Nuclear fears, imaginary and real. Part 1

110
Nuclear fears, imaginary and real. Part 1


Reading on the "Military Review" comments on military technology, stories wars and armed conflicts, international relations and especially the issue of nuclear deterrence, never ceases to be surprised how polar the views and opinions differ among different groups of site visitors. After analyzing various statements, we can distinguish two large groups with diametrically opposed views. One bright group, let's call it “We all break,” distinguished by extreme militancy and “hurray-patriotism” - bordering on chauvinism - calls for an extremely tough policy towards the US and its allies. According to the adherents of “We will all break,” we are “stronger than ever,” and our country has enough power to stand alone against all enemies and potential rivals who can become enemies over time. In the comments of representatives of this group, one can often read that “if a fight is inevitable, then it is necessary to beat first” and, regardless of their own losses, to use all available types of weapons, including nuclear (thermonuclear). However, such judgments, as a rule, are expressed by people who are not burdened with life experience, special knowledge and family, who did not serve in the armed forces, and, as they say, did not experience “deprivation and hardship”. However, there are exceptions, the author of these lines not so long ago had a chance to communicate with the man who exchanged the fifth dozen, who professed similar views. This “young” man, who works as a head of the lower level in one of the state structures, having taken on the chest a certain amount of alcohol, literally shocked me with similar reasoning. During the conversation, the impression was that the reason for such statements was unsatisfied ambitions and lack of personal privacy.

Another extreme group is “All Kick-Ass” (in case of a nuclear war). This group sincerely believes that any use of nuclear weapons will end in a universal apocalypse, and therefore this means of warfare must be immediately eliminated. At the same time, supporters of this point of view operate with terms such as “nuclear winter”, “universal radiation contamination”, “death of all living things”. Such opinions are most often demonstrated by mature people, whose formation as a personality occurred back in the USSR, they raise children or already have grandchildren, but, as a rule, are not very well educated. I must say that this point of view is much closer to me, I myself am the father of three children and, naturally, I wanted their childhood to be peaceful.

But a number of myths and horror stories fueled by the media are associated with nuclear weapons, which, let's say, do not quite correspond to reality, which we will try to understand today. To better understand the features of nuclear weapons and their role in the history of mankind, it is worth starting with the prerequisites of creation and the very moment of their appearance.

In 1939, German scientists Otto Gan and Fritz Strassmann discovered the process of fissioning uranium nuclei when irradiated with neutrons. This discovery, in fact, served as the starting point for the work on the creation of the atomic bomb and nuclear power reactors. In the process of nuclear fission of an uranium atom, two (less often three) nuclei with similar masses are formed - the so-called fission fragments. As a result of fission, other reaction products are also formed: light nuclei (mainly alpha particles), neutrons, and gamma rays. The division is spontaneous and forced (as a result of the effects of other particles, primarily neutrons). The disintegration of heavy nuclei serves as an energy source in nuclear weapons and nuclear reactors. Under certain conditions, the fission reaction can be a chain - this means that during the reaction the amount of released energy is greater than that absorbed, and other nuclei enter the fission reaction. The division of the nucleus of a heavy element under the action of a neutron into two rapidly flying fragments is accompanied by the release of a large amount of energy, the emission of gamma radiation and neutrons — on average, the 2,46 neutron into one decaying uranium nucleus and 3,0 — into one plutonium. As a result of the uncontrolled decay of nuclei, the number of neutrons increases dramatically, and the fission reaction can instantly cover all nuclear fuel. This happens when a “critical mass” is reached, when the fission chain reaction starts, leading to an atomic explosion.

The use of a nuclear fission chain reaction made it possible to create nuclear reactors that use controlled chain reaction, and nuclear weapons (atomic bombs) that use an unmanaged chain reaction. At the time of its creation, in 1945, the atomic bomb became the most destructive type of weapon that existed at that time, having surpassed the most powerful chemical explosive in terms of energy release.

Initially, while the number of atomic bombs was small in both mass and dimensions, they were comparable to the heaviest high-explosive bombs, nuclear weapons were considered in the United States as a “superweapon” for destroying particularly important targets and an instrument of “nuclear blackmail” of the Soviet Union. At first, the delivery vehicles for the atomic bombs were exceptionally heavy bombers. However, as the number of nuclear charges grew and their miniaturization first in the USA and then in the USSR, nuclear weapons began to be seen as weapons of the battlefield, suitable for solving tactical missions. The Land Forces received tactical and operational tactical mobile missile systems and "nuclear artillery", and for the front-line aviation relatively compact nuclear bombs were created.



Since the mid-50s, anti-aircraft missiles and air combat missiles of interceptor fighters were equipped with nuclear warheads; the fleet received nuclear naval mines, depth charges and torpedoes. To create impassable zones of destruction on the path of the enemy’s advance, nuclear mines were intended, and compact nuclear mines in the form of satchels were created for parts of “special operations”. The apogee of "nuclear senility" was achieved in the USA after the creation of 120-mm and 155-mm nuclear recoilless guns "Devi Crocket" with a firing range of 2-4 km. Bezkatki "Devi Crocket" in the early 60s entered service with the American infantry divisions in Europe. With their help, it was supposed to repel the attacks of the Soviet tanks. In the Soviet Union in the late 60s and first half of the 70s, work was underway to create a tactical missile system for the Taran tank regiments with a large-caliber radio-controlled ATGM equipped with a nuclear warhead with a projected launch range of 6-8 km.

The greatest concentration of tactical nuclear weapons was in Western Europe. The saturation of the American armed forces with nuclear warheads continued until the mid-60-x. After that, the number of US tactical charges began to decline. This was due to the decommissioning of obsolete OTRs and the abandonment of numerous Nike-Hercules and Bomark air defense systems with nuclear warheads that were on combat duty in the United States and Canada. These costly anti-aircraft systems turned out to be practically useless after the ICBMs began to form the basis of the USSR’s SNF. In the Soviet Union, on the contrary, after achieving parity with the United States on strategic carriers in the 70-s, until the end of the 80-s, the number of nuclear warheads was increasing.


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


While the process of miniaturization of nuclear weapons was observed for tactical nuclear weapons, and at the same time as the firing accuracy increased, power decreased, which should have reduced the side effect for their troops, on the contrary, before the start of 70-x, warheads were increasing. The appearance of thermonuclear weapons in 50-s, the destructive force of which is based on using the energy of the reaction of nuclear fusion of light elements into heavier ones (for example, synthesis of one helium atom nucleus from two nuclei of deuterium atoms), allowed us to create combat units for MRBM, ICBM and aerial bombs megaton class. The hydrogen bomb has the same damaging factors as the atomic one, but a thermonuclear charge can have a much larger possible explosion power (theoretically, it is limited only by the amount of "thermonuclear fuel" available). However, in practice, the power growth had its limit, first of all it was due to limitations on the mass and dimensions of the warhead, as well as the fact that in order to increase the damage radius by two times it is necessary to increase the energy release by eight times, which, of course, is not too rational .

The desire to increase the power of strategic nuclear charges was largely due to the low accuracy of the first ballistic missiles, suitable for the destruction of only large area targets. As the guidance systems, reliability, and miniaturization of warheads improved, the ICBM and SLBM began to be equipped with several warheads with individual guidance (up to 10). From a military point of view, it is more advantageous to place on one rocket several compact warheads with individual homing power 100-500 кт, than one warhead with a capacity of tens of megatons.



Recalling the course "Radiation, Chemical and Biological Protection", I would like to remind readers of the main damaging factors of a nuclear (thermonuclear explosion). In a ground (low-altitude air) nuclear explosion, a shock wave (about 50%) causes the greatest damage, the next most dangerous hazard is light emission (30 — 40%), approximately 10-15% of the total number affected can be from radioactive contamination ( including from induced radiation) and 5% falls on penetrating radiation and electromagnetic pulse (EMP).



An atmospheric nuclear explosion results in an almost instantaneous increase in temperature, pressure, and air density, which begins to expand at supersonic speeds. The front of the shock wave is capable of destroying buildings, structures and hit untouched people. In the immediate vicinity of the epicenter of a ground or very low air blast, powerful vibrations arise that can destroy or damage underground shelters and structures. The energy of the shock wave is distributed over the entire distance traveled, because of this, the force of the impact of the shock wave decreases in proportion to the cube of the distance from the epicenter. Protection from shock waves serve as shelters and various types of shelter. In an open area, the action of the shock wave is reduced by the folds of the terrain, obstacles and indentations.



The source of light radiation during a nuclear explosion is the luminous region of the explosion - heated to high temperatures and evaporated parts of the warhead and the environment. The maximum temperature on the surface of the luminous sphere can reach 8000 ° C. The duration of the glow after the explosion lasts from fractions of a second to several seconds, depending on the power and conditions of the explosion. Contrary to the common misconception among ordinary people, it is the expanding “fireball” that arose in the first moments after the explosion, and not the “mushroom” that was formed later, which causes the greatest destruction. With a low-altitude explosion, as a result of which the maximum destructive effect is achieved on the surrounding terrain, the “fire sphere”, as a rule, is thrown upwards by the shock wave reflected from the ground. It is possible to hide from light radiation beyond any opaque barrier, preferably from non-combustible material. Exposure to light radiation is significantly reduced during precipitation, fog, or high air dustiness.


The picture shows a fireball reflected from the surface of the earth by a nuclear explosion.


As a result of a nuclear (thermonuclear) reaction, the formation of hard ionizing radiation (gamma radiation and neutron flux) occurs. Due to the fact that penetrating radiation is strongly absorbed by the atmosphere, the range of damage caused by ionizing radiation during atmospheric explosions is significantly smaller than the area affected by light radiation and a shock wave. Even with the use of high-power charges, penetrating radiation affects people only at a distance of 1-3 km from the explosion site. However, special types of nuclear charges with an increased yield of penetrating radiation, specifically designed for the destruction of manpower. At high altitudes, where the atmosphere is highly rarefied, and in space, penetrating radiation and an electromagnetic pulse are the main damaging factors of a nuclear explosion. In addition to the ability to cause radiation damage to manpower, penetrating radiation can create irreversible changes in materials, disabling electronic and optical devices due to disruption of the crystal lattice of the substance and other physico-chemical processes under the influence of ionizing radiation. It is worth mentioning the variety of thermonuclear weapons, whose penetrating radiation is the main damaging factor - this is the so-called “neutron bomb”. As a result of the explosion of such a charge, up to 80% of the energy is converted into a flux of fast neutrons, and only 20% falls to the other damaging factors. When passing through various materials, fast neutrons lead to the formation of induced radiation. On the ground, induced radioactivity may be hazardous to human health from several hours to several days. As a rule, these are tactical charges of relatively low power or, on the contrary, warheads of the anti-missile of the megaton class. In the first case, tactical neutron charges are supposed to be used against enemy armored vehicles, since armor badly delays fast neutrons. In space, the mileage of neutrons is practically unlimited, and at a distance of several kilometers from the explosion of the anti-rocket warhead, the hard neutron radiation can neutralize the nuclear materials contained in the ICBM warhead and disable its electronic filling.

As a result of a significant amount of radioactive substances falling out of a cloud lifted into the air, a radioactive contamination of the area occurs. Radionuclides, which form radioactive fallout, result from the fission of “nuclear fuel”, are formed under the action of hard neutron radiation on the ground, and the smallest part is the unreacted part of the nuclear charge. Radioactive isotopes gradually settle to the terrain from a wind-blown cloud of a nuclear or thermonuclear explosion. Depending on the degree of radiation contamination, being on the ground where the fallout has occurred may be a different hazard.

It is believed that the degree of radiation pollution of the environment is directly proportional to the force of the explosion, but it is not. The number of radioactive isotopes and their lifespan primarily depends on the design of the bomb, the materials used in it and the type of explosion. Theoretically justified is the possibility of creating a low-power, but very dirty nuclear charge of a special design, capable of dubbing a territory ten times more than with a “normal” nuclear explosion. Also, with an air and ground explosion of the same nuclear weapon, the degree of radiation contamination of an area will differ several times. At atmospheric tests it was repeatedly demonstrated - the further the explosion from the surface of the earth - the less radiation contamination of the area. As striking examples are the two most powerful tests of the American and Soviet thermonuclear charges.

1 March 1954 of the Year at Bikini Atoll held a test of the fusion charge "Castle Bravo" with 15 power MT. It was an experimental stationary device weighing about 10 tons, in which lithium-6 lithium deuteride was used as a "thermonuclear fuel." The explosion produced a huge amount of radionuclides, the atoll itself and its environs were subjected to radioactive contamination. The zone of the strongest radiation contamination was in the form of an oval 100 km wide and more than 550 km long. It was necessary to carry out an emergency evacuation of American military personnel and civilians from nearby islands, some of them still received very high doses of radiation. Significant doses, up to lethal, were received by crews of fishing vessels fishing in the area. “Castle Bravo” was not only the most powerful, but also the “dirtiest” American test explosion. The cause of the large emission of radiation was the fission reaction of the uranium shell, which surrounded the thermonuclear charge, it worked as the third stage of the explosion. The use of uranium-238 elements in a thermonuclear charge, which is divided under the action of fast neutrons and forms radioactive fragments, makes it possible to increase the overall power of the explosion several times, but also significantly (by 5 — 10 times) increases the amount of radioactive fallout.

Another example is the 30 test of October 1961, when the AN602 thermonuclear bomb test (RDS-202), also known as the Tsar Bomb or Kuzkina Mother, was carried out at the test site of the Novaya Zemlya archipelago. A bomb weighing more than 26000 kg and a length of 8000 mm was dropped from a specially upgraded Tu-95В bomber, on which the hatch of the bomb hatch was dismantled. Otherwise, the bomb was simply impossible to hang under the plane. The power of the explosion in TNT was 58 MT. Initially, the design capacity of the bomb was 100 MT, but for security reasons it was reduced. The hydrogen bomb dropped from a height of 10500 meters exploded on command of a barometric sensor at a height of about 4000 meters. At the same time, a fire sphere was formed with a diameter of more than 4000 meters. The powerful reflected shock wave prevented her from touching the surface of the earth, throwing the fiery sphere of the explosion from the ground.

Despite the fact that, compared with “Castl Bravo”, the power of the Soviet test explosion was almost four times larger, the explosion of “Kuz'kina Mother” on Novaya Zemlya was relatively “clean”, and the number of generated radioactive substances was several times smaller. At the same time, the bulk of the products of the air explosion rose to a great height, where it disintegrated, never reaching the surface of the earth. A few hours later, in a helicopter, the test participants arrived at the point over which the explosion occurred. The level of radiation on the ground was not very dangerous. In this case, the design features of the Soviet thermonuclear bomb, as well as the fact that the explosion occurred at a sufficiently large distance from the earth's surface, affected.

During a nuclear explosion, the strongest alternating electromagnetic field (electromagnetic pulse) is formed in the air ionized by radiation and light radiation. Although EMR does not have a special effect on the human body, as a result of its impact electronic equipment, communication lines and power transmission lines may be damaged. Under the influence of an electromagnetic pulse, voltage is induced in all unshielded conductors, and the longer the conductor, the higher it is. The result is a breakdown of insulation and failure of electrical appliances associated with cable networks. With an explosion at an altitude of 100 km and more, when other damaging factors of a nuclear explosion are irrelevant, it is possible to disrupt work and disable sensitive electrical equipment and radio receivers at considerable distances - up to several tens of kilometers from the epicenter of a powerful explosion, where other factors no longer bring destructive effect. Thus, it is possible to disable unprotected equipment in robust structures designed for heavy loads from a nuclear explosion, for example, in submerged command posts and silos of ICBMs. In addition, a significant ionization of the atmosphere after the explosion prevents the propagation of radio waves and the operation of the radar. EMP and atmospheric ionization generated by high-altitude explosions make it possible to use these effects to blind the anti-aircraft radar and radar systems of missile defense systems.

The basis of peaceful coexistence during the Cold War was the concept of guaranteed mutual destruction. That is, for all, even the most acute, disagreements, the US and the USSR did not go over a certain line, because they understood what it was fraught with. Victory in a global nuclear war could not have been achieved by any of the parties, and even the application of a disarming preventive strike did not guarantee that the aggressor would survive a retaliatory strike. Formed to the 70-th years, full-fledged nuclear triads and early missile warning systems made it possible to conduct retaliatory actions and deprive the enemy of the surprise factor. Even in the case of the destruction of 2 / 3, the strategic arsenal of one of the countries remaining ICBMs and SLBMs was enough to cause unacceptable damage to the enemy. Thus, according to US experts, the missile salvo strategic missile submarine pr. 667BRDM armed 16 RSM-29RM, capable of killing 6 million. Americans believe that the missile UGM-133A Trident II (D5) with the American SSBNs "Ohio" can cause no less loss. A nuclear explosion in a modern city will have disastrous consequences and lead to a large number of victims. The destruction of hazardous operations, fires and landslides will be additional aggravating factors that can increase the number of victims. People who have not received significant damage directly from the explosion, are likely to die trying to get out of the zone of continuous destruction. The lack of medical care and organized rescue will cause the death of many thousands of people injured and burned.

To be continued ...

Based on:
http://www.ivo.unn.ru/rhbz/
http://www.vokrugsveta.ru/vs/article/1107/
Our news channels

Subscribe and stay up to date with the latest news and the most important events of the day.

110 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. 0
    2 August 2016 06: 30
    For now, nothing. Let's see what will happen next. No ratings.
    1. +26
      2 August 2016 06: 56
      Quote: Dora2014
      For now, nothing. Let's see what will happen next. No ratings.

      Thanks at least for that. hi Unfortunately, it's not realistic to cram everything into one publication. However, knowing that not all visitors to "VO" served in the armed forces, I hope that the gaps in knowledge about the damaging factors at least among some of the readers were able to fill.
      1. +1
        2 August 2016 07: 23
        I was interested in the question, how much does the material of the YAZ corps affect? In fact, he also reacts?
        1. +2
          2 August 2016 07: 47
          The casing of fissile materials does not contain, and can not participate in the reaction - there is nothing to react there.
          1. +5
            2 August 2016 16: 11
            The shell of a thermonuclear charge may be from uranium-238, for example. Then she reacts. Read the article carefully again (that part of it that talks about the Bikini trials).
            1. 0
              2 August 2016 22: 55
              The shell of tyazh does not happen from 238 - it (if applicable) serves to strengthen tyazh
              1. +4
                3 August 2016 00: 14
                *** The reason for the large emission of radiation was the fission reaction of the uranium shell that surrounded the thermonuclear charge, it worked as the third stage of the explosion. The use of uranium-238 elements in a thermonuclear charge, which is fused by fast neutrons and forms radioactive fragments, makes it possible to increase the total explosion power by several times, but also significantly (5-10 times) increases the amount of radioactive fallout. ***
                I have cited that part of the article which is devoted to the tests of "Castle Bravo" on the Bikini.
                *** It was a two-stage charge in which a solid substance, lithium deuteride, was used as the thermonuclear fuel for the first time in American practice (instead of a gaseous mixture of deuterium and tritium liquefied at low temperature). The content of the 6Li isotope in this compound was about 40%. Lithium deuteride was in a shell of natural uranium. ***
                And this quote is from Wikipedia. Natural Uranium - U_238
                Yours faithfully, ...
        2. -1
          2 August 2016 10: 06
          Steel charge case. In an explosion, it passes into plasma, and then condenses in the form of an aerosol from iron and alloying elements.
      2. -1
        2 August 2016 07: 39
        The effect of radiation is somehow underestimated. what
        IMHO this is generally a factor number 1, because fires can be put out, to block the rubble, but what to do with this muck?
        1. +8
          2 August 2016 07: 57
          Interesting article. Only the calming tonality bothers, something in this article is unsaid. Some kind of contradiction of what was given to us at different schools in Soviet times.
          For the time being, one thing is clear: the arrogant Saxons in the long term will not stop putting pressure on us with an emphasis on a nuclear club, missile defense, our homegrown liberals, and Moscow-Petersburg hamsters such as the HSE and MGIMO universities.
          I will tighten my belt tightly, only let the defense be defensive, and rodents and insects such as oral and the like sew mittens in a kolyma.
          1. +6
            2 August 2016 09: 03
            Quote: Balu
            Interesting article. Only the calming tonality bothers, something in this article is unsaid. Some kind of contradiction of what was given to us at different schools in Soviet times.

            So let's see the continuation, and then we will comment. + for the topic raised. The final decision to end the cycle.
          2. +3
            2 August 2016 16: 12
            We are waiting for part 2.
        2. +1
          2 August 2016 08: 43
          The same thing that was done in Chernobyl.
        3. +13
          2 August 2016 08: 58
          Quote: Corporal
          IMHO this is generally a factor number 1, because fires can be put out, to block the rubble, but what to do with this muck?

          And what to do with nuclear power plants, burial grounds, destroyed nuclear submarines and ships with nuclear control systems, do not tell me? Fires don't bother you? I remember the 10th year of the Moscow region, for example. How many then fiddled with those fires, I'm not talking about Taiga, or the fires in the United States. And if you imagine that such a "picnic" will be all over the planet ... how will you stew? And most importantly, who will do this?
          But how did the ionosphere react to all this, the stratosphere, etc., did not think?
          There are a lot of factors and it is simply impossible to consider a nuclear war from an angle - "yes there will be nothing very critical", because no one was beyond that line and our judgments can be formed only on the example of Herosima, Nagasaki, Chernobyl ...
          1. 0
            5 August 2016 23: 07
            And Fukushima, I guess.
        4. +1
          2 August 2016 10: 01
          Now, the boyboys are much cleaner than those used by the USA in Japan.
          1. +3
            2 August 2016 10: 54
            Quote: Darkness
            Now, the boyboys are much cleaner than those used by the USA in Japan.

            Are the reactors on nuclear submarines, ships, aircraft carriers and nuclear power plants also clean? Or burial grounds with anthrax, of which there are more than 70 around Moscow alone (Moscow Sea-Ivankovskoe reservoir) are also very clean, and chemical plants are also very sterile ... and all this "cleanliness" will end up in underground rivers and lakes. ,What will happen?
            1. -3
              2 August 2016 18: 18
              Warheads will be spent only on anthrax with anthrax, since when a nuclear charge enters the repository, all bacteria and viruses reach a million degrees in one tenth of a second and all pathogenic and putrefactive bacteria die when radiation above 200 micro-X-rays, that is, corpses do not decompose will - will just dry out.
              1. +1
                2 August 2016 18: 40
                Quote: Vadim237
                Warheads will be spent only on anthrax with anthrax, since when a nuclear charge enters the repository, all bacteria and viruses reach a million degrees in one tenth of a second and all pathogenic and putrefactive bacteria die when radiation above 200 micro-X-rays, that is, corpses do not decompose will - will just dry out.

                Did I say that nuclear weapons will be hammered at the burial grounds? Imagine for a second, for example, that somewhere in the Moscow region, God forbid, one of the mattress warheads fell off, and a blast wave swept away ten meters of soil within a radius of 2-4 kilometers ... and these same burial grounds are exposed to the light of God .. . and this "good" is enough throughout Russia, and in the United States, but all over the world ... and there is also a burial place of nuclear waste ... continue to continue or you yourself think out?
              2. +4
                2 August 2016 21: 07
                Quote: Vadim237
                pathogenic and putrefactive bacteria die above 200 micro X-rays

                200 micro-roentgen - this is about 10 times more than the natural background. In other words - minuscule. After the Chernobyl accident, I happened to live in Belarus. In our area, for the first time on the soil there were 5-7 millientgen. This is much more. Children started having problems with blood biochemistry, and pathogenic bacteria didn’t care at all. So, if you’ve not had to deal with similar microdoses yourself, don’t write nonsense.
                1. +1
                  2 August 2016 21: 31
                  In mountain resorts with the release of radon gas, the natural background radiation exceeds the average by 1000 or more.
                  And nothing - holidaymakers (coming for a few weeks) and local residents (staying there all their lives) feel normal.
                  1. 0
                    3 August 2016 05: 14
                    In Hiroshima, smokers suffered less from radiation than non-smokers .. When smoking, strontium 114 "living" in tobacco, a radioactive element, gets into the lungs of a person - the body somewhat adapts to radiation ..
                2. 0
                  2 August 2016 22: 09
                  It’s interesting to know why radiation acts differently on people. some grabbed a kayuk just a little bit, and some have been living for decades after a nuclear explosion or liquidation of an accident.
                3. -2
                  2 August 2016 22: 53
                  In Chernobyl, animal corpses dry out, but do not rot.
            2. +2
              2 August 2016 21: 54
              Quote: NEXUS
              very clean, and chemical plants are also very sterile ...

              - cold storage plants (ammonia)
              - water treatment plants (chlorine)
              - ...

              Purely civilian objects, it would seem ... but how much any rubbish is on them sad
              1. +2
                2 August 2016 22: 08
                Quote: Cat Man Null
                Purely civilian objects, it would seem ... but how much any rubbish is on them

                And then there is chemical burial ... the same cement factories, paint and varnish, etc. ... and all this "purity" will get into underground waters, lakes, rivers, etc. ... not to mention that if some edible vegetation remains What it will be like after that ... and the person here is broadcasting about 28 million square kilometers of the contaminated area, after that, after acid rains, after the destruction of the azone layer, etc. ... apparently thinks that he is immortal.
                1. +1
                  2 August 2016 22: 43
                  Quote: NEXUS
                  all this "purity" will get into underground waters, lakes, rivers, etc. ..

                  - it's a long process yet
                  - but the same chlorine with ammonia and other gaseous charms will get into the air much faster .. plus the inevitable fires that there will be no one to extinguish (water supply, it does not work without electricity) - there are also a lot of harmful chemicals released, besides CO -CO2
                  - in general, at least for cities, it turns out quite a bleak picture ... it will be breathing ... quite difficult sad

                  Quote: NEXUS
                  the person here broadcasts about 28 million square kilometers of the infected territory, after that, after acid rain, after the destruction of the azone layer, etc. ... apparently he thinks that he is immortal

                  - layer - it is still ozone, with all due respect hi
                  - "man" does not think. He has nothing. He, hike, is one of those who have rolls growing on trees (why ... there is a breadfruit in nature). And he also has a personal "bonboozhische" laughing
                  1. +1
                    2 August 2016 22: 53
                    Quote: Cat Man Null
                    - it's a long process yet

                    Think, ask any chemist what will happen to the air and the soil, in case of acid rain, in the form of precipitation of sulfuric acid ... and despite the fact that volcanoes wake up, sulfur will react and give exactly this acid ... add to this the evaporation, duration, fires ... in general, not so long, it turns out ...
                    I will not say anything about radiation, the release of radioactive sewage ... I am interested in what a person will drink in his bomb shelter and how to breathe ... if he survives in the first hours ...

                    Quote: Cat Man Null
                    - layer - it is still ozone, with all due respect

                    Do you have doubts about whether he will remain?
                    1. +1
                      2 August 2016 23: 01
                      Quote: NEXUS
                      Do you have doubts about whether he will remain?

                      - BMP (Without the slightest Concept). But I would not want to check No.
                  2. +2
                    3 August 2016 00: 10
                    The "man" does not think. He has nothing. "- Oh," Mr. clever "- in this case, you really have a bleak picture - usually cowards give up first - that's why" people who don't think "will prepare for the worst, leaving no hope for the best, and the" clever people "will set up yourself on without the original end.
                    1. +2
                      3 August 2016 00: 29
                      Quote: Vadim237
                      that's why "people who don't think" will prepare for the worst, without giving up hope for the best, and "smart people" will set themselves up for the initial end

                      - I, dear, know a little more about the environment in which we all have to live
                      - within a kilometer radius from my house, for example, there are a couple of objects that will "cover" ... just inevitably, and without excessive savings. MCC, for example. And one more thing. The city is so simple request
                      - there are no bomb shelters in the new houses that are being built
                      - In the old, five-story Stalin-era buildings, these bomb shelters have long been handed out for shops, warehouses, pawnshops, and other commerce. And there isn’t enough space there even for 10% of people living nearby - 18-25 storey towers were stamped here, well, just
                      - so, with all the optimism, in a nuclear conflict to survive in my town ... "at least" (c)

                      - don't be too happy for yourself either - you have, for example, an MRTZ nearby. And a lot more "tasty"
                      - so you won't be able to "sit out in the basement" ... you are our survivalist horseradish fool

                      And so - but do you prepare at least for the Second Coming ... to me in parallel. Although your amateurish reasoning is sometimes annoying, there is one Yes
                      1. +2
                        3 August 2016 01: 15
                        In my new high-rise building, there is a three-level basement - two underground parking lots, on the third level of technical premises, and there we made a bomb shelter - one person started doing it, and then I connected - I became a co-investor in the project, it's ready as soon as a year, so I can only sit out for a while - the system air purification, water, dry land and everything else - you can sit all year.
                      2. +1
                        3 August 2016 01: 28
                        Quote: Vadim237
                        ... water ...

                        - from the water supply? wink
                        - The water supply in your high-rise building works from electricity. No electric power - pump up - no water
                        - Or is your tank walled up there? belay So here, the water in the tank tends to go out ...
                        - I don't even write about the "closed cycle" - you don't know what it is laughing

                        Quote: Vadim237
                        one person started doing, and then I connected - I became a co-investor in the project

                        - get ready for the fact that by the time of your arrival to the "shelter" there will already be heels of snouts ... quite unarmed.

                        "What two know - the pig knows" (c) proverb

                        Vadim, are you really so naive, or are you foolishly fooling around? That's honest - I do not classify laughing
                      3. +2
                        3 August 2016 13: 18
                        The shelter is fully furnished, including energy supply systems - only I have the keys - this is the question of naivety.
                      4. -1
                        3 August 2016 16: 08
                        Quote: Vadim237
                        The shelter is fully furnished, including energy supply systems - only I have the keys - this is the question of naivety

                        - I was interested in water supply, sobsna ... is it really a closed cycle?
                        - power supply? For a year? Strongly, this is how many solariums are needed ... You will be recorded in terrorism by the moment, if you push so much fuel into the basement
                        - Or did you put a couple of "soldier-motors" there? They're like a stationary bike, you know?
                        - the keys are only from very honest people ... didn’t you know? belay
                      5. +2
                        3 August 2016 19: 10
                        There is no closed cycle - VFS 2,5 cleaning system.
                2. +1
                  2 August 2016 23: 46
                  Within a month, most of what fell under the distribution of a nuclear strike, this will burn down chemical production and oil fields and everything else - there will be black rains, the greenhouse effect will increase - within six months the atmosphere will be cleansed - only Carbon 14 will remain in the atmosphere - the most precipitated of all radioactive products of a nuclear explosion, water can be cleaned - even from radiation. The ozone layer is located at an altitude of 20 to 30 kilometers, in order to destroy it, nuclear charges with a capacity of 1 megaton are needed - for example, as - "Castle Yankee" 13,5 megatons - the height of the "mushroom" is 40 kilometers, the diameter of the cap is 16 kilometers, that is to make an ozone hole with an area of ​​50000 square kilometers it is necessary to detonate a thousand such charges as "Castle Yankee" - the destruction of the ozone layer immediately takes off from the scenario of a nuclear apocalypse.
            3. KCA
              +1
              6 August 2016 16: 42
              there is only 1 cattle cemetery on Ivankovsky airborne rescue camp, everyone knows his location, despite the sandy beach that is rare for airborne rescue, nobody ever stops there, and who unknowingly stumbles across, they immediately drive by boats with a filthy broom, explaining which nishtyaks are buried here
      3. +3
        2 August 2016 10: 59
        Thank you for the article, I look forward to continuing. I think you will give differences in it in terms of radiation and decay times during the explosion of the nuclear warhead and the accident at the Chernobol nuclear power plant.
        No matter how I am a supporter of global war (fucking shit), but most people, at the mention of the explosion of apples, immediately represent lifeless zones of 10 thousand years ..
      4. +1
        2 August 2016 20: 40
        Quote: Bongo
        at least some readers managed to fill the knowledge gaps about the damaging factors.

        In the continuation of the article, I would like to learn about the impact of ionizing radiation arising from a nuclear explosion on the human body. Everyone knows that "radiation" is bad, it can cause the death of a living organism. But what irreversible changes occur in the tissues at the same time, there is little information.
        But in general - an informative article.
        1. +2
          2 August 2016 22: 57
          Quote: Pupsen
          what irreversible changes occur in the tissues at the same time, there is little information

          - there is more information about this than a dofig. Search line "radiation impact on humans" and Google to help you
          - if quite simple, it looks something like this:
          1. 0
            2 August 2016 23: 34
            Quote: Cat Man Null
            more information about this than dofiga.

            A lot of information, I agree. But in Google, more than the fact that the cells are damaged (die), I did not come across. Why is this happening? You know - explain or give, please, a link. And yet, why is it believed that the use of alcohol helps the body withstand the effects of ionizing radiation?
            1. AUL
              +2
              3 August 2016 09: 45
              . And yet, why is it believed that the use of alcohol helps the body withstand the effects of ionizing radiation?
              And I am personally treated by "Stolichnaya"
              So that I’m completely not mad.
              The source said that "Metropolitan"
              Very good for strontium!
              1. +5
                3 August 2016 11: 35
                Quote from AUL
                And I am personally treated by "Stolichnaya"

                Are you joking? It’s permissible if you don’t encounter neutrons or alpha particles in your life, for example, and you will not be attacked by diarrhea!
                For those who are especially funny, I can explain on my "fingers" that when exposed to ionizing radiation, water breaks down in the tissues of the body into H and OH. As a result, the conductivity of cell membranes is disturbed, food does not enter inside, and harmful is not excreted. Cells are self-poisoning. In addition, the OH group is, roughly speaking, poison. Alcohol taken the day before, to some extent dehydrates the body (the concept of "dry wood" in the morning, perhaps familiar to many) and thus somewhat reduces the amount of broken water and OH concentration.
                You can get deeper into the mechanics of influence, but I don’t see the point, so as not to cause laughter among the most ridiculous, for them alpha, beta, gamma and so on, something abstract will not come to them.
      5. 0
        2 August 2016 21: 27
        IMHO. From the article (this is my opinion) follows the "meaning" - "Burn, guys, with might and main - it's safe." Maybe I misunderstood this article ??? Maybe I read it wrong? I disagree. I will wait to continue. No ratings were given to the article.
    2. +6
      2 August 2016 10: 01
      Author: "I myself am a father of three children" - maybe then it is necessary to write about pedagogy?

      Bloopers:

      1. About the Tsar Bomb: "At the same time, the main part of the products of the air explosion rose to a great height, where it disintegrated, and did not reach the surface of the earth."
      What are "products of an air explosion", how do they differ from "products", for example, a ground explosion? What does the "main body" consist of? What is "disintegrated" - is it self-absorbed or what?
      In fact, we are talking about the products of the fission reaction of the first stage of a thermonuclear charge, consisting of 5-6 kg of plutonium. The neutrons of the second-stage fusion reaction "afterburn" (divide) unreacted plutonium to the state of nuclear reaction products - radioactive isotopes of cesium, strontium, iodine, etc. with a half-life of several days or weeks.
      Naturally, during this time, they have time to scatter in the form of an aerosol over a large area from the explosion site and fall out in the form of radioactive fallout, though very short-lived. This is the "disintegration of the products of the air explosion" (C).
      The overwhelming majority of modern thermonuclear charges do not have the third stage of fission from uranium 238 and therefore are "pure" charges. The same can be said about modern tactical low-power nuclear charges, consisting of one fission stage, equipped with a thermonuclear booster - a high-pressure cylinder filled with 3-4 grams of tritium-deuterium gas.

      2. Separate warheads of individual guidance with several nuclear charges are currently used not because the accuracy of their hits has increased, but because of military necessity - each target has its own charge of the required power.
      Therefore, high-power monoblock warheads from 10 MT and higher will always be in demand for striking cities such as New York, London, Paris, Berlin, Tokyo, Seoul, etc.
      "Voevoda" and "Sarmat" rule in this matter.

      3. If you publish drawings from old textbooks on civil defense on the damaging factors of a nuclear explosion, it would be nice to finally explain in the text (after a quarter of a century) what kind of explosion power the illustrations are talking about.

      4. A table on the components of a nuclear explosion’s defeat from the same textbook is generally nothing: an explanation is required in which heterogeneous damaging factors are compared - in slaughter, power, energy.

      PS But in general, the author respects and respects - remembered a happy school childhood in the USSR laughing
      1. +11
        2 August 2016 12: 12
        Quote: Operator
        maybe then we need to write about pedagogy?

        Do not quibble, this is certainly not a scientific article, but an educational program, and again you could write more carefully, but better than nothing.
        Thanks to the author.

        I was personally interested.
        So, according to American experts, a missile salvo of a strategic submarine missile carrier, pr. 667 RBDM armed with 16 R-29RM SLBMs, is capable of killing 6 million.

        Is this what they thought? Given the interception, with dispersal, without taking into account death from times and infection? Otherwise, not 6 but all 26 are obtained.
        1. +9
          3 August 2016 11: 12
          Quote: bk316
          Is this what they thought? Given the interception, with dispersal, without taking into account death from times and infection? Otherwise, not 6 but all 26 are obtained.

          Apparently these are direct losses during the first days after the use of SLBMs. Of course, these are approximate and highly averaged data, it’s clear that if only rockets are fired at large cities, the casualties will be many times greater, and if applied to ICBM mines, SSBN bases, air bases and command centers, it will be several times less.
      2. +2
        2 August 2016 17: 53
        Operator RU Today, 10:01
        Dear, so why are you silent? I think you will get a great article. Do not be lazy, write what, yes how. Oh, very interesting topic, relevant. hi
        1. +2
          3 August 2016 12: 56
          In another topic, I already announced an article on the construction of nuclear charges from 1945 of the year to the present. The article will also mention the objectives for these charges and the damage caused by the example of potential opponents. I’ll finish next week.

          PS On the issue of the most global and long-lasting damaging factor of nuclear weapons - radioactive contamination of air, soil and water:
          - the problem is artificially exaggerated by the "all-propals";
          - the duration of radioactive contamination is limited to one or two months in the case of using "clean" nuclear charges with short-lived plutonium fission products;
          - protection against radioactive contamination of the air is a gas mask and HLF of the vehicle;
          - protection against radioactive contamination of the soil is an insulating suit and pressurization of the vehicle interior;
          - protection against radioactive contamination of water is an osmotic filter membrane with pores calibrated to the size of water molecules.

          For "all-propans", these funds are unattainable high-tech laughing
          1. +3
            3 August 2016 18: 41
            In another topic, I have already announced an article on the construction of nuclear charges from 1945 to the present. The article will also mention the objectives for these charges and the damage caused by the example of potential opponents
            already very interested ...
            zyablik.olga RU Today, 13:45
            ... "not very indifferent" to this author ... sometimes it brings a lot.
            Anything can happen.
        2. +6
          3 August 2016 13: 45
          Quote: GYGOLA
          Dear, so why are you silent? I think you will get a great article. Do not be lazy, write what, yes how. Oh, very interesting topic, relevant.

          The Dear Operator is simply "not very indifferent" to this author. Andrei Vasiliev (Operator) sometimes gets a lot and reacts extremely painfully when pointed out to him, including hiding behind a "black list".
  2. +4
    2 August 2016 07: 28
    Just like in the CWP class in the Soviet school or in the Civil Defense classes, which were both at the school and at the institute. Previously, everyone knew about the striking factors in the country, even such popular magazines as "Tekhnika Molodezhi", "Science and Life" and "Young Technician" published about it. Everyone knew how to act too. They were afraid of course, but they were preparing to survive, not die.
    Picture
    The number of nuclear charges in the United States and the USSR / Russia
    , is doubtful. It turns out that under Gorbachev (who received the Nobel Peace Prize), we increased the amount of ammunition, and the Americans under Reigen, who intensified the arms race, which even in the United States considered a "hawk" in America, there was a reduction in nuclear charges. Here either this table came to us from American publications, with which they frightened their readers in order to knock out a budget for military purposes. Or the table says about the number of carriers. Indeed, the number of carriers in the United States was falling due to the deployment of missiles (as well as the re-equipment of those in service) with multiple warheads, and in the USSR monoblock Topol and intercontinental, but also monoblock, R-29 went into series.
    1. +1
      2 August 2016 10: 12
      In the 1980's, the military-industrial complex of the USSR continued to release nuclear charges according to the plan adopted at the end of the 1970's.
      By the end of the 1980's, the USSR broke nuclear parity with the United States in its favor and became the most militarily powerful state on the planet.
      The consequences of the actions of the government of M.S. Gorbachev can be evaluated by yourself.
  3. +1
    2 August 2016 07: 46
    Somewhere they gave information on a single nuclear explosion in Frankfurt (a large transport hub in Germany). 30% of the population died from various factors (mainly under the rubble), the rest simply lacked drugs, even bandages, not to mention plasma, glucose, places in hospitals and more - this is all over Germany! And the conclusion was - it’s easier to destroy the survivors and Frankfurt (more appropriate) than to lose all of Germany.
  4. +3
    2 August 2016 07: 54
    Good article.
  5. +5
    2 August 2016 08: 15
    I liked the article. I will not say that I learned something fundamentally new, but in general it serves to generalize the already existing knowledge. In my opinion, the destructive properties of nuclear weapons and radioactive contamination from its use are greatly exaggerated, shall we say, by the "common man", to a large extent due to Hollywood films. To destroy a large metropolis like San Francisco relatively hard, in fact, you need to inflict several strikes with sufficiently powerful warheads of at least 150 kt caliber. The deterrent force against the threat of the use of nuclear weapons is directly proportional to the concentration of the enemy's population in large metropolitan cities. Therefore, for us, the use of nuclear weapons on our territory is relatively less dangerous than on the territory of the United States or China, because We have relatively few large cities, a significant part of the population lives in small and medium-sized cities, and the use of nuclear weapons against several targets in Russia is equivalent to the defeat of only one city such as Shanghai, Guangzhou or San Francisco.
    1. +7
      2 August 2016 16: 46
      This is what less? In Russia, only cities with a population of more than 1 million people - 15, from 500 thousand to 1 million. - 20, from 250 thousand to 500 thousand - 41, and from 100 to 250 thousand - 90. Only in the Moscow Region there are 16. And in all, 76% of the population in Russia are urban, with the majority living in the European part (a little more 20% of the territory). In other words, with a nuclear strike on the territory of Russia we get UNACCEPTABLE DAMAGE, as, indeed, the USA and all other nuclear powers. I’m not talking about NOT nuclear. It is on the understanding of this simple fact that the modern world is held.
  6. +8
    2 August 2016 08: 42
    Quote: qwert
    , is in doubt. It turns out that under Gorbachev (who received the Nobel Peace Prize), we increased the amount of ammunition, and the Americans under Reigen, who intensified the arms race, which even in the United States considered a "hawk" in America, there was a reduction in nuclear charges. Here either this table came to us from American publications, with which they frightened their readers in order to knock out a budget for military purposes. Or the table says about the number of carriers. Indeed, the number of carriers in the United States was falling due to the deployment of missiles (as well as the re-equipment of those in service) with multiple warheads, and in the USSR monoblock Topol and intercontinental, but also monoblock, R-29 went into series.

    Alas, it really was. The number of carriers in the USSR, in particular SLBMs, decreased slightly, by about a hundred for the period 1981-1989, but at the same time, due to the deployment of SLBMs with homing missiles, the number of warheads increased by about a thousand. With the approximate preservation of the number of ICBMs - the number of BB increased by one and a half thousand. In total, on strategic media, the number increased by about 4 thousand. But the biggest increase was due to the growth of tactical YaBZ. From 1981 to 1985, their number increased from 23,5 to 30 thousand.
    By the way, I must say that many tables (American) are a product of our time and are not a means of intimidating Americans. At the same time, they are quite accurate, since there are not just numbers, but a decryption. And unfortunately, similar Russian tables are not observed
  7. +12
    2 August 2016 08: 44
    Speaking about the consequences of a nuclear war, many forget about one factor - how the planet will respond to massive nuclear bombardment. It is argued that during all the tests of nuclear weapons nothing happened to the planet. But the tests were carried out for many years, with a long time interval from each other. In other words, few people think about what kind of reaction the planet will follow on a massive bombing of several thousand nuclear weapons within two to three hours.
    Also, when talking about planet contamination, nuclear winter, etc., factors such as nuclear power plants, burial grounds, chemical plants, as well as volcanoes and super volcanoes such as Yellowstone around the planet, which no doubt wake up and throw so much ash into the atmosphere, are not taken into account and release so much energy that nuclear war itself seems like a simple Chinese firework.
    In this case, the planet will be infected, and global. And if someone believes that after a nuclear war, the next day or a week, people as usual will go to work and take the children to kindergartens, they are deeply mistaken.
    The experience of Chernobyl shows that in order to conserve only one fourth of the reactor, it took only lead as much as the Soviet Union mined in a year. I'm not talking about the fate of the liquidators themselves. And who will deal with the elimination of nuclear power plants and probably not one during and after a nuclear war?
    And we are talking not only about nuclear power plants, but also about other carriers of nuclear reactors: ships, nuclear submarines, which are likely to be destroyed by the warring parties.
    At the same time, there are burial grounds and chemical factories, as well as laboratories, which, after all this hell, will also "have their say" if by that time the planet does not leave orbit, does not change the degree of inclination of the axis or something else like that, about which and it’s scary to say, let alone imagine.
    The author’s calm is a little strange, since during a nuclear war there are too many factors that can destroy life on earth in general or the planet itself as a whole, and nuclear bombing itself is only one of them.
    1. +3
      2 August 2016 09: 11
      Quote: NEXUS
      many forget about one factor - how the planet will respond to a massive nuclear bombing

      So I, Andrei, have been thinking about this issue for a long time. Earth is a living organism, we are only guests on it. How will she react to the atomic bomb? Would it shake us off as an unnecessary infection? Permanent oil production (for good reason it is called the blood of the Earth) is already affecting the climate. Man himself leads to death.
    2. The comment was deleted.
    3. +5
      2 August 2016 09: 19
      You forget that the YaBZ in service are relatively low-power - up to 1 mt in a monoblock version, and most of them are 100-300 kt. Such charges, even with a relatively numerous application, will not lead to significant global changes in the biosphere. Compare with the 58 mt trial. bombs on Novaya Zemlya. The apocalypse did not happen, the earth's crust did not crack, the earth's axis did not shift, right? :) There were, of course, significant manifestations in the ionosphere and the seismic wave bending around the globe 2 times, which, however, very few people felt. The territory of Russia is huge, there will be a lot of uninfected living space, the overwhelming majority of cities will be completely untouched by defeat, since they are not significant industrial targets or megalopolises. This is not China or the United States, where there is much less living space, in many areas the metropolis flows into the suburbs, and it flows into the next metropolis. Therefore, for them, even a single trial of nuclear weapons on their territory incurs colossal population losses. In terms of staying alive after a nuclear war and, moreover, living in a favorable environment - the chances are very high for the average citizen of Russia. It's another matter what will happen after the exchange of blows and whether Russia will survive as a country. Will China want to go (if it will not be involved in the war) to take away "its primordial lands" according to the situation, will the UN appoint us an interim government, will there not be intervention by the Europeans in a situation of anarchy and loss of government? That is what has a much greater danger IMHO than purely physical factors from the destruction of some targets of nuclear weapons.
      1. +2
        2 August 2016 10: 24
        Quite right - modern "pure" thermonuclear and nuclear charges, when detonated in air at an altitude of at least 1,5 km (the distance of neutrons in the lower atmosphere), practically do not cause radioactive contamination.

        The amount of soot from light radiation and fires in case of massive use of nuclear weapons is less than the amount of ash in the explosion of one volcano of the Krakatau class. There will be a cooling of the climate, no nuclear winter.

        The only danger is ground-based nuclear explosions with induced radiation in the soil and dust (using a neutron flux), as well as strikes on several hundred nuclear power plant reactors, each of which is a "dirty" superbomb filled with from one to two hundred tons of fissile material and reaction products with long-lived isotopes.
        1. +3
          2 August 2016 17: 19
          And who promises not to deliver nuclear (and conventional) attacks on nuclear power plants, waterworks, oil and gas storage facilities and other technological infrastructure facilities? Has anyone ever said that nuclear strikes will only be carried out on armies? And what about a military facility? And the strategic nuclear forces are completely designed for civilian infrastructure and civilian use.
          1. -3
            2 August 2016 18: 35
            There isn’t enough warheads.
      2. +1
        2 August 2016 18: 34
        "The territory of Russia is huge, there will be a lot of non-contaminated living space" - No, with the explosion of 1606 megatons - the megatonnage of the US strategic nuclear forces at the moment, the radioactive trail will cover 28 million square kilometers, the whole area will not be suitable for life during the first years after the attack.
        1. +1
          2 August 2016 18: 49
          Quote: Vadim237
          No, in the explosion of 1606 megatons - megatonnes of US strategic nuclear forces at the moment, the radioactive trail will cover 28 million square kilometers, this whole territory will not be suitable for life during the first year after the attack.

          Dear, I am interested, and who will monitor the operation of nuclear power plants, hydroelectric power plants, chemical burials after a nuclear bombing?
          And the second, the eruption of volcanoes all over the planet, acid rain as a result of this, earthquake, tsunami, typhoons, the rapid melting of ice caps at the poles, the destruction of the azone layer and God knows what else, were these 28 million square kilometers taken into account when calculating?
          1. -2
            3 August 2016 00: 39
            "And who will monitor the operation of nuclear power plants, hydroelectric power plants, chemical burials after a nuclear bombing" - Automation there are autonomous power sources at such facilities - the rest of the guys will clean up the rubble. who does not observe, and after a nuclear catastrophe, they will not be needed by anyone.
    4. +1
      2 August 2016 17: 09
      Exactly. The exchange of nuclear strikes will certainly not be limited, and the consequences of the global exchange into which ALL NUCLEAR POWERS will be drawn are read very roughly. But even these not too accurate calculations do not leave humanity a chance.
      1. +1
        2 August 2016 18: 37
        Get involved in the suicide of two parties, certainly, other countries will not - they will be preparing for the consequences.
        1. +2
          2 August 2016 18: 52
          Quote: Vadim237
          Get involved in the suicide of two parties, certainly, other countries will not - they will be preparing for the consequences.

          Well, yes ... and the American missile defense is located only in the United States ... which will be destroyed first of all, however, like the mattress bases throughout Europe and not only ... but Germany, France, England will calmly watch us and the Chinese will hollow nuclear weapons on their territory, which are the base of the United States ...
        2. +4
          3 August 2016 00: 48
          Quote: Vadim237
          Get involved in the suicide of two parties, certainly, other countries will not - they will be preparing for the consequences

          - in Germany - the US base. With nuclear weapons. Will there be a strike, if what? Yes, the stump is clear, what will happen ...
          - in Turkey - the same US base with the same nuclear weapons. Will there be a hit? Guess three times, make no mistake laughing

          Well, hereinafter ...
          1. -2
            3 August 2016 01: 17
            At the expense of Turkey - soon the US base from there will fly off with bombs.
            1. The comment was deleted.
    5. 0
      3 August 2016 19: 45
      We will live to see 2036 — they promise the collision of the asteroid Apophis with the Earth — then we will learn in practice all the charms and possibilities of global changes in the atmosphere and biosphere.
  8. +2
    2 August 2016 09: 14
    Yes, it prevailed in the 60s ... 70s of the last century.
  9. +5
    2 August 2016 09: 55
    Quote: NEXUS
    In this case, the planet will be infected, and global. And if someone believes that after a nuclear war, the next day or a week, people as usual will go to work and take the children to kindergartens, they are deeply mistaken.
    The experience of Chernobyl shows that in order to conserve only one fourth of the reactor, it took only lead as much as the Soviet Union mined in a year. I'm not talking about the fate of the liquidators themselves. And who will deal with the elimination of nuclear power plants and probably not one during and after a nuclear war?

    There is one theory that says that every few dozen (hundreds, millions - time periods of the most varied possible) thousands of years there is some kind of cataclysm of inexplicable power, which leads to almost complete renewal of intelligent creatures on the planet. About 5% of all living things survive - which then survive and evolve in others.
    Numerous biological factors must be taken into account, even if suddenly there are no global natural disasters, then very many very different representatives of the animal world will most likely die and the feed chain will be disrupted, which can cause the rapid growth of some and the death of others.
    The simplest example is that in recent years there are almost no frogs left in ponds and other bodies of water due to environmental damage, this caused a rapid growth of mosquitoes and other parasites. Surviving people in other territories are waiting for billions of all kinds of hungry insects, rodents and predators, peddlers of various infections.
    1. +5
      2 August 2016 11: 36
      Theory, Alik (excuse me, I don’t know your full name), theory, about this (about previous civilizations) there is no written or material evidence, except, perhaps, echoes in myths. But in general, it is quite consistent with human nature - self-destruction.
      1. +1
        2 August 2016 13: 02
        Quote: EvgNik
        eoria, Alik (excuse me, I don’t know your full name), theory, about this (about previous civilizations) there is no written or material evidence, except, perhaps, echoes in myths.

        Perhaps everything just rotted, burned up, crumbled to dust, or scientists attribute the achievements of others to the human race. Somehow it is not very believed that we descended from monkeys and even no intermediate links of evolution have been provided so far, and other scientists claim a greater similarity of DNA in humans and pigs than in humans and monkeys. It seems that our ancestors were assembled from some kind of constructor / set.
  10. +3
    2 August 2016 11: 53
    The article is good. Respect to the author. I look forward to continuing. Obviously, further myths such as "nuclear winter" will be dispelled.
  11. 0
    2 August 2016 14: 24
    The very minimum of residual radiation in thermonuclear munitions. But storing them seems problematic.
  12. +3
    2 August 2016 14: 33
    About mutual (and complete!) Destruction.
    As you know, dinosaurs died out as a result of the collision of the Earth with a 10-kilometer meteoroid. The power of the explosion is 10 billion explosions, like in Hiroshima, or 10 million modern hydrogen bombs. Does Humanity already have so much ???
    This is if we accept the official version of the cause of the death of dinosaurs. Which, however, does not explain all the facts. There is a version that the dinosaurs survived this catastrophe! And even survived until the appearance of Man! Despite such a catastrophe!
    In the book "Geologists study the planets" --- very sorry, it disappeared during the move --- a map with> 100 astroblems is shown. This is the name of the traces of asteroid-sized bodies falling to the Earth. And this is --- only on the continents! falling to the ocean floor ---- means ~ 400! And nothing, we live!
    In one of the issues of the magazine "Earth and Universe" I read about the Popigai catastrophe. A meteoroid over 5 km in size about 35 million years ago fell in the region of Siberia, the Popigai River. On a circle with a radius of 5-6 thousand km, everything was burned out. But this is also not the destruction of all living things!
    Probably should be accurate calculations of all sorts of options.
    1. +2
      2 August 2016 14: 46
      Quote: Reptiloid
      Probably should be accurate calculations of all sorts of options.

      Calculations are one thing, but what will happen in fact is completely different. And God forbid that neither we nor our children see this.
      Quote: Reptiloid
      . On a circle with a radius of 5 --- 6 thousand km everything was burned out. But this is also not the destruction of all life!

      And you read and look at materials about Yellowstone ... there will be no meteorites there.
      1. +2
        2 August 2016 18: 42
        In order for the volcano to "explode" it is necessary to create excess pressure in its cavern, an atomic bomb or warhead does not possess such properties.
        1. +3
          2 August 2016 18: 55
          Quote: Vadim237
          In order for the volcano to "explode" it is necessary to create excess pressure in its cavern, an atomic bomb or warhead does not possess such properties.

          In Yellowstone, respected, and so on, this pressure is abundant at the moment. And with a nuclear strike, an earthquake occurs, and with a massive nuclear strike, a lot of earthquakes follow ... And there can also be a DIRECT SUBMISSION to Yellowstone CRATER ... You are respected, sure, that the planet for such a mockery of itself will not give us all a hat, regardless of religion, nationality and beliefs?
          1. +1
            3 August 2016 00: 20
            It’s time to close up all this nonsense about Yellowstone - someday the eruption will happen, but people will not be involved in it at all - there are no idiots in the General Staff and the Strategic Missile Forces to lay missions and missile flight missions on the volcano.
            1. +3
              3 August 2016 01: 47
              Quote: Vadim237
              It’s time to close up all this nonsense about Yellowstone - someday the eruption will happen, but people will not be involved in it at all - there are no idiots in the General Staff and the Strategic Missile Forces to lay missions and missile flight missions on the volcano.

              Apparently Sakharov, too, was an idiot in your opinion, since he suggested laying nuclear mines along the tectonic fault line ... well, you and your higher education are much smarter.
              1. +1
                3 August 2016 13: 23
                Sakharov was a dreamer - from his success in creating a hydrogen bomb.
  13. +7
    2 August 2016 15: 00
    The decommissioning of Davy Crockett was primarily due to the fact that the Pentagon understood - to start the Third World War, because something seemed to some kind of summer, not ice ..
    Recently, I have repeatedly come across articles that say that the horrors of nuclear war and its consequences are, let's say, exaggerated. The introduction into the consciousness of the layman of such ideas will lead to the use of nuclear weapons, with the tacit consent of the population.
    Py.Sy. "The more I get to know people .. The more I love dogs."
  14. +4
    2 August 2016 15: 21
    [quote = NEXUS] [/ quote]
    And you read yes look at materials about Yellowstone [/ quote]
    Yellowstone, as is known from the Web, explodes once in ~ 600 thousand years. According to scientists, the next explosion is coming soon. According to observations of running animals --- very soon. On a geological scale. But Homo sapiens appeared ~ 400 thousand years ago, the first Pithecanthropus --- 3,5 --- 4 million years ago. How many times during this period has Yellowstone exploded? Does life exist on Earth and our ancestors survived !
    I believe that there is much more harm, and NOW, and without military action, from environmental pollution and deforestation. After destroying the Biosphere, mankind is chopping the branch on which it sits. And nutrition has not yet been created based on synthetics.
    Although not, one girl friend says that everything is already there: sausages, sausages, mayonnaise, soft drinks, chips, etc. I don’t know whether to believe her or not?

    This is not the first time today that a quote has failed. The tablet is probably buggy.
  15. +2
    2 August 2016 15: 34
    Nothing new, moreover, it smells like button accordions (GO textbook).
    But the beginning is promising.
    In general, the author does not disappoint.
  16. 0
    2 August 2016 18: 15
    I didn’t master the article, but judging by the beginning, you have to shut up and sit, and suddenly the international gopnik will not notice and will not touch, but if he touches, then press his legs up and give up. This shobla of us scum superior to us in terms of the number of weapons will bomb us, but we must remain silent, otherwise suddenly we will use nuclear weapons, we’ll infect everything around. The Americans and their vassals must clearly realize that an attack is fraught with their (and ours) complete destruction and their wonderful, comfortable, democratic world.
  17. +3
    2 August 2016 19: 15
    Good start. I look forward to continuing, then the result will be clear
  18. +7
    2 August 2016 20: 12
    Quote: Operator
    Separate warheads of individual guidance with several nuclear charges are currently used not because the accuracy of their hits has increased, but because of military necessity - each target has its own charge of the required power.

    Including because the accuracy has increased. The multimegaton charges on the first-generation ICBMs were precisely due to the fact that it was impossible to achieve the desired CVO. At ICBMs, in particular ours, it sometimes reached 3-5 km. now it is precisely the accuracy that made it possible to replace megaton BGs with kiloton BGs. They are enough to solve problems that were previously assigned to megaton

    Quote: Operator
    Therefore, high-yield single-warhead warheads of 10 Mt and higher will always be in demand for strikes against megacities such as New York, London, Paris, Berlin, Tokyo, Seoul, etc. Voevoda and Sarmat rule in this matter.

    They are no longer in service for more than a quarter of a century. And why use warheads of 10 mt or more, when it is more profitable to use 10 warheads of 500 ct, or 300. The area of ​​destruction will be larger.

    Quote: NEXUS
    Dear, were you beyond that line? Take a trip to Pripyat and take a look. In Hiroshima, freak children are still being born and people in general are born with all sorts of genetic mutations. And there they blew up a bomb of only 20 kilotons.

    In 15 ct
  19. +1
    2 August 2016 20: 31
    Quote: Old26
    why use warheads in 10 MT or more, when it is more profitable to use 10 warheads in 500 ct, or in 300. The lesion area will be larger

    I do not mind - 10 x 0,5 MT square-nested method for each megalopolis of a potential enemy.

    But, on the other hand, one 50-Mt charge weighing 10 tons (the declared maximum throw weight of the Sarmat ICBM) forms a flat glass surface throughout Manhattan, and no one needs low-rise peripheral areas of New York to spend more on them nine charges of 0,5 Mt each - two to four-story brick houses and so will blow off a shock wave from a 50-Mt charge (bonus, so to speak).
    1. +1
      2 August 2016 20: 55
      Again, the specially protected underground control center of the Joint Command of the Aerospace Forces and the ABM system of the North American continent NORAD (located at a depth of over 500 meters under Mount Cheyenne, Colorado) and other similar control centers for the armed forces and government services of NATO countries - for them guaranteed destruction just come in handy 50-MT charges with a ground blast.
  20. +8
    2 August 2016 22: 00
    Quote: Operator
    I do not mind - 10 x 0,5 MT square-nested method for each megalopolis of a potential enemy.

    Even 300 ct is enough. The lesion area is approximately equal. That one 10-it, that 10 x 300 ct

    Quote: Operator
    But, on the other hand, one 50-Mt charge weighing 10 tons (the declared maximum throw weight of the Sarmat ICBM) forms a flat glass surface throughout Manhattan, and no one needs low-rise peripheral areas of New York to spend more on them nine charges of 0,5 Mt each - two to four-story brick houses and so will blow off a shock wave from a 50-Mt charge (bonus, so to speak).

    Andrew! Do not believe the claims of such "talking heads" as deputy. Defense Minister Borisov. He sometimes anneals this ... laughing
    In addition, the declared thrown weight of ICBMs is not only warheads, but also false targets (KSP ABM), and a combat level (breeding level). In addition, the percentage of warheads - no more 40. 10 tons, let’s say so, let Borisov remain on his conscience. This is the first

    The second one. A 50-mt charge can never weigh 10 tons. Modern BGs have a relationship kg to ct about from 1,2-1,5 to 2,0... That is, even with such a good attitude - 2,0 - the weight will be about 25 tons, but not 10. And even 50-mt charges for ICBMs were not designed. They only say that the "Proton" in the UR-500 version seems to be under 100-mt
    1. +1
      2 August 2016 22: 42
      1974 ~ 5-Mt charge W-71 - weight 1,3 tons, power density <4 Mt / t
      2016 ~ 50-Mt charge - weight <13 tons, power density> 4 Mt / t

      A promising missile defense system for a monobloc warhead of an ICBM "Sarmat" may well consist only of a light shell cooled with liquid nitrogen, made of a metamaterial with a negative refractive index of electromagnetic radiation in the optical and radio ranges
    2. +4
      3 August 2016 00: 29
      "Second. A 50-mt charge can never weigh 10 tons. Modern BGs have a ratio of kg to kt from about 1,2-1,5 to 2,0. That is, even with such a good ratio - 2,0 - the weight will be about 25 tons, but not 10 ". - What do you mean - back in the late 50s in the United States they created a Mk 41 bomb weighs only 4 tons 800 kilograms in a three-stage design with a capacity of 25 megatons - it will not be difficult to create a 50 megaton "miniature" charge now - only why X needs it.
  21. +4
    2 August 2016 23: 54
    Quote: Operator
    1974 ~ 5-Mt charge W-71 - weight 1,3 tons, power density <4 Mt / t
    2016 ~ 50-Mt charge - weight <13 tons, power density> 4 Mt / t


    The charges of the 80s do not have such a ratio. Maximum up to 1,5-2, and often less than one. Of course, there were exceptions, such as the B-41. There the coefficient was almost 5,2. But mostly the coefficients were less than even 1,5. Moreover, even if we take our "Tsar-Bomba", then with a capacity of 57 Mt, it weighed 26 tons. So, alas, it will not make it up to 13 tons, and we do not have a carrier with such a throwable weight.

    Quote: Operator
    A promising missile defense system for a monobloc warhead of an ICBM "Sarmat" may well consist only of a light shell cooled with liquid nitrogen, made of a metamaterial with a negative refractive index of electromagnetic radiation in the optical and radio ranges

    The KSP is primarily false targets, incl. and hard, working, what is called "to zero". And their mass characteristics are comparable to the mass of BG.
    1. +1
      3 August 2016 00: 46
      The B41 (Mk41) is a "dirty" three-stage thermonuclear bomb, it is not suitable for analyzing the development of designs of "clean" two-stage charges.
      The Tsar Bomba is an ammunition from the 1950s, one of the first primitive designs with low weight perfection.
      So my forecast for an increase in the specific power of two-stage charges over 40 years from 4 to 5 MT / t is quite realistic.

      PCB missile defense missile defense in the form of false targets - this is the passed stage. In the short term, metamaterials (invisible in outer space) and maneuvering blocks (in the atmosphere) will steer. IMHO
  22. +5
    3 August 2016 08: 40
    You are NOT ATTENTIVE, Vadim. You did not even pay attention to the word that I have now highlighted:
    Modern BG have a relationship ...


    Moreover, I am not saying that it is impossible to create a 50-mt "miniature" charge under modern conditions. Perhaps you can. I'm just not so optimistic as to believe that it will be so tiny that it can be used as a warhead for an ICBM. And the fact that, as you write,

    It will not be difficult to create a 50 megaton "miniature" charge now - only why X is it needed.

    I think that's not the case. They could have created "miniature" charges of such power - they would have done it long ago, especially since there are goals for them. But they didn't. It means they could not. the maximum power of a Soviet warhead for an ICBM was in the range of 20-25 Mt and this charge had a weight much greater than the example you gave.

    Quote: Operator
    The B41 (Mk41) is a "dirty" three-stage thermonuclear bomb, it is not suitable for analyzing the development of designs of "clean" two-stage charges.
    The Tsar Bomba is an ammunition from the 1950s, one of the first primitive designs with low weight perfection.
    So my forecast for an increase in the specific power of two-stage charges over 40 years from 4 to 5 MT / t is quite realistic.

    The forecast, not confirmed by practice, remains a forecast. Despite the need for charges of enormous power to destroy targets located in the rock mass, such a "miniature" transportable charge has not been created. Specific power was achieved precisely by the third stage and "dirty". So, alas, for now it remains your forecast. As at one time, the report of the RAND Corporation on the prospects for space development (from the EMNIP 1966) remained only a "forecast". There, 1975 was designated the year of the landing on Mars, the 80s - the landing on the moons of Jupiter and Saturn, the end of the 90s - the landing on Pluto, and 2010-2015 - the exit into interstellar space. But this report remained an unfulfilled "forecast"

    Quote: Operator
    PCB missile defense missile defense in the form of false targets - this is the passed stage. In the short term, metamaterials (invisible in outer space) and maneuvering blocks (in the atmosphere) will steer. IMHO

    Are you also going to "oversaturate" the enemy missile defense system with "metamaterials (invisible in outer space)"? What's the point in these materials? These "materials", on the contrary, must be visible, the illumination from the mass of such material must "clog" the enemy's radars (along with other methods) in order to disguise the warheads. All these materials, no matter how super-invisible they are, will not pass selection. Like the pieces of foil nowadays, like all these inflatable decoys, etc. - they all "lag behind" the warheads in the upper atmosphere. Maneuvering blocks in the atmosphere will "steer" only if they are "covered" by at least 1-2 false ones, which in their characteristics will not differ from them. And to consider that maneuvering BGs is a panacea - let's say, rather short-sighted. Yes, such BB will be more difficult targets to hit with missile defense systems, but they will not be "indestructible". And they will be able to break through the missile defense if not only they, but also heavy boat targets are used as "targets" for the missile defense
    1. +1
      3 August 2016 10: 03
      Coatings from metamaterials with a negative reflection coefficient of electromagnetic waves make the object invisible during direct or reverse irradiation - the waves go around the object and exit from the opposite side as if the object was not at all.

      A missile defense radar or an imager of an atmospheric interceptor sees only the starry sky. In this case, false targets are not needed - saving the missile weight of ICBMs up to 50 percent.

      Maneuvering warheads only after entering the atmosphere - false targets lag behind them, and the coating metamaterial burns out. The anti-aircraft BB maneuver in the final section (when flying in a plasma cocoon) is the only way to avoid intercepting a missile defense.
    2. +3
      5 August 2016 02: 18
      Unexplored charges cannot be created without tests. For this, they are now using supercomputer simulations. In the USA, this is the ASC program. Calculations on thermonuclear weapons are mainly radiation hydrodynamics and you need to use the Navier-Stokes equations to solve them completely in the problem of the operation of a thermonuclear charge a 100 exaflop computer. A 50-megaton charge can have a mass of 10 pounds. LLNL offered a series of Ripple charges of 000-20 mt and warheads of 50 mt and 35 mt (maybe more) for the Titan 50 and Titan 2a missiles Although Ripple is not conventional radiation implosion, it’s just a large ICF capsule. LANL studied the conventional 2-megaton design of Djinni from 100-1962. That’s how the Americans evaluated King Bomb / I-1965 until 1993, hence the myth that UR The -602 was designed for a 500-megaton bomb. These designs were not tested because of McNamara and other liberals, because of a change in nuclear strategy.
  23. +4
    3 August 2016 23: 09
    Quote: Operator
    Maneuvering warheads only after entering the atmosphere - false targets lag behind them,

    There are those who are not far behind
    1. 0
      4 August 2016 01: 09
      I know about heavy false missile targets. But they are few in the KSP ABM due to the large loss of useful castable weight.

      It is much more efficient to equip each warhead with a controlled aerodynamic skirt and an inertial guidance system from the point of view of increasing the useful casting weight.
  24. +1
    5 August 2016 00: 41
    Here the author writes:
    Bezkatki "Devi Crocket" in the early 60s entered service with the American infantry divisions in Europe. With their help, it was supposed to repel the attacks of Soviet tanks.

    In my opinion, not quite so ... Tanks have not wedged for a long time smile The charge power of the Davy Crockett mine was about tens of tons of fuel cells; such ultra-small nuclear charges are effective mainly by impact of radiation and penetrating radiation, at distances of hundreds of meters, which would rather be more effective against advancing enemy infantry in open areas ...

"Right Sector" (banned in Russia), "Ukrainian Insurgent Army" (UPA) (banned in Russia), ISIS (banned in Russia), "Jabhat Fatah al-Sham" formerly "Jabhat al-Nusra" (banned in Russia) , Taliban (banned in Russia), Al-Qaeda (banned in Russia), Anti-Corruption Foundation (banned in Russia), Navalny Headquarters (banned in Russia), Facebook (banned in Russia), Instagram (banned in Russia), Meta (banned in Russia), Misanthropic Division (banned in Russia), Azov (banned in Russia), Muslim Brotherhood (banned in Russia), Aum Shinrikyo (banned in Russia), AUE (banned in Russia), UNA-UNSO (banned in Russia), Mejlis of the Crimean Tatar People (banned in Russia), Legion “Freedom of Russia” (armed formation, recognized as terrorist in the Russian Federation and banned)

“Non-profit organizations, unregistered public associations or individuals performing the functions of a foreign agent,” as well as media outlets performing the functions of a foreign agent: “Medusa”; "Voice of America"; "Realities"; "Present time"; "Radio Freedom"; Ponomarev; Savitskaya; Markelov; Kamalyagin; Apakhonchich; Makarevich; Dud; Gordon; Zhdanov; Medvedev; Fedorov; "Owl"; "Alliance of Doctors"; "RKK" "Levada Center"; "Memorial"; "Voice"; "Person and law"; "Rain"; "Mediazone"; "Deutsche Welle"; QMS "Caucasian Knot"; "Insider"; "New Newspaper"