Application and implementation of a nuclear strike. Nuclear missile attack (RNSS)
America already wanted to launch nuclear strikes on the USSR several times:
Operation Dropshot 1949. Planned to begin bombing on January 1, 1957. By this time, the USSR had enough of its own atomic bombs.
Bombing of Soviet troops in Cuba 1962. America did not want to bomb under its own nose. And look a year later, exactly the day the Cuban Missile Crisis ended, Kennedy passed away, and a year later Khrushchev was sent into retirement. In other words, whoever had more responsibility received a bullet, and whoever had less responsibility received a pension.
The owners of the US Federal Reserve will not allow them to do this. And especially now. How can they risk their main business (printing world money, the dollar), when there are examples in history of attacks on the USSR (now Russia). Hitler also thought that he had everything figured out and that in eight weeks the USSR should be finished. This is where he had a hard time. In general, everyone knows the result of the Barbarossa plan.
And these world financiers will take it and begin to control not just one emission center, but several (although, in my estimation, they already control the Russian Central Bank).
And if we assume that America really intends to strike Russia, then, as ZUB correctly said, a GPS jammer is installed and the missiles become blind, like kittens. And the preparation for this incident cannot be hidden from the world community (what kind of preparation is needed), Russian intelligence services, and even more so from the people who print money and control a huge amount of the world’s media.
“The annexation of Russia is supposed to be divided into three parts: the western part goes to the European Union, the central part, Siberia, to the USA, the east to China. This is roughly the picture,” he said.
What can I say, America will get the Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan wars combined. And even then these three wars will only be shown to her by the roots, and the sprouts and flowers will already be in Russia.
Do you think that America will be able to control such a huge territory, but then it will have to put its entire population under arms and send it to Siberia, and the Siberians (I myself live in Siberia) will show them guerrilla warfare for years and even decades to come. They will be forced to send resources in caravans, as they did during the Battle of the Atlantic, and station soldiers along the pipelines.
Once upon a time (after the end of the active phase of the Second Iraqi Company) I saw a video on the Internet that was filmed in Iraq. So the camera was installed on a sniper rifle with a silencer. On one of the streets of some Iraqi city stood Hamer, two American soldiers stood next to him. And this sniper first took down one, the other came up to see what happened to the first, and also received a bullet. Iraqi children were running not far away and they quickly realized what was happening, collected rifles, grenades and all the weapons of the killed American soldiers and quickly retreated. And Hamer remained standing in the middle of the street, unguarded by anyone, only two corpses nearby. And it was all on video, the camera was running all the time, so there was no editing. But the history of Hammer is not known, because... the video ended (maybe it was dismantled for metal, or maybe it was taken to the garage to be used against the Americans themselves.
So nothing good awaits in Iraq, and especially in Afghanistan (where the Taliban trained on our soldiers during the Afghan War of 1979-1989). We are waiting for the withdrawal of American troops from these two states. But they won’t go to Siberia, so sleep well, the Americans haven’t had enough of Russia yet. It will soon begin to happen to them that it will be time to send in UN peacekeeping troops.
So everything will be fine. Sleep, eat, give birth and raise children and don’t worry about anything.
Do you know why Obama was awarded the Nobel Prize? Because it is a sacrificial animal. He will be responsible for what will happen to America during his reign, like our Gorbachev. But what will happen is clearly not fun; it may even lead to centrifugal processes. Remember how in April 2009 the governor of Texas said that his state could secede from the United States. But in America nothing has really begun yet. And these are only the seeds of this process; roots, stems, flowers and berries will come later. Let's look at this performance, it will be very interesting and instructive. And the prize is compensation for moral costs, the same compensation as was given to Gorbachev in 1990. By the way, they were given the prize in the same category - for peace. Don't you think this is strange?
The Russian General Staff recognized the possibility of a covert nuclear strike by the United States and the high probability of intercepting missile defense missiles. The US armed forces have sufficient potential to intercept Russian and Chinese ballistic missiles, the Russian General Staff believes, which poses a threat to the strategic forces of Moscow and Beijing.
As Deputy Chief of the Main Operations Directorate of the General Staff of the Russian Armed Forces Viktor Poznikhir said on Wednesday during the VI Moscow International Security Conference, the United States is creating systems that will make it possible to deliver a high-precision strike from orbit on command posts of the Russian Federation, and in the future these capabilities will increase.
Also, according to the deputy head of the General Staff, Washington has every opportunity to launch a covert nuclear strike on Russia. As the military leadership clarified, this is indicated by American missile defense bases located in Europe.
Speaking about a covert nuclear strike on Russia, Deputy Chief of the Main Operations Directorate of the General Staff of the Russian Armed Forces Viktor Poznikhir could have been referring to the possibility of the United States putting cruise missiles with nuclear warheads in launchers instead of interceptor missiles.
In turn, the Russian military will consider the American missile defense system as a means of shooting down ballistic missiles from space, but in practice everything will look different.
And given that NATO troops are stationed at the Russian borders, the Americans are theoretically capable of shelling Russian territory with their cruise missiles, right up to the Urals.
At the VI Moscow International Security Conference held the day before, representative of the General Staff of the Russian Armed Forces Viktor Poznikhir presented the results of computer modeling of the functioning of US missile defense systems during their interception.
In addition, he hails the technical capabilities of the missile defense launchers that are deployed in Poland and Romania and on missile defense ships.
Based on all these data and assessments, technical conclusions were made: that in the near future the American missile defense system will be capable of intercepting not only missiles from North Korea and Iran, as was announced several years ago, but also from the Russian Federation and China, which are launched in the northern and northeast directions.
American radar stations, which will be located in Poland, Romania, South Korea and on the maritime component of the eastern direction, are capable of detecting the launch and flight path of Russian ballistic and cruise missiles from almost the entire territory of the Russian Federation.
However, this does not mean that the missiles can be physically destroyed at such distances and with the existing capabilities, explained Sergei Khatylev, head of the anti-aircraft missile forces of the Special Forces Command of the Russian Air Force (2007-2009). MK-41 launchers deployed in Romania and Poland and, possibly, South Korea are capable of launching nuclear-tipped cruise missiles.
Previously, Russian President Vladimir Putin has repeatedly stated that the American missile defense system is not defensive, but offensive in nature. The targets could be the strategic nuclear forces of the Russian Federation: an attack on the bases of Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles (ICBMs) would be a counterforce strike, and a cruise missile strike on control points would decapitate the country’s entire nuclear shield system.
“Today’s US missile defense capabilities to intercept Russian and Chinese missiles are limited, because it is extremely difficult to physically implement this.
However, in the future, this situation may change, because it cannot be ruled out that the United States, under various pretexts, will update existing mobile systems, but this will take some time, and such tests cannot be carried out secretly.
Today, the US missile defense system, as the American military themselves say, resolves strategic issues, that is, the system is opposed to Russian strategic nuclear forces.
However, when using cruise missiles, the Americans will be able to solve operational and tactical issues in a certain area of operation. Therefore, today such a threat to the Russian Federation really exists, but it’s up to air defense and missile defense specialists to specifically calculate all the details, and for intelligence to obtain the necessary information,” explained the military expert.
As stated by First Deputy Chairman of the Federation Council Committee on Defense and Security Franz Klintsevich, the warning of the Russian General Staff that the United States has every opportunity to launch a covert nuclear strike on our country is a signal to the American leadership that the Russian government is ready for any development of events .
Despite the fact that Russian experts have studied the characteristics of American Tomahawk missiles, they have yet to digitally calculate the effectiveness of these cruise missiles when used in a specific area of territory. It is worth recalling the situation when, out of 59 Tomahawk missiles, only 23 missiles reached the Syrian Shayrat airbase.
Despite the fact that the Russian Ministry of Defense denies any involvement in the disappearance of the missiles, many military experts agree that electronic jamming of precision weapons was to blame. According to Russian estimates, by 2022 the number of US missile defense missiles will be more than a thousand units.
Since the beginning of this year, the United States began deploying its THAAD missile defense systems in South Korea. The system will be put into operation “in the coming days.” “Nobody fully knows the effectiveness of the American missile defense system, so if from a Russian nuclear submarine, which is in a combat position, at a distance of up to a thousand kilometers from the United States, the Americans shoot down three missiles out of 10 launched Russian ICBMs, then the rest will definitely reach US territory.
In addition, the latest electronic warfare (EW) complex, which is being put into operation this year, further reduces the capabilities of the American missile defense system,” noted Sergei Khatylev.
As clarified by the United Instrument-Making Corporation (UPK), which has developed the newest electronic warfare complex, which will compete with analogues from the USA, Great Britain, France and Israel, the name of the newest complex “is unlikely to appear in the press in the near future,” but they clarified that the system was created using modern advances in microelectronics, processor technology and software.
Today, perhaps, only two countries in the world have high-precision cruise missiles - the United States with its Tomahawk and Russia with its Caliber.
In general, they belong to the same class of missile weapons. In October 2015, ships of the Russian Navy used Kalibr cruise missiles for the first time in a real combat operation during the Syrian operation against militants, which caused a real sensation.
Currently, almost all of the newest surface ships and submarines of the Russian fleet have become carriers of the Caliber family of missiles. The American Tomahawk was first used in real combat conditions during the Gulf War.
In total, the US Navy used 288 of these missiles. Most of them reached their targets, but some of the missiles were lost for technical reasons or shot down by enemy air defenses.
In subsequent operations, the Americans also used these high-precision weapons, but there were cases where the cathode of the rocket deviated from the intended target or did not reach at all. A large number of modifications of missile systems, both Russian and foreign, have the ability to carry nuclear warheads.
Follow us
Mexican0 23-08-2013 02:52
Good everyone..
In the ward we often discuss how to fight off the sadomite aliens, whether an asteroid will fly past when global cooling/warming sets in, we tell our dreams about a nuclear war, but we don’t always imagine what we can say next, there is a danger no less terrible, no less global , more real for all of us as residents of one country, one state, one people.
We read in science fiction books about nuclear wars, but how often do we imagine numbers, scales, data that are even remotely close to reality?
In this topic I will show you a small part of one document, namely some calculations and plans, calculations made not during the Cold War, but quite recently.
Which cities of ours are/are possibly being planned to be attacked, at what time, what losses are expected and based on what they are calculating.
I think this will be interesting, especially considering the latest events in the world.
My translation, don’t throw stones, translated as much as time, patience and strength allowed.
IMMEDIATELY A HUGE REQUEST TO ALL LIVING IN THE CITIES MENTIONED AND NOT MENTIONED IN THIS DOCUMENT, STRICTLY DO NOT WRITE, DO NOT ARGUE, DO NOT DISCUSS, DO NOT SPREAD ABOUT HOW, WHERE, WHEN, WHAT PRODUCTION, CIVIL DEFENSE A, UTILITIES, VARIOUS OBJECTS, SOCIAL AND THE ECONOMIC, CRIMINOGENIC LEVEL IS, IN WHAT CONDITION AND OTHER THINGS EVEN SEEM TO YOU TO HAVE NO VALUES, MEANINGS? SMALL THINGS AND DETAILS.
ALL THIS MAY BE USEFUL TO OUR POTENTIAL "FRIENDS".
US ATTACK ON RUSSIA'S NUCLEAR FORCES.
Calculation of a scenario for an attack on Russia using land- and sea-based strategic missiles to deliver from 1124 to 1289 warheads with a yield of 294.9 and 320.6 megatons,
depending on the time of year, shows that the use of 1,289 warheads would result in casualties of between 11 and 17 million people, including between 8 and 12 million dead.
As of mid-2001, Russia has 360 operational ICBM bunkers and 52 interconnected control center bunkers, distributed over six zones: Kozelsk, Tatishchevo, Uzhur, Dombarovskiy, Kartalay, and Aleysk.
These zones line up in a 3,700 kilometer arc from the west of Moscow to the east of Siberia.
We, Russia, will have to dismantle many of these bunkers according to the agreements within the framework of START.
The picture number and comments are located UNDER the picture.
Figure 4.1
360 active (red) and 711 dismantled (blue) missile silos in Russia and the former Soviet Union. Some were in Ukraine and Kazakhstan.
US military analysts have calculated that an explosion with an excess pressure of 10,000 to 25,000 pounds per square inch may not be enough to seriously damage a Russian bunker.
The strength of Russian bunkers has a significant impact on American nuclear war planning.
While ground explosions provide a higher probability of destroying bunkers, they also cause wider consequences. Achieving a significant probability of bunker destruction requires at least one MX warhead or one W88 in the bunker, especially for the SS-11/19 III-G type MOD silo. To increase the likelihood of serious damage, two such warheads are required per bunker.
Figure 4.3 Double hit of W87 and W88 warhead on Russian SS-18 and SS-11/19 silo depending on explosion height.
Figure 4.4
Strike all our active ICBM launchers. This takes into account the calculation of winds typical for June. Radiation doses are given during the first two days after an attack on an unprotected population.
Total losses 16 million with fatalities.
More than 175,000 square kilometers will be contaminated with radioactive fallout to such an extent that there is a 50% chance of death among the unprotected population
Figure 4.7
Monthly dynamics of losses when our ICBM bunkers are hit. Wind speed and direction are taken into account.
W87 warheads for each of ten SS-24 and 20 SS-27 silos (also assuming they are Type III-G MOD), and a combination of W87 and W88 (Trident II) warheads for 180SS-18 silos (assuming they are Type III-G MOD) to type III-F).
A US strike on Russian mines uses 500 W87 warheads (all there are) and 220 W88 warheads (with a total yield of 250,000 kilotons).
They estimated that 93% of SS-19, SS-24 and SS-27 mines would be seriously damaged (167 of 180 mines) and 94% of SS-18 mines (169 of 180 mines) would also be seriously damaged
Only 24 mines will not be seriously damaged.
The attack uses 500 W87 warheads - equivalent to all MM III missiles, converted into monoblock W87 missiles, with improved accuracy up to 91 meters.
The attack also uses about half of the available W88 warheads - slightly more than the maximum number of warheads that can be deployed on board a single Trident.
Figure 4.8
Monthly dynamics of losses due to an attack on our ICBM silos. The achievement of targets of 80% of warheads and shelters in the form of standard residential buildings is taken into account. Wind speed and direction are also taken into account.
Figure 4.9
Casualties resulting from a combination of attacks on cities:
Aleysk-28.5 megatons; Dombarovskiy-31.2 megatons; Kartaly - 26.6 tons; Kozelsk-36 tons; Tatishchevo-72 megatons, Uzhur-49.4 megatons.
Figure 4.11
Kozelsk. Calculated for the month of June. The estimated dose is given for the unprotected population. Total losses were 16,100,000 people, 13,300,000 of which were fatal.
Attacks on silos pose a far greater threat to Russian civilians and the environment than attacks on the other seven categories of targets that make up Russia's nuclear forces.
Figure 4.4 shows the result of MAO-NF strikes on all active Russian mines, assuming the most likely winds in June and 50 percent shot division for all weapons.
The fallout has spread over a wide area of 175,000 square kilometers and threatens an estimated 20 million Russian civilians.
Let us remind you that the purpose of the attack is to destroy 360 Russian missile silos
Our conclusions about losses from radioactive fallout depend on weather conditions, population shelter, and warhead fission.
To evaluate these changes, we calculated 288 possible attack scenarios:
For twelve months of the year, 83 weather conditions, 94 types of shelter. 288 calculations for each of 360 mines.
The number of victims from radioactive fallout ranges from 4.1 million to 22.5 million.[
people if there is no shelter, and from 1.3 to 15.1 million if all
affected people may have remained inside residential or multi-story structures for at least two
days after the attack (see Figure 4.5).
Calculations using the no-shelter assumption illustrate the total number of civilians at risk.
Assuming no shelters, the death toll from radioactive fallout ranges from 3.2 million to 17.6 million people.
If all affected persons can remain inside residential or multi-story structures for at least two days after the attack, then the death toll is reduced to between 0.8 and 3.8 million people (see Figure 4.6).
The large difference in the number of victims at a given level in the shelter depends primarily on the monthly change in wind direction and speed.
Figure 4.7 shows this change in losses per month under conditions of dividing shares of 50 percent, rather than sheltering the population, and Fig. Figure 4.8 displays this change in losses over the month, assuming a division of 80 percent and residential shelters.
We find the maximum number of victims in the month of June (see Figures 4.7 and 4.8).
This month, precipitation winds are blowing from the Kozelsk zone directly to Moscow.
Figure 4.8. The death toll in June is not much higher than for other months, since the assumption of a residential shelter limits the deadly area to just outside Moscow.
The figures 4.9 and 4.10 show how the number of casualties and accidents depend on the specific area of the missile attack.
While significant seasonal variations exist, an attack on two zones in European Russia (Kozelsk and Tatishchevo) would result in a greater number of casualties, orders of magnitude greater than an attack on Siberia, due to the larger population size and density.
Numbers 4.11 and 4.12 show close-up the consequences of attacks on the Kozelskaya zone near Moscow and the Tatishchevo zone, as well as missiles on the Volga.
Figure 4.13 provides a close-up view of the aftermath of a model attack on Siberia, showing the contamination of large areas of Kazakhstan.
Figure 4.12.
Tatishchevo. Expected for December. Doses are calculated for the population sheltered in multi-story buildings. For these input parameters, the total casualties are 450,000, including 270,000 fatalities.
Figure 4.13
Kazakhstan. Attack on missile silos in Dombarovskiy and Kartaly. This calculation takes into account winds for February. The dose is calculated for the unprotected population. For these input parameters, the total losses are 977,000, including 745 thousand dead.
Population density, shown in gray, is superimposed on the Fallout models.
60,000 square kilometers of Northern Kazakhstan will be contaminated with such levels of radioactive fallout that half of the unprotected people will die.
Quantitative estimates of damage and casualties depend on weather conditions and our assumptions regarding population sheltering and the division of US warhead shares.
To assess these weather conditions and uncertainties, we conducted 288 simulations for each of the SS-25 bases and garrisons.
The number of victims depends on the proximity of the targets to major cities. To illustrate the changes, we compare attacks using W76 warheads on the Nizhny Tagil SS-25 Teykovo base.
Figure 4.20 shows the impact of twelve ground attacks on the SS-25 base in Nizhny Tagil.
As shown in Figure 4.21, a W76 attack on the SS-25 base/garrison at Teykovo would result in deadly conditions in the city of Ivanovo (population 1,989,481,000).
Figure 4.20
division of shares 80 percent.
Figure 4.21
Twelve Warhead attacks on Teykovo SS-25 garrisons and bases.
In the month of December, assuming insecurity of the population and warheads, the share of the division is 80 percent.
The total number of victims is 804,000 people, of which 613,000 were fatal.
Figures 4.22 and 4.23 show the range of casualties and casualties due to seasonal variations in wind speed and direction depending on population cover and warhead fractionation for an attack of 100 W76 warheads on 50 SS-25 targets.
The figures show that the extent of overall casualties or fatalities depends more on the population's cover than on the warhead's division rate. The total number of casualties ranges from 344,000 to 2 million if there is no shelter, and 142,000 to 757,000 if all affected persons can remain inside residential or multi-story structures for at least two days after impact.
If shelter is not included in the calculation, the death toll from fallout ranges from 244,000 to just over one million.
If all affected people were able to remain inside residential or high-rise structures for at least two days after the attack, then the death toll is reduced to between 105,000 and 527,000.
Figure 4.24 shows how monthly changes in winds affect the number of victims.
Figure 4.25 shows the maximum casualties for individual bases/garrisons for four cover values.
For most SS-25 bases/garrisons, particularly Irkutsk and Novosibirsk, sheltering the population in residential areas for the first two days after the attack will dramatically reduce the estimated number of casualties from the aftermath.
Figure 4.22
Summary of casualties in the attack on SS-25 garrisons. Losses are calculated taking into account the population shelter factor, fission warhead, seasonal fluctuations, and the most likely wind speeds and direction.
What, without going into philosophical and political delusion, can ordinary Prepper, comrade Ganzovets, draw useful, practical conclusions from this topic?
1. The most likely month for a nuclear strike and the most dangerous month for the MSK and surrounding areas is JUNE.
3. The number of warheads that, in the event of nuclear weapons, would have to fall on Kozelsk and the surrounding area - it will be much greater than what will fall on Moscow and the surrounding area. Simply because there are dozens of mines, and they can only be hit with a direct hit. And most importantly, the explosions will be GROUND, therefore they will be accompanied by the release of a huge amount of radioactive soil into the atmosphere.
Moreover, there is no need to guess whether it will fly or not - in the event of any war with the USA, it will GUARANTEED to fly there, because the Pendos also want to live, and for this they need to take out all our missiles with a guarantee. Well, how many can fly to Moscow and its environs? At best, a dozen warheads, most of them airborne. And more than a hundred will fly to Kozelsk, all on land.
That is, if you estimate the amount of radioactive rubbish in the atmosphere, which will subsequently fall out in the form of radioactive fallout (the notorious fallout), one attack on Kozelsk will produce MUCH more than all other explosions in the region (including what could hypothetically fall on Moscow in the worst case scenario) .
4. When choosing the drape/shelter/jokerville route, you need to try to be as far as possible from Kozelsk and the Kaluga region in general. Because in the event of a nuclear attack, it will get hot in a very childish way.
5. When evacuating in the event of a nuclear explosion, you need to monitor the wind, see where it will carry radioactive fallout and choose a route accordingly. So: when making calculations, it will be necessary to take into account not only and not so much the nearest mushrooms, but Kozelsk. And if you find yourself on the leeward side of Kozelsk, then you need to move to the side even if there is no danger in the immediate vicinity. And the sooner the better.
To be continued..
P.S. Thanks to BAU member.
The document has an important continuation, where at the end the authors call for a reduction in the number of warheads, a cessation of missile defense development, declassification of nuclear strike plans, deactivation of flight missions in carriers, and other pacifist calls to the Pentagon.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Luckily there are better options. We recommend the following.
1. Unilaterally reduce U.S. nuclear forces and challenge the Russians to do the same.
As a first step, we should unilaterally reduce the U.S. strategic arsenal to a few
hundred survivable nuclear warheads, and challenge the Russians to do the same.
The United States would still have a more than adequate nuclear deterrent while we
waited for Russia to act. Regardless of our actual targeting policy, under their worstcase planning assumptions, our friends in Russia would know that our weapons
hold millions of people at risk.
2. Clarify the U.S. relationship with Russia and reconcile declaratory and employment
policy. We also recommend a step that derives directly from our findings in this
report. We stress the fact that the act of targeting an individual, a group, or a
nation defines it as an enemy. It is this first step that we must reverse. We don't
target friends or allies-Canada, Britain, Italy, for example-but we do target
Russia, China, and several others. The United States still seems to be confused
about our relationship to Russia. In his speech at the National Defense University,
President Bush said, "Today"s Russia is not our enemy." But our actions with
regard to nuclear war planning project the exact opposite implication and assumption. If our words and our actions are to correspond, then it is obvious that changes
must take place in the way the United States postures its forces and plans for them
use. Having a permanent war plan in place that demands widespread target
coverage with thousands of weapons on high-alert is a recipe for unceasing arms
requirements by the Pentagon and a continuing competition with Russia. It is
for this reason that we conclude that the overambitious war plan is the key source
of the problem.
3. Abandon much of the secrecy that surrounds the SIOP and reform the process. A
corollary problem with the war plan is the high level of secrecy that surrounds it.
Because the guidance and the SIOP are so closely guarded, no one can question the
assumptions or the logic. The fact that USSTRATCOM has responsibility for drawing
Taraz999 23-08-2013 08:10
broke my head over this map
I absolutely don’t understand why Nizhnevartovsk and Yakutsk are on it
tigershark 23-08-2013 08:30
For that matter, the most likely time of impact is winter.
Botany Bay 23-08-2013 08:31
Comrad, what year is the report? According to START-3, we, as ams, should have no more than 1.5K warheads on the database.
Not long ago, information was leaked about the minimum number of targets and which ones in the Russian Federation need to be covered in order to cause irreparable damage to it. Obama ordered this research for his experts. The answer contains only 50 goals (though without goals for the nuclear triad and the country’s leadership). Indirect confirmation of this is also the fact that Obama wants an even larger-scale reduction of nuclear weapons. So that there are less than a thousand charges on each side.
So, as an option, I think that now the concepts have changed a lot. No one is going to completely destroy the population with bombardments of nuclear weapons. It itself will die out from hunger, disease and radiation.
This would make me dance. Those. If a loaf of bread hasn't flown into your city, it doesn't mean you're lucky. On the contrary, all the fun is just beginning.
Pivnic 23-08-2013 08:42
Nuclear war is too cool, scary, expensive and environmentally unsafe) The price tag of 8 euros for oil is enough.
Botany Bay 23-08-2013 08:42
quote: Originally posted by tigershark:
America was discovered. This plan is over 10 years old. At the moment it is irrelevant, because... The US doctrine of warfare has been changed and revised several times. That's why it's been made public.
For that matter, the most likely time of impact is winter.
Autumn.
Radioactive fallout and fuel problems will prevent harvesting... and then winter will come. Without heat, fuel, clean water and food.
Botany Bay 23-08-2013 08:44
quote: Originally posted by Pivnic:
Nuclear war is too cool, scary, expensive and environmentally unsafe) The price tag of 8 euros for oil is enough.
You first lower it to this level all over the world and don’t die yourself...
Lovecraft 23-08-2013 09:00
US ATTACK ON RUSSIAN NUCLEAR FORCES
For what? The UN troops will be brought in and a new administration will be appointed. Putin to The Hague.
Renegad 23-08-2013 09:09
Don't tell me... UN troops... we'll throw hats and hats at them.
And what will he do there, in this Hague? Maybe it’s better to go to GAGA? To spite Kabaeva?
sauer 23-08-2013 09:26
quote: Originally posted by Taraz999:
broke my head over this map
I absolutely don’t understand why Nizhnevartovsk and Yakutsk are on it
Most likely due to the fact that in those days the Strategic Missile Forces troops were howling inside and around the city.
Vladimirovka military unit 29408 is a Vega complex (trajectory measurement station), part of the Plesetsk cosmodrome as an IP-9 measuring point. Disbanded on November 1, 1997.
People often call this unit military unit 16519. In fact, military unit 16519 is OKIK-17 “Hercules”, which is on DSK.
The confusion occurred because at the military points above Vladimirovka (where, in addition to the military unit itself, there were points: towers and “green platforms”) there were and in some places there were iron sheets listing the cities: Sverdlovsk (this city was definitely written). .. Yakutsk... and the designation of military unit 16519. Apparently, "Vega" was subordinate to "Hercules"? But again there is confusion. The system of trajectory measurement stations, which included the Vega complex, included the following six cities: Yakutsk, Vorkuta, Severodvinsk, Norilsk, Baikonur, Kapustin Yar. There is no Sverdlovsk. Maybe the adversary was confused with those iron sheets? However, "Vega" was subordinate to "Hercules".
In the winter of 1993, there was a major fire on our Vega at a technical position in the central equipment building. They poured a huge amount of water on the fire - a huge ice hill was formed. Some of the equipment that had not yet burned was damaged. The complex collapsed. But by inertia it lasted another four years.
A signalman who served in YARVK swore that the Vega definitely had anti-aircraft missiles.
Now everything is abandoned, everything has been taken away and the mines are filled up.
Taraz999 23-08-2013 09:28
quote: Most likely due to the fact that in those days
Yes, I already realized that the card is at least 15 years old
dima745511 23-08-2013 10:45
Non-nuclear - much more likely.
However, it is foolish to completely discount the nuclear threat. As long as a potential enemy has nuclear missiles, the likelihood of an attack on our territory remains. And there are plans for such attacks, including modern and Soviet ones. secret.
Vovchik MD 23-08-2013 11:02
As long as a potential enemy has nuclear missiles, the likelihood of an attack on our territory remains. And there are plans for such attacks, including modern and Soviet ones. secret.
The use of nuclear weapons may well be realized if the “controlled war” becomes uncontrollable. And, as you know, everything that can go wrong will go wrong.
Nespjashiy 23-08-2013 11:04
quote: Originally posted by dima745511:
A nuclear strike is unlikely, especially on such a large scale.
Vovan-Lawer 23-08-2013 11:11
Better think about why they converted part of their strategic nuclear boats, which were created for ICBMs, into Tomahawks. The war of the future, in their understanding, is a massive launch of missile launchers without nuclear warheads, or with low-yield warheads. No one will turn the territory of Russia into an uninhabitable desert. Don’t rely on air defense, the whole North is open. This is precisely why they want to bring the old MIG-31s back to life, but how many of them are left?
Paraglider 23-08-2013 11:18
quote: Originally posted by Mexic0:Does anything in this text confuse you?
The garrisons and bases of Nizhny Tagil (1989 439,500 population) are located only 22 km from the nearest SS-25 garrison, several small towns lie in the path of descending precipitation, and a computer model of casualties for the exposed population (and assuming a 50 percent faction split) ranges from 47,000 to 171,000 people, deaths ranging from 45,000 to 113,000 depending on the month.
In the unlikely event that radioactive fallout hits Nizhny Tagil, the death toll would be four to six times higher.
ah, few victims? then here are the other numbers right away:
quote: Originally posted by Mexic0:
Twelve Warhead attacks on Nizhny Tagil SS-25 garrisons and bases
For the month of November, assuming an unprotected population and warheads
division of shares 80 percent.
The total number of victims is planned to be 162,000,
132,000 of which were fatal.
IMHO this was all written by ordinary unprofessional journalists to order. It’s not difficult to guess who the customer might be.
In general, you just need to follow the recommendations of the Ministry of Emergency Situations in this case. That's why it's interesting to read them. from where, where and how to evacuate.
Malakhov 23-08-2013 11:25
http://lurkmore.to/Third_World_War
Nespjashiy 23-08-2013 11:35
quote: Originally posted by Malakhov:
Bunker from a sea container. I stayed for 2 weeks. Dressed OZK took the PM and hit the road...
Come on - if you’re going to dream, then don’t deny yourself anything: a three-level deep underground bunker on shock-absorbing supports with multi-layer anti-nuclear protection and an autonomous life support system. In a month or two it will be possible to go out without OZK.
dima745511 23-08-2013 11:38
quote: Originally posted by Vovchik MD:
“If in the first act there is a gun hanging on the wall, then in the last it will go off.”
The use of nuclear weapons may well be realized if the “controlled war” becomes uncontrollable. And, as you know, everything that can go wrong will go wrong.
Most likely, you are right: they consider nuclear weapons as “reserve” weapons in case of failure in a “conventional” war. But as for the “wrong”... Somehow I doubt that this “wrong” will be large-scale. As practice shows, even the Russian army is capable of carrying out operations without major problems (the Georgian war is an example of this)....
dima745511 23-08-2013 11:43
quote: Originally posted by Vovan-Lawer:
Better think about why they converted part of their strategic nuclear boats, which were created for ICBMs, into Tomahawks. The war of the future, in their understanding, is a massive launch of missile launchers without nuclear warheads, or with low-yield warheads. No one will turn the territory of Russia into an uninhabitable desert. Don’t rely on air defense, the whole North is open. This is precisely why they want to bring the old MIG-31s back to life, but how many of them are left?
Nespjashiy 23-08-2013 12:02
quote: Originally posted by dima745511:
They want to place them on a completely unusable island airfield in order to supposedly cover the North, and even without AWACS aircraft, without air defense, without a Marine Corps garrison... Like a pimple out of the blue. I’m not talking about the living conditions there for the flight crew at all...
Where do the firewood come from? I have other information.
Why be so loudly hysterical and mislead others?
http://www.izvestia29.ru/economy/2013/02/04/3441.html
The Ministry of Defense abandoned the idea of permanently basing an air group of MiG-31 long-range fighter-interceptors on Novaya Zemlya.
A high-ranking source in the High Command of the Air Force told Izvestia that the proposal to Sergei Shoigu was prepared at the end of last year and has now been approved by the minister.
The proposal was made after a comprehensive analysis by our specialists,” the interlocutor emphasized.
According to him, the previous leadership of the Ministry of Defense decided to transfer the air group to the Novaya Zemlya Rogachevo airfield last fall as part of the development of a general concept for the defense of the Arctic.
http://lenta.ru/news/2013/04/04/mig31
For the air defense of industrial facilities in the Novosibirsk region, the crews of a new air group of MiG-31BM fighter-interceptors took up combat duty. RIA Novosti reports this with reference to the press service of the Ministry of Defense.
“The deployment of additional duty forces and assets is associated with the strengthening of the aviation group responsible for the security of Siberian airspace,” the Ministry of Defense said in a statement.
It is not specified where the MiG-31BM will be based. In all likelihood, we are talking about the Kansk airfield in the Krasnoyarsk Territory, which is subordinate to the 2nd Air Force and Air Defense Command. In December 2012, six modernized MiG-31BM fighter-interceptors arrived at the airfield.
dima745511 23-08-2013 12:13
quote: “The proposal was made after a comprehensive analysis by our specialists,” the interlocutor emphasized.
Nespjashiy 23-08-2013 12:21
quote: Originally posted by dima745511:
Yes, to understand the absurdity of placing these aircraft on Rogachevo, you need to be a major specialist... I began to be proud of myself
dima745511 23-08-2013 12:27
Compared to those gouges who just recently ruled the Ministry of Defense - any reserve SA sergeant is a specialist
What, were they shot or sent to logging? Maybe without pensions, at least they were fired?
diamond_d 23-08-2013 12:29
quote: Originally posted by Nespjashiy:
quote:
Originally posted by dima745511:A nuclear strike is unlikely, especially on such a large scale.
Of course, because the Pindos have long since trashed their nuclear weapons, removed the nuclear stuffing from the warheads and used it for nuclear fuel for reactors. And the rest of the world continues to be misled by their “large nuclear arsenal.” However, the Amers are no strangers to lies; an example is SDI and the “gold reserves” of the Nazi states of America.
a799da 23-08-2013 12:38
Mig-31 is an AWACS aircraft and an interceptor in one bottle, just don’t mention the nonsense of Khramchikhin and Ivashov about 100500.
Boatman61 23-08-2013 12:43
quote: Originally posted by Nespjashiy:Compared to those gouges who just recently ruled the Ministry of Defense - any reserve SA sergeant is a specialist
Strongly said.
Nespjashiy 23-08-2013 12:43
quote: Originally posted by diamond_d:
Post a link on this issue, comrade. I haven’t heard that they blew away all their nuclear weapons.
They bully everyone like the Kushkins, but what, Aivazovsky, am I not allowed?
Jokes aside, there was an article on the Eye of the Planets, will I find it, the question is...
The point there was that the actual number of nuclear weapons carriers with nuclear warheads on combat duty was greatly exaggerated. Just as the number of nuclear warheads in storage is exaggerated. Let's just say that there are big and reasonable doubts about that. It’s just that Americans are great deceivers, they fool the whole world not only with the dollar. Having once made the world think that they are a great nuclear power - in the absence of the USSR, who will bother to check?
tonyweiss 23-08-2013 13:11
I wonder if they fall into one of the "seven target categories" mentioned by the map's authors.
dima745511 23-08-2013 13:21
quote: Originally posted by tonyweiss:
When I was a military man, I met with colleagues from the railway troops (I don’t know whether such troops remain now or not) who talked about trains with ballistic missiles disguised as a freight train.
I wonder if they fall into one of the "seven target categories" mentioned by the map's authors.
No, BZHRK (http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%...%EF%EB%E5%EA%F1) is no more. Therefore, they cannot be mentioned as goals.
Mexican0 23-08-2013 13:22
Relate.
------------------
Best regards, Yaroslav. avtokanal.com
dima745511 23-08-2013 13:27
Oh, yes... These plans are until 2005...
Strannik888 23-08-2013 14:36
It is unlikely that the United States will start such a campaign against Russia. It is inappropriate for them to bomb Middle Eastern countries at this time.
dima745511 23-08-2013 15:16
quote: Originally posted by Strannik888:
It is unlikely that the United States will start such a campaign against Russia. It is inappropriate for them to bomb Middle Eastern countries at this time.
Everything has its time...
plombir 23-08-2013 15:51
quote: Originally posted by dima745511:I completely agree! It’s not even a “bell”, it’s a Christmas tree, just some kind of bell! How deaf do you have to be not to hear such an alarm?!
With those moments, by the way, also in the spirit of the times... They want to place them on a completely unsuitable island airfield in order to supposedly cover the North, and even without AWACS aircraft, without air defense, without a Marine Corps garrison... Like a pimple out of the blue. I’m not talking about the living conditions there for the flight crew at all...
Well, why wouldn’t dima745511 “agree” with Vovan-Laer?
As for “they place it in the wrong place and not enough” - be sure to write to Sportloto! “Like a pimple out of the blue!” - write like that, they will understand, there are also the SAME strategists...
It's good that you are raising the right topic. In general, it’s true (especially since I wrote some of it myself), but there are a couple of clarifying points.
quote: 1. The month most likely for a nuclear strike and the most dangerous in terms of consequences for MSC and the surrounding areas is JUNE.2. For at least two days after the strike, you must stay in shelter.
1. June is the most severe month in terms of consequences, but not the most likely. The date of the start of the war (if one happens) will be determined by the political situation and only by it. At the same time, the situation can develop very rapidly, canceling out any preliminary plans and dictating “inevitable” decisions to politicians (as in 1914, Google “August Guns”). The time of year, and especially the nuances of radioactive contamination, will not play any role in this situation.
Accordingly, there is no need to write about June; it would be more correct not to relax throughout the year and keep your nose to the wind.
2. ERROR! What does it have to do with something that could cost many people their lives. Why?
Yes, because there is the problem of Kozelsk and the warheads aimed there. The cloud from there will not reach Moscow in 3 hours, but when it does, it will fry everything very thoroughly.
Accordingly, the first days can and should be used to get out of the way of the radioactive cloud as far as possible. If there is a relatively small local infection (one or two hits in Moscow and/or the Moscow region), it may turn out that it is better to neglect receiving some dose and evacuate than to wait for the Kozelsky precipitation to fall.
In any case, there is no “universal” solution. A specific decision must be made based on an analysis of a number of factors: wind rose, distance from the epicenter of local explosions, measurements of the “background”, etc. And only this way. Stupidly following a pattern can ruin you.
I suggest you fix it.
However, knowing the character of the Russian people, we can assume that capitulation will not follow and you need to be prepared for anything.
In 2003, Eksmo publishing house published Nikolai Yakovlev’s book “CIA vs. USSR,” which aroused the interest of the reader. Russian citizens learned from it about the US planned nuclear strikes on the Soviet Union. Their order was distributed in a certain order.
The first missiles carrying nuclear weapons were supposed to hit the capital of the state - the city of Moscow. It was followed by attacks on Gorky - present-day Nizhny Novgorod, Kuibyshev - present-day Samara, Sverdlovsk - present-day Yekaterinburg, Novosibirsk, Omsk and Saratov. The eighth city on the list of planned attacks was Kazan.
Significant changes have taken place since the times described by Yakovlev. Atomic weapons have undergone major modernization. Russia adopted a new military doctrine, military space forces appeared, NATO approached the country's borders. The aggravation of the international situation has put the world before the line beyond which the Third World War could begin.
A nuclear strike on Nizhny Novgorod and Sarov is the No. 1 threat in the event of the outbreak of World War III
The Nizhny Novgorod region has a large concentration of military units, schools and military-industrial complex enterprises on its territory. One of the closed cities in the region, Sarov, is the nuclear center of the country. This is the place that is known to many under the code name Arzamas 16. Academician Sakharov was once exiled to this city.
It has always been under the close attention of all intelligence services in the world, and was subjected to various sabotage attacks in peacetime, one of which in 1988 led to an explosion at the Arzamas railway station, which claimed the lives of 91 people and destroyed 1/3 of the city. If the Third World War begins, a nuclear strike on Sarov will also be carried out.
The center of the region itself, Nizhny Novgorod, is the fifth most populous city in Russia. More than 1.2 million people live here. It is of strategic importance as a center for transport communications and stands at the junction of two great rivers of Russia - the Volga and Oka.
The city is home to military-industrial complex enterprises, military schools and serious formations of the Russian Armed Forces.
Possible nuclear strike on Nizhny Novgorod
According to media reports, Polish pilots are practicing attack skills against Russia, including a nuclear strike on Nizhny Novgorod using bombers.
A nuclear strike on Nizhny Novgorod is planned only against air defense units. It will be carried out by cruise missiles from surface-based ships and submarines located in the northern seas and the Mediterranean. Taking into account the high level of equipment of the air defense troops, it can be assumed that a large part of the population will be able to survive as a result of a partial repulse of the attack.
Nuclear attack on Chelyabinsk and Magnitogorsk
In the declassified US plan to launch a nuclear strike on the USSR, which is now widely available to the reader, Chelyabinsk, along with Magnitogorsk and Miass, was included in the list of South Ural targets to be destroyed. At the time these plans were drawn up, atomic weapons were somewhat different from those now available to the warring parties. The US nuclear arsenal was 10 times greater than that of the USSR.
Many residents of Chelyabinsk know firsthand what nuclear weapons are. Here, during the Second World War, the nuclear shield of modern Russia began to be forged. The danger of an attack on the city is enhanced by the fact that an underground storage facility for nuclear waste has been built near Chelyabinsk, the location of which is well known to all intelligence services in the world and not only to them. This information, as they say, has long become an “open secret.” Disputes about the reliability and strength of floors in the event of an atomic charge have been going on for the second decade. The conclusion of the majority is that they will not withstand a nuclear strike on Chelyabinsk. There is talk of possible reinforcement of the vault sarcophagus.
What will the nuclear strike on Chelyabinsk be aimed at?
Today, more than 1.1 million people live in Chelyabinsk. Turbines for the Armata, Iskander and Vladimirov, protective equipment and much more necessary for the country’s defense complex are produced here. The city is a major transport hub on the road connecting Europe and Asia. There is no need to wait for a miracle if the Third World War breaks out.
Nuclear attack on Yekaterinburg
Ekaterinburg is the fourth most populous city in Russia. It is home to more than 1.4 million people. The city stands at the intersection of 6 federal highways, and the Trans-Siberian Railway passes through it. The majority of urban industry consists of military-industrial complex enterprises.
Artillery weapon systems are produced in the city of Yekaterinburg. The Ural Optical-Mechanical Plant is the largest manufacturer of electronic systems that are used in military and civil aviation, surveillance systems, thermal imagers, satellite equipment and other areas important for Russia.
The former Sverdlovsk has been of great importance for the domestic defense industry since the Second World War. The loss of industry and transport infrastructure, if the Third World War happens and a nuclear strike is delivered to Yekaterinburg, could take the country out of the global economy for a long time. Therefore, the protection of Yekaterinburg from a nuclear attack is of great importance.
When delivering a nuclear strike on a city, cruise missiles will be used, which should hit air defense units and Trading ICBMs aimed at the strategic nuclear forces of the Russian Federation. Likely strikes could come from submarines and surface naval vessels. The type of hypothetically planned attack on Yekaterinburg is ground.
The convenient location of the city in the interior of the country gives a small head start in time to take measures to save the population. You need to understand that air defense systems will shoot down missiles at distant approaches. This does not exclude the possibility of defeat and destruction of the city, but provides a chance for salvation.
Nuclear attack on Kazan
A possible nuclear strike on Kazan has not lost its relevance. Today the population of the capital of the Republic of Tatarstan is more than 1.2 million people. The city has one of the largest river ports on the Volga. Kazan is a large transport and logistics center. 3 federal highways and 2 highways pass through it.
Probable targets and scenario for a nuclear strike on Kazan
In the event that World War III breaks out, 4 nuclear warheads will probably be dropped on Kazan. Air defense units should come under attack. Cruise missiles from surface ships and submarines are aimed at them. Their estimated arrival time is 30 minutes. An aircraft factory, a gunpowder factory, a railway station and a port may be attacked. They will be attacked by aircraft based in Europe and Turkey.
During Soviet times, quite a lot of bomb shelters were built in the city, many of which are abandoned and littered. Those shelters that are intended for the evacuation of a certain circle of people are in excellent working condition. They include the leadership of the city and the republic, the military command and some groups of specialized specialists and their families.
In addition to the local elected elite, guest workers have a chance to escape. Many of them are settled in shelters by employers who save on the costs of their resettlement. Some shelters after the liquidation of the USSR were privatized, repeatedly resold and turned into warehouses, shops and cafes. According to journalistic raids, the city prosecutor's office carried out its inspections and came to shocking conclusions for the common man - strategic federal property was illegally sold to individuals and various types of companies.
Those who think that a nuclear strike on Kazan will lead to 100% death of the population are mistaken. At least half of the residents will survive.
The best place for evacuation may be sparsely populated settlements far from large cities, highways and military installations. You need to be prepared for long pedestrian crossings.
The safest source of food after the defeat will be canned food. You can independently combat the received dose of radiation by taking iodine and calcium. This will significantly support the body. It is unlikely that anything else will be available to the majority of the population.
Nuclear attack on Novosibirsk
Novosibirsk is rightfully considered the center of Russian science. It houses military-industrial complex enterprises engaged in the production of rocket, space and aviation equipment. It is the third largest city in Russia by population and thirteenth by area. It is among the targets that would be targeted by a nuclear attack in the event of the outbreak of World War III between the United States and Russia.
The location of the most powerful scientific and industrial potential in the interior of the country is not accidental. Russia's significant size, compared to other states, gives it a chance to retain part of its production and intellectual potential. Military-industrial complex enterprises have not only a ground part. Many production facilities and laboratories are located at considerable depths from the earth's surface. They are capable of withstanding the destructive force and power possessed by atomic weapons.
A significant part of the population will die if a nuclear strike is carried out on Novosibirsk. Missiles aimed at Siberian cities have a flight time of 15 minutes. Radars scanning regions of Russia located east of the Urals.
The list of objects to be destroyed in the city probably includes a telecommunications center and repeaters. A nuclear attack would most likely be launched by three-stage solid-fueled Trident-type ballistic missiles. The mass of the charge that this atomic weapon has is 100 kT and 475 kT. The flight range of the missiles, depending on the type of carrier, is 7400 km, 7600 km and 11000 km. Such nuclear weapons are in service with US Ohio and Vanguard class submarines.
Nuclear attack on St. Petersburg
Speaking at a conference in St. Petersburg in 2011, former NATO chief Anderson Von Rasmussen assured its participants that an attack on the northern capital of Russia by the bloc with atomic weapons was unlikely. But is it worth believing those who are building up their military power near the borders of Russia, calling it their enemy No. 1 and modeling options for World War III? The entire history of the existence of a state indicates that it must always be ready to repel any blow from potential opponents.
NATO forces located in the Baltic countries pose the greatest threat to the northern capital of Russia. Territorial proximity to these states significantly reduces the time for defense and retaliation. Five kilometers from Lithuanian Siauliai there is a military base where the aircraft of the North Atlantic bloc is located. Estonia provided NATO with an airfield in Ämari, Latvia - in Narva and Liepaja. The flight time from these bases to St. Petersburg is 15 minutes! The speed of a missile with nuclear weapons is significantly higher than that of bombers. Russia has only 1-2 minutes to strike back.
What targets are planned to be attacked?
The plan for World War III, developed by the Americans, provides a list of targets and cities subject to mandatory destruction. When delivering a nuclear strike on St. Petersburg, the following will be hit first:
1. air defense facilities and military bases;
2. telecommunication centers and repeaters;
3. transport (highways, railways, airports) nodes;
4. strategic heat, water and energy supply facilities.
The concept of a nuclear strike on St. Petersburg includes a cruise missile attack. Type of explosion - ground.
The precision of nuclear weapons makes it possible to carry out a ground explosion within the boundaries of Nevsky Prospekt. This form of impact somewhat reduces the radius of damage compared to explosions that occur on the ground. Its main damaging factor is heat stroke caused by a light flash. The damage radius is 10-15 kilometers. In the area of the explosion, it will be possible to take shelter at the Ploshchad Vosstaniya, Spasskaya, Ligovsky Prospekt and Dostoevskaya metro stations. The stations Nevsky Prospekt, Akademicheskaya, Moskovskie Vorota and Lenin Square will be completely crushed, along with other structures located in close proximity to them.
Within a radius of 3-4 kilometers from the center of the explosion, evaporation and incineration of organic bodies will occur. If possible, when diving in the subway, you should take drinking water with you. Within a radius of 20-25 km, all wooden surfaces will burn and plastic will melt. Forest fires will occur outside the ring road.
If there is a nuclear strike on St. Petersburg, the city will be lost forever. Rescue efforts will involve relocating survivors beyond the 100-kilometer affected area. The restoration of the city will not be possible for several decades, or even hundreds of years (remember the Chernobyl tragedy at the nuclear power plant).
Nuclear attack on Moscow
Most likely, a nuclear strike on Moscow will be delivered around 18:00.
This assumption is explained by the following reasons:
Eighteen o'clock in Moscow corresponds to 10 o'clock in the morning in Washington. At this time, all civil servants are at their workplaces and ready to begin solving combat missions. An earlier start to the operation could attract the attention of intelligence services in other countries. In a war where all calculations take place in minutes and seconds, it is very important not to attract the attention of enemy special services ahead of time.
The later period of the attack is complicated by peak load on telephone lines. In the morning hours of Washington time, the bulk of American citizens are at work and can be compactly evacuated. Russians are on their way home from work at this time. Transport arteries are overloaded, the city is stuck in traffic jams. A nuclear strike on Moscow at this time would result in maximum losses and lead to greater chaos.
The most likely yield of a thermonuclear weapon that could be used in World War III is in the range of 2-10 megatons. In general, the power of nuclear warheads is limited by the possibility of delivery vehicles for the latter, and is also determined by the large power of the city of Moscow itself and the fact that central intelligence and defense enterprises and units are concentrated here, and along the perimeter of the capital there are belts of aviation and missile cover systems and, at the same time, primary the fact that the shelters of both the government and presidential apparatus and services of the Ministry of Defense have a high degree of security, because they will be the main target for the alleged enemy, which the United States can become.
Let us note how much time will pass from the moment of notification of the “Nuclear Alert” signal until the most damaging strike:
About 14 minutes, if ground-based nuclear weapons launch vehicles are launched from the territory of the American continent;
About 7 minutes, in the case of launching atomic weapons from naval missile carriers, which are based under water and located in the Arctic Ocean and the North Atlantic.
The data above coincides with the approach time of ballistic missiles, which are sent in supra-atmospheric space along ballistic trajectories with a speed of 28,000 km/h or 7.9 km/sec, that is, the first cosmic speed. In fact, in combat conditions, it is possible to predict some fights and communication delays, which can reduce the warning time to a couple of minutes.
No later than 6 minutes after the first warning signal of a nuclear strike sounds, all entrances to the shelter will be closed and blocked, even if there are people who will not have time to get into them and there will be a large number of them. When trying to delay the closure of entrances by any persons, it is recommended to use any means, including the use of firearms, against everyone without exception or delay.
Note that the Moscow Metro is the best option of all possible shelters.
Due to the accuracy of modern guidance systems, the epicenter of the explosion will be located within the boundaries of the Boulevard Ring, the affected area is the Kremlin-Lubyanka-Arbat area. This particular area is key for the United States in neutralizing Russia during the Third World War, since the main administrative and military control centers in the state are concentrated there.
Within a radius of 20-25 km from the epicenter of a nuclear explosion in Moscow, all plastic, wood and painted surfaces and plants facing the explosion will ignite, metal roofs will burn out, stone, glass, brick and metal will be melted; Glass will evaporate, window frames will burn, asphalt will catch fire, and wires will melt. The city of Moscow within the boundaries of the Moscow Ring Road will be engulfed in an active fire, and a ring forest fire will occur outside the Moscow Ring Road. Forest park areas and well-developed areas will be fully ignited. The reservoirs of the Moscow and Yauza rivers will evaporate, and the upper layer of the Khimki reservoir will boil.
Based on materials from http://www.3world-war.su/
In general terms, strategic weapons are systems capable of delivering warheads (usually nuclear) to targets located at an intercontinental range from the launch site, i.e. launch a nuclear strike.
So it is known that there are three ways of possible global use of strategic weapons.
Doctor of Technical Sciences, Professor Yuri Grigoriev talks about the possible use of strategic weapons on the pages of the Russian Arms news agency.
![](https://i1.wp.com/arms-expo.ru/img/272/27259555.jpg)
Nuclear explosion
Results of the Nuclear Bombing
![](https://i1.wp.com/arms-expo.ru/img/272/27259399.jpg)
The pilots who carried out the first nuclear bombing
First (pre-emptive) nuclear strike, the purpose of which is to destroy, first of all, all strategic weapons of the enemy, thereby eliminating any possibility of a retaliatory nuclear strike.
When American President Truman ordered a nuclear strike on the Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945, he was well aware that there would be no retaliatory strike and therefore demonstrated such heroism in conditions of complete impunity.
The subsequent targets were Moscow and other major cities of the USSR, but the rapid creation of an atomic and then a hydrogen bomb in the USSR put everything in its place - the fear of retaliation cooled the hotheads.
It became clear to everyone that in real life, a nuclear power that has been attacked will retain some of its strategic weapons for a retaliatory strike, after which the aggressor side will find itself in approximately the same position as its victim.
Therefore, launching a nuclear strike against a state that has nuclear weapons is tantamount to suicide, since a crushing retaliatory nuclear strike will turn the aggressor's largest cities into nuclear dust.
![](https://i0.wp.com/arms-expo.ru/img/272/27260652.jpg)
Russia is developing a new ICBM in a highly secure silo
Retaliatory strike (strike of retaliation, intimidation) inflicted by missiles that remained after the aggressor launched the first nuclear strike.
The technical basis for an effective retaliatory strike is, first of all, the high survivability of strategic weapons, ensuring the combat effectiveness of such a number of missiles after an attack by the aggressor that is sufficient to inflict unacceptable damage on him.
With all the reductions, the USSR had the most important parameter of strategic weapons - the throwable weight was 2.8 times greater than that of the United States, which guaranteed a crushing retaliatory strike to the aggressor in any development of the situation.
The thrown weight is understood as the total weight of everything that the missile is capable of placing on the trajectory of the maximum firing range.
This is the weight of the last stage of the rocket, which carries out the operation of disengaging warheads, means of overcoming missile defense, engines, fuel, control system equipment and structural elements inseparable from this stage.
Throw weight is the main and main parameter that determines the combat effectiveness of a missile.
Mobile missile systems are the main combat means of a retaliatory strike
![](https://i1.wp.com/arms-expo.ru/img/272/27261617.jpg)
Mobile ground-based missile system (PGRK) "Yars"
![](https://i2.wp.com/arms-expo.ru/img/272/27261146.jpg)
Combat railway missile system
Counter strike is launched upon receipt of a signal from a missile attack warning system, while our missiles must launch and leave position areas before the aggressor’s warheads approach these areas, and the aggressor, who actually fired at already empty launch silos, receives almost simultaneously a nuclear strike on his military and industrial objects.
![](https://i2.wp.com/arms-expo.ru/img/272/27263005.jpg)
Secretary of the CPSU Central Committee, candidate member of the Politburo of the CPSU Central Committee, Minister of Defense of the USSR Dmitry Fedorovich Ustinov
Discussions about the priority of these three types of nuclear strikes began a long time ago, back in the USSR, and they were conducted at the highest level. Then some of the highest military officials reported to the Secretary of the CPSU Central Committee, candidate member of the Politburo of the CPSU Central Committee D.F. Ustinov, who coordinated the work of all institutions of the military-industrial complex, that there is no urgent need to increase the security of silo launch complexes, because a retaliatory strike can be used, and then our missiles will leave the silo structures even before the arrival of the aggressor’s warheads, which increases their security useless.
![](https://i1.wp.com/arms-expo.ru/img/272/27263694.jpg)
At the same time, the director of the head rocket and space institute (TsNIIMASH), Lieutenant General Yu.A. Mozzhorin,
relying on in-depth research of the institute, he reported to D.F. Ustinov that in 10 minutes it is unrealistic to make a decision and press the button to launch nuclear missiles based on the report of some general looking at the cloudy radar screen. What if there is a mistake? After all, behind it stand hundreds of millions of human lives, including women and children, primarily citizens of the Soviet Union, since in the event of a mistake this will be followed by retribution from a potential enemy provoked by us. You can't return the missiles. What if this is radio interference or a provocation?
Our institute, he said, has worked in detail and simulated all cases of combat use of nuclear missile weapons in conditions of preventive (first) and retaliatory strikes. In these cases, victory cannot be achieved.
In a report to the General Secretary of the CPSU Central Committee L.I. To Brezhnev, Yu.A. Mozzhorin stated that the defense doctrine is interpreted by some major military leaders, at times, loosely and ambiguously. He briefly justified that only the doctrine of guaranteed retaliatory strike will deter aggression and ensure stability and peace. He showed that the doctrine of a pre-emptive (first) strike against an aggressor preparing to attack or retaliatory missile strikes do not ensure the defense of the country and lead only to the mutual destruction of conflicting states.
He substantiated his point of view at the Defense Council, which took place at the end of July 1969 in Crimea, at Stalin’s former dacha near Yalta. When the commander-in-chief of the missile forces, Marshal of the Soviet Union N.I. Krylov stated that the military was not going to sit and wait until they were hit, but would use missiles first or, in extreme cases, in a retaliatory strike, he received a serious reprimand from the Chairman of the Council of Ministers of the USSR A.N. Kosygina.
At this Defense Council, the doctrine of a guaranteed retaliatory strike - the doctrine of deterrence - was approved by the highest political and state leadership of the USSR. The priority of nuclear missile strikes was firmly established: only a crushing retaliatory strike, as a means of preventing nuclear war, as a means of deterrence.
Structure of Russia's strategic weapons
![](https://i0.wp.com/arms-expo.ru/img/272/27266126.jpg)
Strategic nuclear submarines with missiles
Strategic Missile Forces (RVSN)
![](https://i2.wp.com/arms-expo.ru/img/272/27265944.jpg)
Russian strategic aircraft
The entire structure of the USSR's strategic weapons was formed to ensure a guaranteed retaliatory strike. Submarines armed with ballistic missiles were built, which in those years found themselves outside the control zone in the ocean.
Mobile ground-based soil and railway missile systems were deployed, the location of which was impossible using the then existing satellites with optical monitoring equipment.
The security of stationary missile silos was increased, and the missiles themselves were improved so that they could be launched in the event of a nuclear attack on a positional area.
The Military Doctrine of the Russian Federation, approved by Decree of the President of the Russian Federation of April 21, 2000 No. 706, states that the Russian Federation maintains the status of a nuclear power to deter (prevent) aggression against it and (or) its allies.
![](https://i1.wp.com/arms-expo.ru/img/272/27266990.jpg)
US President Ronald Reagan USA
The United States gradually finally came to a similar decision. Back on February 26, 1986, US President R. Reagan, in his address to the country, formulated his position as follows: “Our goal must be to deter and, if necessary, repel any attack without resorting to nuclear weapons.” .
In 2013, the US Secretary of Defense, acting on behalf of the President of the country, sent to Congress "Report on the United States Nuclear Employment Strategy".
The purpose of nuclear weapons is defined in report 4 in this form. The US Congress approved this nuclear weapons strategy in August 2013.
Everything seems clear, but in our media various discussions constantly appear about the priority of missile strikes, which are conducted, however, not at the highest level, but at the level of generals and so-called experts.
Of course, in the 21st century the situation has changed in many ways, but these changes should be taken into account wisely, without blindly repeating all the dogmas of the last century, since the world is changing quite quickly, but also without denying everything achieved previously.
![](https://i1.wp.com/arms-expo.ru/img/272/27268457.jpg)
PGRK "Yars" takes up combat duty
So it is said in source 1, mobile ground-based missile systems, together with sea-based ballistic missiles, due to their high stealth and ability to disperse, ensure a retaliatory nuclear missile strike, when the launch command is given only after the fact of a massive enemy nuclear missile strike on the territory of one’s country has been recorded , i.e. after the warheads fall on the target.
A similar statement in relation to ground-based mobile missile systems was true in the 20th century, when control over these complexes was carried out by space systems that operated in the optical range and were not able to see through clouds and fog.
Then our mobile soil and railway systems were truly invulnerable and suitable for delivering a crushing retaliatory strike. For example, our railway missile system, capable of traveling thousands of kilometers, could be under the clouds about 80% of the time and inaccessible to space control.
However, in the 21st century, when space-based all-weather radar reconnaissance systems are widely used, any mobile ground-based soil or railway-based missile system is no longer capable of remaining invisible, and therefore, from a retaliatory strike weapon, it turns into a weapon that can only be used in the first or counter-attack strike, and therefore becomes unnecessary for us, and its production and installation on combat duty is meaningless.
Over the years, as space and other control systems improve, this senselessness will become more and more obvious.
![](https://i2.wp.com/arms-expo.ru/img/272/27269112.jpg)
Massive missile strike
Many people understood this, but drew strange conclusions. Source 3 states: “The task of placing the first regiment of a mobile ground complex with standardized missiles on combat duty is now being solved. The task is very difficult, because this is also the first year of mass production of these weapons. But overall, national defense will benefit from having one of the components of strategic weapons that has greater survivability in the face of a retaliatory strike.”
Source 1 also states that silo-based missiles in protected launchers operate in a retaliatory strike, when the decision to launch is issued by the political leadership after recording a mass launch of missiles from enemy territory, even before the bulk of the warheads reach their targets .
It is impossible to agree with such statements, but it is also impossible to imagine that such statements by the authors are simply the result of their illiteracy. Of course, they understand everything, but, apparently, they do not see other ways to justify the huge costs of deploying new mobile missile systems, and therefore are silent about their original purpose for delivering a retaliatory strike, which they are currently, and even more so in the future, pursuing. not suitable.
That is why they are proposing a retaliatory strike, which could lead to a worldwide catastrophe. Of course, the technical level of modern strategic weapons, in principle, makes it possible to carry out a retaliatory strike, but the concept of such puts the top leadership of the state in an extremely difficult position, faced with the need to make a decision of an unusually high level of responsibility in conditions of acute shortage of time, possible technical problems in the missile early warning system attacks and operator errors.
![](https://i0.wp.com/arms-expo.ru/img/272/27270010.jpg)
A new ballistic missile is being tested in Russia
The flight time of missiles from another continent is about 30 minutes, and when launching missiles flying along flat trajectories from submarines located near our territory, it takes no more than 10-15 minutes. Under these conditions, it is unrealistic to carry out a retaliatory strike, and also dangerous, because in such a turmoil, various kinds of errors are not excluded, both in determining the reliability of the very fact of the launch of enemy missiles, and in the implementation of a retaliatory launch.
This does not exclude the possibility of an inadequate assessment of the situation by the leader of the attacked state and his adoption of a decision leading to a worldwide catastrophe. The Americans have repeatedly reported various types of malfunctions and errors in their early warning systems, we also had similar cases, but they were not reported, but such information is available in foreign sources.
For example, source 2 states that on September 26, 1983, shortly after midnight at a nuclear attack early warning center near Moscow, equipment issued a warning that the United States had fired 5 ballistic missiles into the territory of the Soviet Union.
However, the operational duty officer did not believe the new automation; he contacted his superiors and reported a false alarm. A subsequent investigation into such an act by the operational duty officer confirmed the correctness of his actions, and he was awarded. Any kind of speculation about the power of our strategic weapons in a retaliatory strike is senseless and dangerous.
And what will we achieve by launching a retaliatory strike? We will not be able to somehow reduce, or even more so eliminate, the destructive power of the aggressor’s first nuclear strike with our retaliatory strike. It will be exactly the same as with our orientation towards a retaliatory strike. Of course, during a retaliatory strike, more of our missiles will reach targets on the territory of the aggressor, and the nuclear dust there will be smaller than during a retaliatory strike, but can this have any significance in the light of the death of civilization?
![](https://i1.wp.com/arms-expo.ru/img/272/27270664.jpg)
Beginning of negotiations on the reduction of strategic offensive weapons
Adopted in the USSR, and now in the USA, the priority of methods of delivering nuclear strikes should remain unchanged in our time: only a crushing retaliatory strike, as a means of preventing nuclear war, as a means of deterrence, a means of intimidation.
Focusing on a retaliatory strike does not mean that in this case we do not need early warning systems about the launch of the aggressor’s missiles. On the contrary, we certainly need such systems, but not so that the leadership would have time to give the order to launch our missiles in a retaliatory strike, but so that they could have time to give the order to take the necessary measures to deliver a retaliatory strike after the explosion of nuclear weapons. charges of the aggressor on our territory.
We must develop a strategic weapons structure and implement it in a short time, which is capable of delivering an effective retaliatory strike, in any development of the situation, including if the aggressor has effective missile defense systems. To do this, it is urgent to develop and deploy missile systems with air-to-ground ballistic missiles (ASBMs), as reported in source 5 and source 6, since heavy bombers with cruise missiles with nuclear warheads or with atomic bombs are unsuitable for a retaliatory strike.
Aircraft with airborne missile defense systems, following a signal from early warning systems, will be able to leave the permanent airfield in a few minutes and, once outside the affected area, wait for either an order to retaliate or to return to base if the signal from the early warning system turns out to be erroneous.
The creation of ASBMs was prohibited by the SALT-2 and START-1 Treaties, however, currently, due to the expiration of these treaties, this prohibition has lost force.
It is also possible to use non-aerodrome aircraft of the EKIP type to deploy missiles, the fundamental principles of which were developed under the leadership of Professor Lev Shchukin. Such a device with a carrying capacity of up to 100 tons is capable of not only flying like an airplane, but also moving near the surface of the earth and water in ekranoplane mode.
It is also necessary to create heavy liquid-propellant strategic missiles with a large throw weight, capable of launching in a retaliatory strike, for which the positional areas of these missiles must be covered with effective missile defense systems of the S-500 type to intercept aggressor missiles, as well as engineering structures protecting missile silos from high-precision non-nuclear weapons weapons.
We live in an era of strategic stability, which is based on two specific traits of human character: distrust of another person and fear of retaliation. The world has been balancing on these two pillars for many decades, maintaining the so-called strategic balance. Only absolute confidence in the inexorable inevitability of one’s own death as a result of a retaliatory nuclear strike is guaranteed to keep any aggressor from launching a first strike and save the world from nuclear madness.
Used Books:
1. The commander of the Strategic Missile Forces spoke about the structure of the nuclear shield.
http://ria.ru/analytics/20111216/518396383.html
2. Russian who prevented nuclear war.