprit, now anyone who knows how to follow the instructions will be able to. (I'm not even talking about the country)
  13. Mercenary
    Mercenary 30 July 2016 12: 57
    0
    Fedya! Brevity is the soul of wit! This opus is for a first grader of a triple.
  14. Who said
    Who said 30 July 2016 13: 20
    0
    War on the threshold
  15. Doppelgänger
    Doppelgänger 30 July 2016 13: 56
    -2
    Isn’t it time for us to respond adequately? Without taking into account the position of the liberals and the cries of the West (and they will be some more) why not get out of START? Do not start the BZHRK? And do not send America (it has long earned it) to ... ?
  16. Blackmokona
    Blackmokona 30 July 2016 14: 07
    0
    Quote: Doppelgänger
    Послать

    Even there is no money to reach the START-3 ceilings, the BZHRK for missile defense is indifferent.
  17. avg-mgn
    avg-mgn 30 July 2016 14: 19
    +1
    Quote: max2215
    ... But wouldn't it be easier, now, in deep-water depressions along the Atlantic coast of the SGA, to flood several Tsarbombs (as Sakharov suggested) and let them wait in the wings.

    Oh, and somewhere I already read that someone somewhere somewhere laid (lost). Who then will get it all from the deep trenches along the Atlantic coast, or will it resolve itself ...? Sakharov was right, these little things are not toys in the hands of politicians.
  18. Mountain shooter
    Mountain shooter 30 July 2016 14: 35
    +2
    How can I answer that? To deploy missile defense. IMHO, an addition to START-3 is required. The number of deployed carriers corresponds to that specified in the agreement, plus one more for each missile defense deployed in Europe or elsewhere near our borders (including sea basing). Does it really work?
    1. Blackmokona
      Blackmokona 30 July 2016 16: 42
      0
      The USA will just send to W, such an addition. Well, or with a troll face, they will offer to consider missiles for the S-400 and S-300 as anti-missiles
  19. avg-mgn
    avg-mgn 30 July 2016 16: 49
    +1
    Quote: max2215
    But isn't it easier, now, in deep-water depressions, along the Atlantic coast of the SGA, to flood several Tsar-bombs?


    avg-mgn (2) RU Today, 14: 19
    Oh, and somewhere I already read that someone somewhere somewhere laid (lost). Who then will get it all from the deep trenches along the Atlantic coast, or will it resolve itself ...?
    .

    Personally for the sucker who put me personally minus:
    How Americans lost a hydrogen bomb


    55 years ago, brave American warriors as a result of an air accident lost a hydrogen bomb, not the first nor the last in their history. In 2004, they kind of found her, but did not touch her.

    On the night of 5 on February 1958, a B-47 Stratojet bomber with a hydrogen bomb on board, performing an overnight training flight along the coast of Georgia, collided with an F-36 Saberjet fighter at an altitude of 86 thousand feet. As a result of the collision, the fighter collapsed, and the wing of the bomber was badly damaged. The Bomber pilot, Major Howard Richardson, was ordered to drop the hydrogen bomb overboard before attempting to land. Richardson dropped it - in the shallow waters of the swamps near the mouth of the Savannah River, a few miles from the city of Tybee Island - where, in his opinion, they should quickly find the bomb later

    Search and rescue teams were sent to the discharge site. Surroundings cordoned off the paratroopers. For more than a month, the Air Force searched for a bomb in the swamps, but to no avail. Then the search was abruptly stopped. On 11 of March 1958 of the year, the Air Force urgently threw their fellows to Florence, South Carolina, where another hydrogen bomb was accidentally dropped from the B-47. The 200-pound charge of trinitrotoluene in the bomb exploded, causing serious damage. But, fortunately, the bomb itself did not explode directly.

    The case of the lost hydrogen bomb was slowly closed. From the Pentagon to the Atomic Energy Commission, in which the Air Force politely asks to send a new hydrogen bomb in exchange for the lost one: "The search for this weapon has been stopped by 16.04.58, and it is considered irretrievably lost."
    Of course, this was a big problem, and the Pentagon understood this. During the first 3 months of the 1958 year alone, the Air Force experienced 4 major incidents involving hydrogen bombs (since the 1945 year, the United States lost 11 nuclear charges). The Tybee Island bomb remained a threat, according to the Atomic Energy Commission in a note to Congress from 10.06.58: "There is the possibility of accidentally triggering undetected weapons or contaminating the surroundings with radioactive materials." Taken here

    In 1994, a letter was declassified by W.J. Howard, the assistant secretary of defense, who wrote in a report to Congress in 1966 that the bomb dropped near Tybee contained a fully assembled plutonium warhead. However, in 2001, the U.S. Air Force published an official incident report. The report stated that the bomb contained 180 kg of explosives and an unspecified amount of uranium, but there was no nuclear capsule needed for the chain reaction (the flight was training and the bomb was in a transport configuration), and therefore the bomb does not pose a serious danger to the local population . The report is based on a document signed by the B-47 commander before departure, indicating that the combat nuclear capsule has been replaced with a training one.

    Here is a story. Nobody would lie before Congress; on the other hand, it’s really stupid to take a fully equipped bomb into a training flight. All that is known for sure today is that the presence of radioactivity was confirmed in 2004 during searches.

    http://omchanin.livejournal.com/521385.html
    1. Tsoy
      Tsoy 30 July 2016 17: 21
      +2
      Quote: avg-mgn
      How Americans lost a hydrogen bomb


      Well, actually there are several such stories. Here and the collapse of B52 near Spain, with nuclear weapons on board. And incidents with B36 and B50. But it was a plane crash, and there is a real loss.

      In the 1956 year of 10 in March, the B47 bomber disappeared in the Mediterranean. Flying from Florida, with 2 refueling. The fate of the crew and 2-x nuclear ammunition is unknown.

      There is also such a story ...

      21 January 1968, the US Air Force B-52 strategic bomber crashed near US North Star Bay. From this base, monitoring of the Soviet territory was carried out, as well as the control of the flights of the strategic nuclear attack aircraft of the United States, whose planes had nuclear weapons on board - nuclear bombs.
      On board the crashed aircraft were four such bombs. The plane broke through the ice and was on the seabed. As the pilots of the bomber, John Hugues and Joe De Amario, told 40 years later, the US military and Danish workers conducted an operation that lasted several months. Officially, the US government said that all atomic bombs raised from the sea day. However, in reality, only three bombs were discovered and extracted from the Arctic Ocean. And the fourth charge was never found. This is evidenced by the declassified US government video received by the Air Force.




      But the official figures ...

      The US Department of Defense first published a list of nuclear accidents as early as 1968 year, in which 13 mentioned serious nuclear weapons accidents between 1950 and 1968 for years. The updated list was released in the 1980 year, in which there was already an 32 case. At the same time, the same documents were issued by the Navy in accordance with the Freedom of Information Act, which listed the 381 US nuclear incident between the 1965 and 1977 years.
    2. max2215
      max2215 30 July 2016 19: 57
      +1
      since an air bomb and a deep-sea mine, it’s not the same thing, it’s another matter how to drag it to the place of production, I don’t think that a 60mg thing will be tiny))). Obtaining, of course, will be difficult, but not impossible. As for the radioactive trail, in case of depressurization or failure, I agree, the problem. Unfortunately, what only in the oceans is not flooded, but the country's security ..... Well, ours, they cannot deploy missiles in Venezuela or Cuba, and we have problems with space.
      I like it when Zadornov says that they are stupid, but unfortunately this is not so, I think that missile defense is not a bluff, with the adoption of cm-3 block 3 will be much sadder and only the non-reversibility of retaliation will sober them up. Our ballistic missiles will be caught up during the dispersal, when the warheads have not gone yet, I don’t know how successfully, but if you want to try, there will be no winners.
      So you need an answer, what would try to get sick.
      1. Vadim237
        Vadim237 30 July 2016 23: 44
        +1
        The fact remains that the number of US missile defense is increasing every year, and with them the number of radar, reconnaissance and tracking satellites is increasing.
  20. Lyubopyatov
    Lyubopyatov 30 July 2016 21: 49
    -1
    Another election, and the Provisional States of America have all been achieved.
  21. Fei_Wong
    Fei_Wong 31 July 2016 05: 32
    +2
    Quote: Orionvit
    Please name at least one "fraternal" country that, in the event of an armed conflict, will not hesitate to take the side of Russia.

    Easy. DPRK Syria. And even Belarus (But father can sit on two chairs for an arbitrarily long time, his task is to knock out more nishtyaks for the country from everyone, but in the event of a serious upheaval, Belarus will definitely remain with Russia - there is not even a choice here: Belarus will not remain without Russia , and everyone understands this).
  22. Former battalion commander
    Former battalion commander 31 July 2016 20: 44
    -1
    Unfortunately, the spells of the author of the article mean nothing in the real world. No matter how much the author speaks about the "greatness of Russia" about its traditions and victories ... unfortunately, reality shows the opposite side ... In reality, Russia is now LAGGERING IN TECHNICAL AND MOST IMPORTANTLY IN MORAL terms. The thieves' elite seized property created by the labor of many generations has not gone anywhere ... and will people want to defend such a homeland of inveterate scoundrels ... these are the main questions and dangers for Russia ... and missiles and bombs are already secondary ...
  23. fedda
    fedda 1 August 2016 21: 24
    0
    Quote: Choi
    Quote: novobranets
    But he doesn’t know why the plane flies, or what a nuclear warhead is.


    Do many people even know how the nuclear fission energy works? It is better to be an expert in your field and not to know something left-handed, not related to your work, than incompetent even in your workplace. In the Russian Federation now such a dime a dozen. What to say stumbled upon a video where the schoolgirl asked what the Holocaust is, answered with wallpaper glue. Are you talking about nuclear weapons ...


    there is another extreme. We have people who "know" everything and everything.