Why is a nuclear war between Russia and the United States not so inconceivable?

December 9 2021 71

In the past few years, the United States has openly begun to prepare for a nuclear war with either Russia, or China, or simultaneously with both adversaries. The Americans are conducting exercises, practicing the application of appropriate airstrikes, and are working on a multiple increase in the arsenal of nuclear bombs. It is generally accepted that a real nuclear war is impossible, since it will inevitably lead to the transformation of the planet into radioactive ashes, and there will be no winner. But is it really so?

Unfortunately or fortunately, the times when our country could wipe out an irreconcilable aggressive enemy from the face of the Earth are far behind. Even if the Russian Defense Ministry successfully uses the entire nuclear arsenal, it will be possible to speak not of destruction, but only of causing some "unacceptable damage." Let's look at two options for a nuclear war between Russia and the United States, "ideal" and realistic.

"Ideal" nuclear war

We will consider it ideal, based on several assumptions.

At first, for some reason, the Kremlin will forget about its military doctrine, according to which, instead of a preemptive nuclear strike, we reserve the right only to retaliate.

Secondly, suppose that the American and NATO intelligence services, for some unthinkable reason, “miss” Russia's open preparations for war and the deployment of all its strategic nuclear forces.

What do we have? In fact, not so much. In accordance with the START-3 treaty, we have reduced ourselves to the point that our "nuclear shield", aka "nuclear sword", looks like this: deployed nuclear warheads up to 1550 units, intercontinental ballistic missiles, ballistic missiles of submarines and heavy bombers - up to 700 units. All in all, the Strategic Missile Forces have on account 1165 ICBMs, the Russian Aerospace Forces - approximately 800 air-launched cruise missiles with a nuclear warhead, the naval component of the "triad" in the form of 11 RPLSN carries 16 ballistic missiles (BRP) with multiple warheads (approximately 720 nuclear charges).

The very same nuclear war can presumably look like this: the first wave is strikes by ICBMs and ballistic missiles, the second is strikes by air-launched cruise missiles from strategic bombers Tu-160M and Tu-95MS. A third wave is also possible - with atomic bombs on what is left. And there can still be a lot left, even in spite of the first two waves.

To win a nuclear war with the United States, Russia will need to destroy all of its key military infrastructure and industrial potential, starting, naturally, with a nuclear arsenal. We'll have to strike missiles at silos with Minuteman ICBMs, at bases of strategic submarines, at airfields with strategic American bombers, at command bunkers, at warehouses with nuclear weapons. There are calculations, and it is quite convincing, that for such a large number of targets we simply do not have enough intercontinental ballistic missiles, or enough, but end-to-end. At the same time, all the affected areas will be American Ohio-class SSBNs and strategic bombers, which the US Air Force will have time to lift into the air. And this we do not take into account the American missile defense system, which, undoubtedly, will intercept part of the ICBM!

That is, even in the most ideal version for the RF Ministry of Defense, having spent all or almost all of its nuclear arsenal, will not be able to "zero" the military potential of the United States. Most of the industry will remain, there will be losses among the population, but not "critical", unless, of course, this can be said about the deaths of 20-30 million people out of 330 million. The pissed off Americans will have what to do to retaliate against our country.

By the way, the casualties among the Russian population from a nuclear retaliation strike will be immeasurably higher, since we are mainly concentrated in a couple of dozen megacities, which will become radioactive mass graves. Americans, on the other hand, live in one-story houses in large areas, and there are simply many times more of them than us. At the same time, the main US military bases abroad will remain intact, which are located around the Russian borders, the European NATO bloc is at our side in the west, as well as Japan in the east, which will undoubtedly be included in the process of finishing off and dividing Russian territory.

Note that this was all an “ideal” scenario, when we were ready and for some reason struck first, as the Leningrad gateway teaches us.

Realistic scenario

In reality, everything can be much more pessimistic.

Even if the Kremlin, for some unknown reason, decides to launch a preemptive strike, preparations for such an action, in principle, cannot remain unnoticed. If the Pentagon sees the deployment of Russian strategic nuclear forces, which will not stop after warnings from Washington, the most likely American preemptive strike on key components of our "nuclear triad."

Here, the first to enter into action are American SSBNs with their Trident-2 ICBMs, which can knock out a significant part of the military infrastructure of the RF Ministry of Defense. We have almost nothing to fight with "Ohio", because we are a "great land power", and Russia does not really need a fleet. We're more afraid of tank wedges on St. Petersburg and Moscow from Poland and the Baltic states. Then the American ICBMs and strategic aviation will work out. By the way, a truly effective missile defense "umbrella" has been created only around Moscow. All other regional centers, where military factories are located, will be under the nuclear aim of the Pentagon.

Of course, all this is said tentatively, any layouts are possible. However, the main conclusion is disappointing: nuclear war in the 21st century is not something unthinkable, and it will not lead to the death of the entire globe. Nuclear weapons are an important deterrent, but not a panacea. It is possible to frighten Americans, Europeans or Japanese with our "red button", but carefully. Note that in Moscow they themselves are very nervous about such a prospect. For example, Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov recently said:

We are concerned about a lot of what is happening among the Americans in terms of their attitude to the role of nuclear weapons. They are lowering the threshold for the use of nuclear weapons, and they are preparing doctrinal and materially for this.

To catch up, we note that the United States has already developed and put on alert on its nuclear submarines low-yield nuclear warheads W76-2, and now plans to multiply the number of its tactical nuclear bombs in the B61-12 modification, bringing their number to 480. This is just for “ third wave "or against a weaker enemy that does not have a modern missile defense system.

Information

Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.

gunnerminer

-12

9 December 2021 13: 04

on bases of strategic submarines, on airfields with strategic American bombers,

They will be dispersed at the first signs of an impending attack. And to attack deployed, even partially forces, the Russian command will not have enough operational or technical capabilities. The nuclear attack forces of France and Great Britain are not taken into account.

In pursuit, we note that the United States has already developed and put on alert on its nuclear submarines low-power nuclear warheads W76-2, and now plans to multiply the number of its tactical nuclear bombs in the B61-12 modification, bringing their number to 480

They have an emphasis on the low power of nuclear warheads, and high accuracy of firing. Due to the continuous information field. After the completion of the Starlink program, several thousand satellites will be deployed, allowing continuous monitoring in real time (not dropping capsules with photographic materials and flash drives) over objects. with a truck, type PGRK.
1. Marzhecki
  
  -5
  
  9 December 2021 13: 17
  
  They will be dispersed at the first signs of an impending attack. And to attack deployed, even partially forces, the Russian command will not have enough operational or technical capabilities. The nuclear attack forces of France and Great Britain are not taken into account.
  
  I specifically made a reservation that we are talking about an ideal scenario, where a lot is taken in parentheses.
  1. gunnerminer
    
    -14
    
    9 December 2021 13: 29
    
    The State Department is clearly striving for such an ideal scenario. And with each half of the year, the conditions for such a scenario are improving more and more, due to the space, sea and air directions. Where Russia has the most degrading opportunities. The Russian leadership suddenly became alarmed, 30 years later, about NATO's advance to the East Yes, it has already chosen all the possibilities. The question of the occupation of the Ukrainian and Georgian bridgeheads is only a matter of time.
    1. Siluch
      
      +6
      
      9 December 2021 16: 04
      
      You already have brains on one side with your "degrading capabilities". A question of time, how much is it? Thirty years have already passed since their "victory in the Cold War", and the bridgehead has only appeared in your head ... Already use it, wipe the foam from your lips and don't pee against the fan ... You look like Tabaki with your graphomania ... Do you remember how it all ended for Kipling?
      1. gunnerminer
        
        -12
        
        9 December 2021 16: 37
        
        A question of time, how much is it?
        
        Maximum 5 years.
        
        Thirty years have passed since their "victory in the Cold War," and the bridgehead was only in your head ..
        
        Compare with Ukraine in the late 90s and the current one.
        
        Tobacco ... Do you remember how it all ended for Kipling?
        
        Thank you for the compliment! And for reading my comment. Analyze it constantly. Discuss it out loud with your colleagues.
2. sgrabik
  
  +8
  
  9 December 2021 14: 27
  
  As usual, missed the mark, just to blurt out something and show their alleged "knowledge".
  1. Marzhecki
    
    -6
    
    9 December 2021 15: 07
    
    Refute if you can.
    1. Dear sofa expert.
      
      +3
      
      9 December 2021 20: 26
      
      Current number of warheads
      7700 nuclear warheads on 415 deployed strategic delivery vehicles
      
      Wikipedia
      
      Where do you get your numbers from?
    2. unholyknight
      
      +7
      
      9 December 2021 21: 04
      
      Yes Easy. What's the point of planting on military infrastructure? A couple of warheads in metropolitan cities are enough for the United States to forget about its imperial ambitions for a couple of centuries, if not forever. And far from one will fly - hundreds of warheads in cities will lead to the collapse of the US economy, which simply cannot work outside of established supply chains. What will the military do if there is no one to feed them? Give it to drink? Provide fuel? Yes, both the Russian Federation and the United States will find themselves in the most complete and deepest ass, and therefore there will simply not be a nuclear war in its usual form. It's not fucking profitable for the United States to commit economic suicide, and the Russian Federation to attack the United States with the first nuclear warheads without serious provocation, too, there is no great reason.
      1. Marzhecki
        
        0
        
        10 December 2021 18: 22
        
        Yes Easy. What's the point of planting on military infrastructure? A couple of warheads in metropolitan cities are enough for the United States to forget about its imperial ambitions for a couple of centuries, if not forever. A
        
        By megacities? Kind person. Do not be offended later, that later it will arrive and according to ours.
        
        sH, arK
        
        +2
        
        11 December 2021 15: 27
        
        You are a strange person;) I served at 667BDRM over 30 years ago. And I will explain, there are three options for strikes at the beginning of a nuclear war:
        1) Proactive
        2) Counter
        3) Response
        
        The USSR was always officially guided by the last two;) To beat missile silos with such strikes, do we understand that it is pointless? A strike on missile silos is justified only in case of a preemptive strike - is there any point in hitting empty ones ?!
        
        Two other types of targets remain - military infrastructure (command posts, decision-making centers, headquarters, military bases, warehouses, factories) or general infrastructure, including cities, nuclear power plants, etc. The military infrastructure is, first of all, a point and close-by one - therefore, it is primarily the target not of the Strategic Missile Forces, but tactical nuclear weapons! Therefore, Russia has more TNW than the rest of the world combined. Troops, warehouses - targets for TNW!
        And we, on boats, first of all, had to carry out a counter-value strike, this is Norfolk and San Diego, of course, but also all the industrial zones of large cities and the cities themselves! For a counter-value strike, low-power warheads, 50-250 kt, were chosen, accuracy was secondary. Impact - isosceles triangle, warheads are optimized for infrared radiation. I. e. less shock wave, more IR radiation! Blasting height - 1 km. Target features - light, unprotected, but huge areas. The task is the defeat by vortex fires (in American construction, lightweight structures are used, the simultaneous call of large areas of ignition creates annular vortex flows of combustion products, which are the main factors of destruction). Radiation contamination and neutron radiation - minimized!
        Now, as I understand it, the radiation contamination of the area will soon come to the fore - this has a very strong and long-term delayed effect! It does not imply further land battles, they hit - and forgotten. That territory does not suggest any more interest in the near foreseeable future!
        The task of tactical nuclear weapons is actually the exact opposite! Defeat point or highly protected targets with immediate effect and minimal long-term damage to the environment. Ideally, after an hour or two of the field of impact, the terrain should be accessible with minimal risk of attack.
        I think that now, everything has remained approximately the same ...
        
        R / S: Indirectly, this is confirmed by the very same warhead of the same Bulava - MIRV up to 10 YaZ with a power of no more than 50kt. Light weight - the total weight of the "bus" implies only air blasting of weak nuclear weapons. Logics? - precisely the anti-value, areal blow.
        
        Alex Orlov
        
        0
        
        15 December 2021 23: 34
        
        By megacities? A kind person. Do not be offended later, that later it will arrive and according to ours.
        
        You yourself spoke about cities in your article. That they are dispersed, we have in megacities. Hence, kirdyk. That is, the article initially implies strikes against cities.
    3. shinobi
      
      +3
      
      10 December 2021 05: 57
      
      To refute? Easy. To inflict unacceptable damage to the US infrastructure, only 100 warheads of 125 kt are required. According to the analysis of the Pentagon's operations planning department, somewhere on the VO there is a translated article. These are 10 Voevoda ICBMs launched from beyond the Urals and / or Siberia, it is assumed that everything in the European part of Russia was knocked out by the first blow of the United States. What is behind the Ural ridge, the United States does not have time to get to the United States. There is not enough flight time. According to the agreements, 1600 warheads are deployed on 400 carriers. Even if 40% of our arsenal remains, the figure from the report of their "general staff" after the first strike will be enough for America to be completely destroyed and there will still be little left for NATO in general. Tactical nuclear weapons, with a nominal value of 0,1 kt up to 25kt, of which Russia has approximately 2500 storage units. Talk about Nuclear War is just talk.
      1. Marzhecki
        
        0
        
        10 December 2021 18: 23
        
        It’s easy. To inflict unacceptable damage to the infrastructure of the United States requires only 100 warheads of 125 kt. According to the analysis of the Pentagon's Operations Planning Department, somewhere on the VO there is a translated article.
        
        Come on, come on, what are these secret translated articles
        My sincere advice: be more critical of everything that is written in the United States. There, people either hype on a resonant topic, or they simply knock out money to increase funding and therefore "are terribly afraid of Russia." The second most correct explanation.
        
        What is beyond the Ural ridge, the United States has no time to get it purely physical. There will not be enough flight time.
        
        Where did the flight time come from? From the Ohio submarine somewhere in the Arctic Ocean? Or from Eastern Europe, or soon from Ukraine?
        
        At the same time, tactical nuclear weapons were not taken into account, with a nominal value of 0,1 kt to 25kt, of which Russia has approximately 2500 storage units.
        
        That's it, that's in storage.
        
        shinobi
        
        0
        
        11 December 2021 06: 52
        
        They are not secret, search and find. The flight time to the Ural ridge from Eastern Europe is 8-10 minutes, the Voevoda's acceleration to the suborbital one is 3-4 minutes. All infa is in the public domain.
Peter Sergeev

-5

9 December 2021 13: 54

Most of all, Europe will definitely be unlucky (after the western part of Russia, of course). Yes, I once served in the Strategic Missile Forces at Borisk. And now, listening to how Putin raised our army, I just giggle. In the mid-90s, we had three times more strategic weapons. Well, you see, after all, we always went out with the greatest losses in all wars. Unfortunately, yes, the fact that for us the apocalypse is to lose 2/3 of the population, for others, and tens of millions of tragedy.
Of course we will lose the war, bite and bite hard, but we will lose without options. France was reminded that they have 500 warheads, this is the third nuclear power in the world, about which for some reason very few people even remember.
well, and a tactical weapon of low power. We have a lot, only "without the sky", we are unlikely to be able to effectively apply it, after the global nix in our country.
An umbrella around Moscow, with a maximum probability of 99%, will only work. if you launch 100 warheads, everything will not go astray.
What a way out, no need to joke with such things and that's it. In general, I don’t know what to do in a global war. We will not pull the arms race like the USSR. In my youth, I had the idea that Russia would create on its territory without means of delivery a charge of fantastic power, say 1000 Megatons, somewhere in the Smolensk region, so that "when everything" would blow it up)) Well, what, I have Army, the control room had explosives and in the event of a possible seizure of the car, the car had to be blown up.
These are the hypothetical reflections on this topic.
1. sgrabik
  
  +4
  
  9 December 2021 14: 44
  
  There are no such concepts today as to lose or win a war, for those who still do not understand, there will be no separate regional conflicts between Russia and NATO, we will always conduct hostilities taking into account nuclear weapons, otherwise there simply will not be, for today this is our main deterrent and we will always rely on it, all these ridiculous talks of pacifists that many people will die do not stand up to criticism, because we are not going to attack anyone first, we defend our own national interests, nothing more !!!
  1. Marzhecki
    
    -6
    
    9 December 2021 15: 27
    
    You still haven't understood anything, although they explained it to you.
  2. gunnerminer
    
    -9
    
    9 December 2021 16: 05
    
    it simply will not be, for today this is our main deterrent and we will always rely on it, in
    
    Lean for the time being.
Marzhecki

-7

9 December 2021 14: 20

Quote: Peter Sergeev
What a way out, no need to joke with such things and that's it. In general, I don’t know what to do in a global war.

Yes, in the comments of every second cheers-patriot, the command console from the Strategic Missile Forces is built right into the sofa. Almost immediately, Japan or the United States is being turned into nuclear ashes.
1. Siluch
  
  +8
  
  9 December 2021 15: 48
  
  Do you know what your problem is? Here you write, it seems in Russian, but unequivocally "knowing that nothing shines for Russia ..." From generation to generation, this idiot lives among the Westernophiles, here, de Russkikh right now, herak, we will break through the knee, and that's it, wiping the sweat from his forehead , - to have a rest ... Your problem is that your remotes, built into your brain, are also built into the sofa. You, poking your finger in your own nose, bring to light an irrepressible amount of your "expert theories" based on one commonality - "Russia's weakness" and its inability to resist an attack, which will lead to its inevitable death. Didn't the historical civilizational past teach you anything ...? Let me explain for the slow-witted and half-witted: in the history of the civilizational development of the planet, there is more than one aggressor (even if he had local successes at the initial stage, he did not achieve the final goal). And in the case of the history of Russia, this is expressed most clearly. Obviously Sergei Viktorovich is right, as a feeder replenishes, so it tears the roof ... One word - "DB ..."
  1. gunnerminer
    
    -11
    
    9 December 2021 16: 09
    
    And in the case of the history of Russia, this is expressed most clearly. Obviously Sergei Viktorovich is right, as a feeder replenishes, so it tears the roof ... One word - "DB ..."
    
    In words, one thing. But in fact, he left Russia even without reliable companions. He did not achieve a single real military or naval base that would allow him to control the routes of the merchant fleet. The failure with the Sudanese base is indicative.
    1. Siluch
      
      +7
      
      9 December 2021 16: 27
      
      Do not try to walk wide, you will tear your pants ... What are you talking about? There is an elder in the garden, in Kiev there is an uncle. These examples of yours are out of place ... We tried with the bases, it didn’t work ... So it’s not the time. Who can argue that the hegemon is strong (he has a lot of "tobacco" all over the world), but he is no longer omnipotent (Syria and Afghanistan, and North Korea, and Iran, and China and all today's realities are an example of this). For the time being, on the remnants of "authority", they are keeping all these hangers-on, "tobacco" in their orbit, but this is so far ... And what fellow travelers does Russia need? The Chinese are not our friends, but they are not fools, because they understand that the United States and its henchmen will crush them and Russia one by one. That is why we are witnessing a constant and steady rapprochement of the positions of Russia and China in the face of a common enemy. It is clear that later you will have to "sort out the situation with China", but this "later" ... Change your nickname to "Tabaki" - it will be more honest ...
  2. The comment was deleted.
  3. Marzhecki
    
    -7
    
    9 December 2021 19: 28
    
    Do you know what your problem is? Here you write, it seems in Russian, but unequivocally "knowing that nothing shines for Russia ..." From generation to generation, this idiot lives among the Westernophiles, here, de Russkikh right now, herak, we will break through the knee, and that's it, wiping the sweat from his forehead , - to have a rest ... Your problem is that your remotes, built into your brain, are also built into the sofa. You, poking your finger in your own nose, bring to light an irrepressible amount of your "expert theories" based on one commonality - "Russia's weakness" and its inability to resist an attack, which will lead to its inevitable death.
    
    I have never been a Westerner. I am an informed realist.
    These problems are not mine
Tektor

+9

9 December 2021 14: 54

Well, that won't be quite the case. We will notice the deployment of state strategic nuclear forces. And immediately the re-equipment of missiles for the maximum number of warheads will begin: Bulava will have 10 units, Yarsi will have 6 each, etc. Only then will we warn the Yankes that they are planning their own funeral. By this time, our Borei (each strategist has 160 nuclear submarines on SLBMs and 12-16 on calibers) will have to take positions to strike targets in the states along a flat trajectory (at a distance of up to 2500-4000 km targets) with a flight time up to 10-16 minutes. Further, they will not wait for the launch of missiles at us, but for the moment when this launch becomes inevitable according to the information received. Those. even before the start, proactively. At the same time, the Tu-142 will have to guard the launch of the SLBM from Ohio: the carcasses should be armed with Daggers. The first to reach the targets will be the Zircons from the carriers in the Atlantic and Pacific oceans, about 5 minutes after "H". Further Vanguards and blocks from the Maces.
Iskanders and Bastions will cover all of Europe, and the MiG-31BM with R-37M (up to 6 missiles on board) in a special version with a range of 370 km will be taken over a wide variety of targets.
1. Marzhecki
  
  -3
  
  9 December 2021 15: 25
  
  By this time, our Borei (each strategist has 160 nuclear submarines on SLBMs and 12-16 on calibers) will have to take positions to strike targets in the states along a flat trajectory (at a distance of up to 2500-4000 km targets) with a flight time up to 10-16 minutes. Further, they will not wait for the launch of missiles at us, but for the moment when this launch becomes inevitable according to the information received. Those. even before the start, proactively. At the same time, the Tu-142 will have to guard the launch of the SLBM from Ohio: the carcasses should be armed with Daggers. The first to reach the targets will be the Zircons from the carriers in the Atlantic and Pacific oceans, about 5 minutes after "H". Further Vanguards and blocks from the Maces.
  Iskanders and Bastions will cover all of Europe, and the MiG-31BM with R-37M (up to 6 missiles on board) in a special version with a range of 370 km will be taken over a wide variety of targets.
  
  To accomplish these tasks - covering the Boreis and hunting Ohio - you need a normal fleet and naval aviation.
  How many Tu-142s do we actually have to watch the missile launch?
  How many anti-submarine helicopters do we have in the Navy?
  Who and how will provide the anti-aircraft defense of the search and strike anti-submarine group against the actions of the US Navy AUG?
  Isn't there too much tied to the fleet and naval aviation, which we have frankly uncompetitive with the American? (plus there is also the navy of the NATO bloc and Japan)
  1. Siluch
    
    +5
    
    9 December 2021 16: 59
    
    "Strategist", how did it happen that the United States was frankly blown away by the issue with North Korea? You naively think that the United States did not calculate its own and North Korean capabilities in causing damage to the enemy. Well, having a powerful fleet and naval aviation (clearly superior to the North Koreans), the United States simply dreamed to miss a missile strike with nuclear weapons from North Korean submarines both on the territory of the United States and on these sophisticated AUGs. What if one submarine (seemingly outdated trash) is not caught? What if the Koreans already have a semblance of "Poseidon"? Have you been reported from Langley on this matter?
    1. Marzhecki
      
      -5
      
      9 December 2021 19: 36
      
      Have we already switched to "you"? I can and on "you", but I do so only as a sign of disrespect for a person who has lost my respect for his behavior.
      
      "Strategist", how did it happen that the United States was frankly blown away by the issue with North Korea? You naively think that the United States did not calculate its own and North Korean capabilities in causing damage to the enemy. Well, having a powerful fleet and naval aviation (clearly superior to the North Koreans), the United States simply dreamed to miss a missile strike with nuclear weapons from North Korean submarines both on the territory of the United States and on these sophisticated AUGs. What if one submarine (seemingly outdated trash) is not caught?
      
      This is your interpretation, based on a complete misunderstanding of the essence of the issue.
      1. unholyknight
        
        +3
        
        9 December 2021 21: 06
        
        this is the Internet and you can contact here as it is convenient.
        
        Marzhecki
        
        +1
        
        10 December 2021 18: 18
        
        This is a Reporter edition and you must abide by the rules of decency towards its regular contributors. If you don't understand, the moderators will tell you about it.
2. gunnerminer
  
  -7
  
  9 December 2021 16: 18
  
  We will notice the deployment of state strategic nuclear forces. And immediately the re-equipment of missiles for the maximum number of warheads will begin: Bulava will have 10 units, Yarsi will have 6 each, etc.
  
  This procedure will take more than one month, taking into account support and communication activities.
  
  By this time, our Borei (each strategist has 160 nuclear submarines on SLBMs and 12-16 on calibers) will have to take positions to strike targets in the states along a flat trajectory (at a distance of up to 2500-4000 km targets) with a flight time up to 10-16 minutes.
  
  Due to their small number and lack of provision of anti-aircraft defense, anti-aircraft defense, air defense even for peacetime, they cannot move in that direction unnoticed and invisible.
  
  At the same time, the Tu-142 will have to guard the launch of the SLBM from Ohio: the carcasses should be armed with Daggers. The first to reach the targets will be Zircons from carriers in the Atlantic and Pacific oceans,
  
  The Dagger complexes were not even installed on 5 MiGs. There is no means of operational support. The Tu-142M after the capital has only 7 machines. With useless avionics from the 70s. They fly with restrictions. Or with a full supply of fuel, or without ammunition. The missile of the Dagger complex is useless. against underwater and mobile targets. There are very few carriers of 3M22 Zircon, and the prospects for an increase in their number are diminishing every six months.
  
  Iskanders and Bastions will cover all of Europe, and the MiG-31BM with R-37M (up to 6 missiles on board) in a special version with a range of 370 km will be taken over a wide variety of targets.
  
  Even Shurygin and Prokhanov have not composed such tales for a long time.
Alexey Davydov

+8

9 December 2021 15: 18

Nuclear weapons are an important deterrent, but not a panacea. It is possible to frighten Americans, Europeans or Japanese with our "red button", but carefully.

Sergei, we probably have nothing else in our hands.
To begin with, let us realize that, of course, an exchange of nuclear strikes with us is absolutely unacceptable for them.
30 million people, partially or completely destroyed global infrastructure for making profit, the possibility of strikes on the places of residence of the world's elite, the inevitable deterioration of their living conditions, uncontrollable and uncontrollable process, etc., etc.
They want something else:
- to confront us with the obviousness of the uselessness of resistance and force us to surrender,
or, if they cannot:
- to inflict an absolutely effective decapitation strike on the centers of decision-making on the use of strategic nuclear weapons, which will remove our resistance from the agenda in general.
As you can imagine, we are already in a vulnerable situation.
If we want to be adequate, we must accept for ourselves that the measures of the permissible risk and generally permissible in it are completely different.
In order to survive, we need to risk our heads, otherwise there is a full guarantee that it will be removed.
As far as caution is concerned, of course you are right.
It is necessary to make full use of the factors of effectiveness of the threat of the use of nuclear weapons from our side first.
In my opinion, they are:
- causing unacceptable political and economic damage
- destruction of the world comfortable for the West
- destruction of their scenario of "free" subordination to Russia
- seizure of the initiative by us
The fact is that they are counting on completely different costs.
In 1962, the Americans, too, had every reason to get their way no matter what. The socialist system grew by leaps and bounds. There were 14 countries in it.
The missiles in Turkey and Italy were supposed to open a hole in our defenses for a major nuclear strike.
The potential costs increased and the Americans abandoned these “tempting” plans.
Again, we need to put a sufficient argument in the balance.
1. Marzhecki
  
  -3
  
  9 December 2021 15: 30
  
  I agree with you. When there is no strength to win in a conventional way, you have to shake the nuclear baton.
  Alas, I doubt that the Americans are so afraid of our actual use of nuclear weapons (they said in another article).
  I believe that nuclear war is quite real, but most likely it will be limited. The Americans will choose their victim more comfortable and throw it with low-power nuclear missiles and nuclear bombs. So as to intimidate the rest of the world and reaffirm the status quo.
  The question is who is out of luck this time.
  1. Alexey Davydov
    
    +2
    
    9 December 2021 16: 01
    
    Alas, I doubt that the Americans are so afraid of our actual use of nuclear weapons (they said in another article).
    
    Now, probably yes. But the situation also disposes them to relaxation.
    As soon as we reach for the club, and even more so, take it in hand, they will begin to doubt their assessments. Like: who knows these Russians?
    Our measure of despair, they must feel.
    Then they will believe. Exactly
    1. Marzhecki
      
      -3
      
      9 December 2021 19: 34
      
      In order for them to have doubts at least, our Commander-in-Chief must act without doubt in everything else.
      But with his many-way moves in Ukraine, he gives reason to doubt the determination to take such radical measures as the use of nuclear weapons. But the Americans will not flinch.
      1. Alexey Davydov
        
        +4
        
        9 December 2021 20: 36
        
        When someone is "squeezed into a corner" - even an indecisive one commits "puzzling" acts. So far, we have defiantly ignored our position. This was a tactical mistake. They might think that we are losing the will to resist.
        We must show them that they have squeezed us into a corner, and we are aware of this.
        It is unrealistic to demand from us "prudence" in this situation.
        We need not to "puff out our cheeks in front of the mirror," but to be adequate to the position in which we find ourselves.
        By the way, if I'm not mistaken - it looks like this is already starting to happen.
  2. Siluch
    
    +1
    
    9 December 2021 16: 37
    
    But what about the guise of a peacemaker around the world? Is the United States ready to give a damn about the image it has been embedding for so long as "the most democratic, most civilized, most peaceful nation in the world"? Are they really ready to show their true colors?
2. gunnerminer
  
  -6
  
  9 December 2021 16: 25
  
  In my opinion, they are:
  - causing unacceptable political and economic damage
  - destruction of the world comfortable for the West
  - destruction of their scenario of "free" subordination to Russia
  - seizure of the initiative by us
  
  This requires a government and the leadership of state corporations, free from American secret and overt friends. Patriotic. But the second generation of children and nephews, nieces of the Eolith has grown up, brought up and educated in educational institutions of the EU and the United States, and the financial system of Russia. So they will be against such steps. This is how they received a different upbringing. This is also typical for the former CIS countries.
  1. unholyknight
    
    +1
    
    9 December 2021 21: 09
    
    oh, and it will be so for foreign guys to take these places away from them and for foreign uncles joe to force them to share their income? Yes, right now. As if these guys who were trained in the EU countries were not more aggressive guys with a right-wing bias, who want to bite off a larger piece of the pie for themselves than Russia is now allotted to.
    1. gunnerminer
      
      -3
      
      9 December 2021 21: 12
      
      oh, and it will be so for foreign guys to take these places away from them and for foreign uncles joe to force them to share their income? Yes, right now.
      
      Yes, here and now. These are children, grandchildren, granddaughters, nephews, nieces of current officials, deputies, senators.
      1. unholyknight
        
        +1
        
        9 December 2021 21: 14
        
        And we will scratch all of them one size fits all. A unitary crowd, yeah Damn it, even the states with their own population cannot brainwash everyone at once, if only because they still have young people with an openly right-wing bias. And for every lover of liberal shit in the ass there is no one suffering from pangs of conscience at the thought of throwing Western partners at the grandmother.
        
        gunnerminer
        
        -3
        
        9 December 2021 21: 46
        
        And we will scratch all of them one size fits all. A unitary crowd, uh-huh
        
        No one will touch their relatives. 30 years have not passed in vain in lack of ideology. The most prominent indicator is the attitude to the delights of conscript service. Even the Army of Our Movement project was covered by the very first. After the announcement a few months later.
        
        And for every lover of liberal shit in the ass there is no one suffering from pangs of conscience at the thought of throwing Western partners at the grandmother.
        
        I haven’t been there for 30 years, but I’ll find it in a month.
        
        unholyknight
        
        +1
        
        10 December 2021 00: 57
        
        will not touch your relatives? Yes, right now. As if you don't have relatives whom you can't stand. Believe me - there are enough people for whom the relationship is to spit out and grind. And as for any jingoistic patriotic movements - they are dear to them there. In general, urgent service for the good should die out a little - if the state needs people who are ready to kill for the interests of Gazprom, let it deign to fork out. This is what all adequate countries with an imperial policy do - and at least the same states and France.
        
        gunnerminer
        
        -3
        
        10 December 2021 16: 00
        
        Believe me - there are enough people for whom the relationship is to spit out and grind.
        
        Recent Russian history shows the opposite.
        
        unholyknight
        
        0
        
        10 December 2021 17: 40
        
        What is this?
        
        gunnerminer
        
        -3
        
        10 December 2021 17: 59
        
        Petr Fradkov, Aleksey Rogozin, deputy of the Moscow region Krivoruchko (higher education in absentia at 40), representative of the President in the State Duma Kosopkin, Chubais, and others.
boriz

+6

9 December 2021 15: 41

It's time to stop these conversations about anything.
Nuclear weapons were built up precisely to prevent a nuclear war.
All these bellicose shouts in the West are designed exclusively to knock out money for the military-industrial complex.
In the 61st century, B12-21 bombs can only scare elementary school students of a boarding school for mentally retarded children.
Russia has already won. Simply because he can afford to take his time. We have a reserve of time. Others do not have it.
Plus, the rise in energy prices is forever. Yes, prices will drop a little, but they will not return to the previous level even close. This is guaranteed by the interest not only of Russia, but also of the United States. We see that gas prices have skyrocketed, and coal prices have increased significantly. But not oil prices. Oil is the weak point of the United States. And Russia did not begin to pedal their growth. But gas and coal - yes, to mutual pleasure. I have no doubt that this is one of the points of the agreements in Geneva. Prices will be held and we will get nothing for it.
And the people have not yet realized the consequences of the rise in these prices. Russia will very quickly return what was stolen from it over the past 20 years and will receive (and has already received) powerful leverage over other countries.
And this post and yesterday's hysteria of Necropny with the style "everything is gone" cannot be taken without laughter, especially in the light of the Putin / Biden talks and their first results.
- The sanctions from the United States towards Russia quickly faded away.
- Ukraine SAMA offered to return 24 detainees and pardon 18 previously released.
- Ukraine SAMA proposes a truce from December 10.
- The Associated Press reported that State Department officials told Kiev that Ukraine cannot count
to join NATO in the next 10 years. Question: where will NATO be and where will Ukraine be in 10 years?
And the results of Biden's call to Zelensky, which was postponed from Tuesday to today, have not yet been announced.
1. gunnerminer
  
  -8
  
  9 December 2021 16: 28
  
  Russia has already won. Simply because he can afford to take his time. We have a reserve of time. Others do not have it.
  
  With a population diminishing as after a nuclear strike. There is no reserve of time. With a growing technological lag, there is little chance of creating modern weapons and weapons.
  
  to join NATO in the next 10 years. Question: where will NATO be and where will Ukraine be in 10 years?
  
  NATO has enough Ukrainian foothold, and Ukrainian cannon fodder.
  1. boriz
    
    +3
    
    9 December 2021 16: 31
    
    I, at the end of the comment, especially for people like you, wrote out the first results of the negotiations concerning Ukraine.
    What is not clear?
    1. gunnerminer
      
      -7
      
      9 December 2021 19: 54
      
      There are no radically positive results, as well as the negotiations themselves.
      negotiations end with the signing of agreements.
      1. boriz
        
        +4
        
        9 December 2021 21: 20
        
        What agreements were signed in Tehran in 1943? Declaration, protocol of intent.
        And in Yalta in 1945? Only an agreement on the entry of the USSR into the war with Japan. But it was secret. The zones of influence remained on some pieces of paper. But these tacit agreements were largely respected.
        Now the agreement is underway.
        And the signing of the agreements ends the negotiations of the ministers.
        
        NATO has enough Ukrainian foothold, and Ukrainian cannon fodder.
        
        NATO refused to accept them. They ordered not to provoke the Russian Federation. They explained that the LDNR should be autonomous. An hour after the negotiations, it turned out that there were no sanctions against the United States in the US military budget. At the same time, there was no call to Zelensky yet, it was postponed until today at 20.30.
        And no one will report the main agreements to us. The less you know the better you sleep.
        One can only guess.
        
        gunnerminer
        
        -2
        
        9 December 2021 21: 50
        
        The State Department, in the person of Biden, signed any documents based on the results of remote negotiations. Auto rights. As long as nuclear weapons exist, in all forms, there is a high probability of the use of nuclear weapons for direct purpose. As soon as the United States receives convincing evidence of the impossibility of a retaliatory strike for political, economic or operational reasons, they YaBP will be applied immediately.
        
        isofat
        
        +2
        
        9 December 2021 22: 26
        
        Don't advertise pindos. When it comes to US agreements, their signatures cost little.
        
        gunnerminer
        
        -2
        
        9 December 2021 22: 33
        
        The USA shows that they have the right to any maneuver. The owners give their word, they want it, they want it taken away. The rest cannot do that. The resource is weak.
    2. isofat
      
      +2
      
      9 December 2021 21: 09
      
      Quote: boriz
      I, at the end of the comment, especially for people like you ...
      
      boriz, apparently your interlocutor belongs to a different category, you made a mistake and underestimated him!
2. Alexey Davydov
  
  +2
  
  9 December 2021 17: 06
  
  It's time to stop these conversations about anything.
  
  Be the first to lead by example: The topic is important and worth discussing.
  
  The US is following its plan for us. They are not ready yet.
  Concessions to Ukraine, or even the States, are not our real goal, if the States are playing for time in this way.
  We are still operating in the "corridor" of their plans. The outcome for us at the end of this "corridor" is predetermined by the Americans.
  Even this aggravation of relations with them is beneficial to us now.
  We must use it and counter their threat with ours. Radically changing the whole situation. Right now. With full determination to carry it out.
  If we cannot on the economic plane, then on the military one.
  Otherwise, we will be crushed at the end of the "corridor" when they have everything ready.
  Let's remember 1962. Operation Anadyr and the Tulip exercise, when we fired a warning shot with nuclear weapons at the Novaya Zemlya test range.
  In order to stop the enemy it is not necessary to withstand his next blow.
  Now it means preventing them from striking with devastating sanctions. Precisely NOT to GIVE, but not to transfer to the future.
  By doing this, we will finally break the course of events of the last decades, which is unfavorable for us, in all directions at once.
  Unless, of course, our goal is to save Russia, and not surrender it to the enemy
  1. boriz
    
    +3
    
    9 December 2021 17: 19
    
    In general, Ukraine was some of the fifth or tenth topic of negotiations. Not to mention the sanctions.
    Don't give a damn about the sanctions. They will harm the United States much more than we do.
    We are talking about dividing the world into zones, defining the boundaries of zones, the rules of relationships in the new world, the cost of resolving some conflict situations. And these situations - in the last place, concern Ukraine. This is a minor question.
    For example, have you ever wondered what carried Putin the day before the talks in India? What happiness Modi's face shone with! In the conversations after the talks about India - not a word. And about China too.
    But Putin has not been elected anywhere lately, as has Xi. And Biden was constantly hiding in his country residence. Before the negotiations, it was high time to solve the problems of the liberals by eliminating Biden, Xi or Putin. And Putin went to India. So what did he suggest to Modi?
    Probably, what concerns China and India is much more important than some country 404. Behind this, most likely, is the reformatting of the whole region.
    Well, the very question of zones around the world is very important. And the hype around Ukraine is a smokescreen.
  2. Marzhecki
    
    0
    
    9 December 2021 19: 31
    
    Thanks. It's nice to read the comments of adequate, sane people who do not engage in hats.
Marzhecki

0

9 December 2021 15: 45

Quote: boriz
It's time to stop these conversations about anything.
Nuclear weapons were built up precisely to prevent a nuclear war.
All these bellicose shouts in the West are designed exclusively to knock out money for the military-industrial complex.
In the 61st century, B12-21 bombs can only scare elementary school students of a boarding school for mentally retarded children.

Very frivolous and superficial judgment.
1. boriz
  
  +1
  
  9 December 2021 15: 51
  
  This is not an argument.
BoBot Robot - Free Thinking Machine

0

9 December 2021 23: 53

NS! No need for tears - we will plant a ten megaton bomb on them in Vegasik - they will capitulate at once!
1. BoBot Robot - Free Thinking Machine
  
  +2
  
  13 December 2021 18: 55
  
  py si
  and but New York too!
shinobi

+1

10 December 2021 06: 04

Pan Marzhetsky in his role. He just switched from aircraft carriers to nuclear weapons. And so everything is the same. "Help Chief! Everything is lost! The plaster cast is removed, the client is leaving!"
1. Marzhecki
  
  -1
  
  10 December 2021 18: 20
  
  Someone else will certainly take your bare ass
  1. shinobi
    
    0
    
    11 December 2021 06: 55
    
    Yeah, there were a lot of them. And now they come across from time to time. The truth ends for them it is always equally sad. Health is certainly not like that of a 30-year-old, but I can still
consultant

+1

10 December 2021 09: 33

It is generally accepted that a real nuclear war is impossible, since it will inevitably lead to the transformation of the planet into radioactive ashes, and there will be no winner. But is it really so?

This is so in fact, therefore all other reasoning is insignificant. It doesn't matter where the bombs go off - nuclear winter and seismological shifts will provide a guaranteed kaput for everyone. Those who do not die right away will envy the dead. Yes, and do not forget about the Perimeter, it will definitely finish off the survivors. And then the Russians go to heaven, the rest will simply die.
Mantrid Machine

0

10 December 2021 11: 52

In the United States, there are several Achilles' heels, nuclear strikes on which will make the United States shut up for a long time. First of all, megalopolises. Deprive the Yankees of their usual way of life and everything will collapse. Remembering the Trump riot. Second coast. Poseidons, no matter how fabulous they seem, we will not write off. Third is their Yellowstone Wildlife Refuge. Picturesque nature, beauty, and in fact a time bomb in the form of a sleeping supervolcano. True, striking the latter will backfire not only for the United States but for the entire planet ... And even forgot the Hoover Dam
1. Alexey Davydov
  
  -1
  
  11 December 2021 11: 53
  
  a child's dreams with matches
  1. Mantrid Machine
    
    -1
    
    12 December 2021 06: 16
    
    Grandpa, if there are no arguments to object, there is no need to bother arthritic fingers with letters
    1. Alexey Davydov
      
      0
      
      12 December 2021 12: 39
      
      Thanks for the good answer.
      As for the proposal to strike at megacities and supervolcanoes, there are probably better targets for a first strike. After all, a retaliatory blow will follow, and with your first blow you need to reduce it to a minimum. Our General Staff and their KNSh have long been engaged in the development of plans for the optimal distribution of warheads under various scenarios. This is the business of specialists.
      Theses are defended on these issues and academic degrees are awarded.
      Probably, first of all - the centers for making decisions on the use of strategic nuclear weapons. Maybe something else.
predessor

0

13 December 2021 21: 52

A nuclear war cannot be won even at the planning stage, because here you have to choose the strongest move for the enemy. And the last strong move will be something like the "Dead Hand" system, which will destroy everything that is left.
Moreover, all these nuclear weapons are designed to intimidate the enemy, deprive him of his will and lose without any war.
The United States could unleash a nuclear war 100 times back in the 50s, when there was no parity.
But they always lose more in such a war, because they have more. And the Postman will come to save the remaining population, not in the person of Kevin Kestner, but a man of Chinese origin.
The United States will never be a great power after that.