We are used to be skeptical of the information that flows in streams on us from all sources. In principle, its authors themselves are to blame. They compose too many horror stories, trying to scare people. Among this terrible whirlwind, there is only one topic that thinking people take seriously. These are the nuclear forces of Russia, our shield and the guarantee of a peaceful life. Such things should not be taken lightly. Let's discuss them seriously.
Historical motives of the situation
Our world, from a political point of view, is built on parity. This situation developed after the superpowers acquired their own atomic bombs. As they say today, since then, as a result of the work of a large number of scientists and specialists, equilibrium has been established on both sides. This does not mean that the bombs of the superpowers were equally divided. The bottom line is that the strategic nuclear forces of Russia and the USA, the comparison of which was carried out almost constantly, in the aggregate could destroy the planet and ten more of its twins, if they existed in nature. This circumstance forced politicians to shift the confrontation to another plane. People just realized that they were wasting resources on the death of humanity. And why such a victory over an opponent that does not bring triumph? Everyone knows the result. The USSR was destroyed. However, this, by and large, did not have a major impact on arms parity. Since the nuclear forces of Russia, the successors of the Soviet Union, were immediately formed.
And why, in fact, do we need such a weapon?
We will omit all efforts and tricks aimed at the destruction of the parity that existed in the last century. This is a separate topic about the machinations of our "partners." At the moment, only the fact of the preservation of nuclear weapons in the Russian Federation matters. As before, it is a guarantee of the peaceful existence of its citizens. Russia's nuclear forces scare NATO generals, holding back their hypothetically aggressive plans. Frankly, they are not claimed to be publicly available, but they do not deny their existence. However, any creeps towards the Russian Federation stumble upon the simple fact that it is a serious weapon, including a very formidable one. You have to think many times before you do something. After all, a rocket with a very scary “stuffing” can fly into the territory of the aggressor.
What to consider when counting
All of the above is usually voiced by politicians who have their own methods. The military conduct other “games” according to their own rules. Namely, they compare not just the number of warheads, but also their quality and specificity. It is necessary to understand here that, for example, the strategic nuclear forces of Russia are suitable for a “retaliatory strike, ” or, more simply, an offensive operation.
Note that this is not considered in the doctrine of the Russian Federation. But we understand that such missiles are designed not to protect the country, but to respond to the aggressor already on its territory. There are also the so-called nuclear deterrence forces of Russia and the United States. These are other systems. They are designed to intercept and destroy enemy warheads. It turns out that the comparison goes in many ways. Although we are presented with the press most often a direct calculation of the number of charges and carriers (at best).
Why are other nuclear powers not counted?
Also an important question. After all, the nuclear club is not so small. According to some reports, it includes eight to nine states, and maybe more. Inaccuracies are associated with the fact that not all countries recognize the ability to produce nuclear warheads. Israel, for example, believes that it is better for the fog in this matter to let in and take advantage of the unknown. But the point is not even that. The fact is that the nuclear forces of Russia and the United States are comparable among themselves. Each power has a triad. That is, its charges can be launched from the earth (intercontinental missiles), air (aircraft) and the sea (nuclear submarines). Other countries have not yet acquired such power. Yes, and do not plan in the foreseeable future. They say that there is a crisis in the yard, and a lot of money is needed to create nuclear technologies. They are simply not there.
Nuclear Forces of Russia and the USA: Comparison
It should be noted that there is an agreement between the powers according to which they exchange information on available funds. So, in accordance with this document, each side has approximately the same number of warheads. To be more precise, the United States has 1, 642 deployed and 912 canned; in Russia - 1643 and 911, respectively. This is the official data released in September 2014 by the Pentagon. It must be understood that simple numbers do not say anything about the current state of affairs. Yes, they look like some equality of power. But experts prefer to delve into the details. For example, to watch how these or those missiles are carried, how far they can fly, how much they are protected.
Interesting fact
The Pentagon announced that the nuclear forces of Russia and the United States (2014) are approximately equal. However, information immediately appeared that nullified this statement. Journalists unearthed data about exactly which technologies the US uses for ballistic missiles (they are considered the main threat). It turned out that they use liquid fuel. And it, firstly, is very expensive to maintain. Secondly, it becomes unusable over time. A scandal broke out in the overseas media, the echoes of which are still walking on the network. Experts say that American missiles are no longer able to make an intercontinental flight. It is clear that none of the generals will confirm this. No matter what actually happens with the missiles, they will “blow their cheeks” and be silent so as not to reveal state secrets. By the way, many are also referring to Russia's nuclear forces. There are many who want to criticize them, using allegedly insider information.
Liberal speculation?
Some time ago, the expert community was actively preoccupied with the question of whether Russia would restore order in its nuclear forces. I would like to ask: what do you care? This is a state secret topic. The President has repeatedly told citizens about the funds planned for the rearmament of the army. Is it really necessary for everyone to talk about military secrets? This is just stupid. But a thoughtful viewer from the news will find out everything that is necessary to "sleep soundly." In 2014 - 2015, as many military exercises as the USSR did not allow themselves even in the most difficult years. If you remove all the gossip and speculation from the air, then the reason to worry seems to disappear by itself. They openly show us on the screen that our rockets are flying. That is, there is something to answer the threat with.
Different rockets and technologies
Even when reviewing the Pentagon data, inequality in carriers and charge parity are striking. It says that Russia has 528 nuclear weapons. The United States has 266 more. All triad missiles are counted here. Strange, right? There is no equality. After all, the States can put up more carriers against Russia. It turns out the whole thing is in the subtleties. After all, the means on which warheads are located were constructed autonomously, without data exchange between scientists. We, as decent people, will not begin to think about intelligence and espionage. Be that as it may, it turned out that the technique of the potential opponents is different. Let's take a closer look at it.
US Nuclear Forces
The triad consists of ground "Minuteman", submarine (nuclear submarine) "Trident-2" and bomber aircraft. Ballistic missiles carry one to three warheads. The USA shows their 450 units. About 1000 are hidden in the depths of the ocean in submarines of the Ohio type. In total there are 14 of them on duty, each carries 24 missiles. There are still bombers. All of them, as recognized by the Pentagon, 230 units. If you are interested in types, then here they are: B-52H, B-1B and B-2A. It is said that approximately fifty aircraft are mothballed. Each bomber is considered one warhead, although they are capable of carrying more. However, in the START-3 treaty, they decided not to "waste time". It is nevertheless worth considering the fact of the possibility of using both cruise missiles and bombs on air carriers.
Our funds
Russia has its own “complexes”. Even there is such a joke that they should not be shy. A total of 186 Topol and Topol-M installations are shown in the statistics. The first are located in mines, the second are mobile. They carry one charge. As recent tests have shown, they are quite capable of reaching the "enemy". There is also the Yars. They are distinguished by their ability to separate and individually direct warheads. They are said to be of the order of three dozen or more. In addition, Russia has on duty “Voivode” with ten homing charges. Their military is characterized by the following abbreviation: RGCh IN. It means that ten charges from this carrier can hit different targets. In addition, there is a six-shot "Stiletto". We have only eight submarines so far. They are equipped with Bulava complexes. And the bombers - 66.
Our surprises to potential opponents
Next, we turn to the data on the reliability of which no one will insist. They say, however, that the Pentagon treats them with respect. And the bottom line is that the listed missiles will not be a threat to the enemy, if you do not give them the opportunity to reach the target. That is, it is not enough to develop strategic forces; missile defense is also necessary. We heard about American. What only journalists do not write about this. Only in action, no one saw their defense. And in Russia, missiles (non-nuclear) have already been tested, which can get away from any currently known missile defense system. They carry up to ten warheads that can detach and set off each to its own target. Moreover, they are not afraid of natural barriers such as mountains. The flight path of missiles is also not amenable to digital analytics. So say the "experts."
