Does Russia need a 100 megaton nuclear bomb?

6
The United States of America is openly preparing for World War III. President Trump has decided to withdraw from the INF Treaty, a key document guaranteeing international security. Next in line are START-3 and the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty. At the same time, Washington is increasing its budget for modernizing the nuclear arsenal. It would be extremely naive not to see in all this a threat to our country.





The Pentagon intends to surround Russia with a picket fence from missile launchers and missile defense systems from the West and East in order to minimize the risk of retaliation. Unfortunately, today the Russian Federation is not in the best shape to compete on an equal footing with the United States in the arms race. And for some reason, the Americans are not afraid of our Zircons, what are we told earlier.

There are very serious doubts that our army will be able to "reach" not just Washington, but at least Lisbon. Famous military expert Konstantin Sivkov explains:

Follow in the footsteps of the USSR will not work - a group of Ground Forces, which is guaranteed to defeat NATO and occupy Europe, can not be created for economic, demographic, or spiritual reasons.


There is also an extremely unpopular opinion that Russia will not have enough of the entire nuclear arsenal to completely destroy the United States, which we also already told. Even in the event of a full-blown strike against modern anti-missile defense systems, no more than 20 million Americans will be destroyed, which for Washington, no matter how cynical it sounds, will not be unacceptable losses.

So what to do? Mentioned Konstantin Sivkov proposes to return to the Soviet concept of guaranteed retaliation with an unacceptable level of damage:

There is only one way out - to make nuclear war irrational again, meaningless for the aggressor.


However, Russia’s nuclear club will not be enough for this. It is necessary to resurrect the famous thermonuclear “Tsar bomb”, but making it several times more powerful, bringing the force of the explosion to 100 Megatons, so that it could sweep away the enemy’s cities alone.

In the late 602s, the USSR created the AN1961 thermonuclear bomb as a response to Washington’s nuclear blackmail. During tests in October XNUMX, a bomb was dropped from an airplane over a test site on Novaya Zemlya. The force of the explosion exceeded more than three thousand times the bombs that the United States dropped on Japan. The outbreak was even seen in Alaska, and a blast wave three times circled the globe. Unfortunately, or, fortunately, the bomb did not go into series, but the mere fact that Moscow had it was enough for the warlike John F. Kennedy not to cross the last line and not start a nuclear war during the Caribbean crisis.

Today, the situation is largely similar. There is no real military parity between the United States and the Russian Federation, and Washington intends to strengthen its advantage. The answer in our realities can only be asymmetric and unimaginable in power. It will be enough to create 40-50 stomegaton thermonuclear warheads aimed at key US cities, tectonic fault lines and Yellowstone, to again make the American elite capable and understanding partners.
6 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. Bakht
    Bakht
    +1
    20 March 2019 14: 04
    The strategy of "unacceptable damage" has been known for a long time and there are no precedents for its successful use. For the first time it cracked during the First World War. The idea behind the creation of the High Seas Fleet was that in a real collision, the Royal Navy would suffer such great losses that Great Britain would no longer be able to dominate the sea. And so she will not dare to go to war. Therefore, the "dreadnought race" was started. The British responded by saying that they would build two of their own for each German battleship and that the funniest thing was that they kept their promise. In any case, this did not stop the war. The concept finally collapsed on May 31, 1916. When Admiral Fischer, without hesitation, threw his entire Fleet into battle against Scheer. Despite the tactical victory, the Germans lost strategically. And the concept died. Until the advent of nuclear weapons. But Konstantin Sivkov, it seems to me, makes several fundamental mistakes.
  2. Bakht
    Bakht
    +1
    20 March 2019 14: 19
    Let's try to consider the basic concepts.
    Creating super bombs is quite possible. But is it feasible as a weapon on combat duty? The Tsar bomb weighed 40 tons. Perhaps it’s less now. But is there a physical stockpile of nuclear and thermonuclear fuel in the country? Are there any media? Economic opportunity? The situation of the 60s of the 20th century and the 20s of the 21st century are very different. 60 years ago there was no continuous radar field, there were no warning satellites, there were no mobile and stationary missile defense systems. 50-60 ballistic missiles could well reach the United States. Will they fly now? In any case, the development of nuclear weapons did not go along the path of increasing capacity, but along the path of shared units of lower power, but with a GUARANTEED delivery to the addressee.
    Second point. What is the purpose of nuclear weapons? You need to have it so that it is never used. Who is the enemy of Russia, then and now? NATO countries. America is one of the members of this organization. Yes, the strongest and most influential. And Washington can take the risk and turn the whole of Europe into a "lunar landscape". No pity. But will the European capitals agree with this? To have at gunpoint even tactical nuclear weapons Brussels, Berlin, London and (necessarily) Warsaw seems to me a more reasonable decision. And not like cheaper ones. Alone, even the States will not risk starting a full-scale war. So the main task should be to knock America's allies out of the deck. So having a hundred or two medium-range tactical missiles is more promising. By the way, this is precisely why the liquidation of the INF Treaty is more than desirable.
    The third point is purely political and somewhere repeats the second. The NATO Charter contains the so-called "fifth clause". An attack on one of the NATO members means an automatic attack on all. The Russian Foreign Ministry is simply obliged to expand this provision. "An attack by ONE NATO member automatically means a retaliatory strike against ALL NATO members." Perhaps this will slightly cool the ardor of the limitrophes and Washington, that is, the main bully of this organization.

    PS Of course, Yellowstone is a pretty tempting target. But maybe there are cheaper and more efficient ways?
    1. Oleg RB
      Oleg RB
      0
      20 March 2019 17: 40
      You can use Tu-160 as a shell, for example.
      However, they’ll bring them down anyway.
      1. Bakht
        Bakht
        0
        20 March 2019 18: 18
        Tu-160 "White Swan" - strategic supersonic bomber. The approximate cost for 2018 is 160 billion rubles. Piece goods, each has a proper name. In total, there are 16 of them in service.
        1. Oleg RB
          Oleg RB
          0
          21 March 2019 08: 23
          In the courses. Do you think the bomb will come out cheaper?
          1. Bakht
            Bakht
            +1
            21 March 2019 09: 17
            So I'm not a supporter of the superbomb. And I think so, the bomb will be cheaper. The cost of the bomb is present in both versions. The cost of the carrier and the delivery guarantee matter. What is more expensive: rocket or TU-160? And strategists are needed to solve other tasks.

            Russian bears