Will there be a nuclear Will there be a war between Russia and the USA? Sad video about the nuclear attack on Hiroshima
A nuclear war is usually called a hypothetical clash between countries or military-political blocs that have thermonuclear or nuclear weapons and put them into action. Nuclear weapons in such a conflict will become the main means of destruction. The history of nuclear war, fortunately, has not yet been written. But after the start of the Cold War in the second half of the last century, a nuclear war between the US and the USSR was considered a very likely development.
- What happens if a nuclear war breaks out?
- Doctrines of nuclear war in the past
- US nuclear doctrine during the thaw
- Russian nuclear doctrine
What happens if a nuclear war breaks out?
Many fearfully asked the question: what will happen if a nuclear war breaks out? This is a major environmental hazard:
- Explosions would release a huge amount of energy.
- Ashes and soot from fires would block the sun for a long time, which would lead to the effect of "nuclear night" or "nuclear winter" with sharp drop temperatures on the planet.
- The apocalyptic picture was to be supplemented by radioactive contamination, which would have no less catastrophic consequences for life.
It was assumed that most of the countries of the world would inevitably be drawn into such a war, directly or indirectly.
The danger of a nuclear war is that it would lead to a global environmental catastrophe and even the death of our civilization.
What will happen in the event of a nuclear war? A powerful explosion is only part of the disaster:
- As a result of a nuclear explosion, a giant fireball is formed, the heat from which chars or completely burns all life at a sufficiently large distance from the epicenter of the explosion.
- A third of the energy is released in the form of a powerful light pulse, which is a thousand times brighter than the radiation of the sun, so it instantly ignites all flammable materials (fabrics, paper, wood), and causes third-degree burns to people.
- But the primary fires do not have time to flare up, because they are partially extinguished by a powerful blast wave. Flying burning debris, sparks, household gas explosions, short circuits and burning oil products cause extensive and already long-lasting secondary fires.
- Separate fires merge into a terrifying fiery tornado that can easily burn down any metropolis. Such fiery tornadoes, arranged by the allies, destroyed Dresden and Hamburg during the Second World War.
- Since heat is released in large quantities in mass fires, the heated air masses rush upward, forming hurricanes near the surface of the earth, bringing new portions of oxygen to the focus.
- Dust and soot ascend to the stratosphere, forming a giant cloud there, obscuring sunlight. A prolonged blackout leads to a nuclear winter.
After a nuclear war, the Earth would hardly have remained at least a little like its former self, it would be scorched, and almost all living things would die.
An instructive video about what will happen if a nuclear war starts:
Doctrines of nuclear war in the past
The first doctrine (theory, concept) of nuclear war arose immediately after the end of World War II, in the United States. Then it was invariably reflected in the strategic concepts of NATO and the United States. However, military doctrine The USSR also assigned nuclear missiles a decisive role in the next big war.
Initially, a massive nuclear war scenario was envisaged with the unlimited use of all available nuclear weapons, and their targets would be not only the military, but also civilian objects. It was believed that in such a conflict, the advantage would have been given to the country that was the first to launch a massive nuclear strike against the enemy, the purpose of which was the preemptive destruction of his nuclear weapons.
But there was the main problem of nuclear war - a preventive nuclear attack might not be so effective, and the enemy would be able to deliver a retaliatory nuclear strike on industrial centers and large cities.
Since the late 1950s, a new concept of "limited nuclear war" has emerged in the United States. In the 70s, according to this concept, in a hypothetical armed conflict could apply various systems weapons, including operational-tactical and tactical nuclear weapons, which had restrictions on the scale of use and means of delivery. Nuclear weapons in such a conflict would only be used to destroy military and important economic facilities. If a distortion of history could happen, nuclear wars in the recent past could actually follow a similar scenario.
One way or another, but the United States is still the only state that in practice used nuclear weapons in 1945 not against the military, but dropped 2 bombs on the civilian population of Hiroshima (August 6) and Nagasaki (August 9).
Hiroshima
On August 6, 1945, under the guise of the Potsdam Declaration, which set an ultimatum regarding the immediate surrender of Japan, the American government sent an American bomber to the Japanese Islands, and at 08:15 Japanese time it dropped the first nuclear bomb on the city of Hiroshima, which had the code name "Kid".
The power of this charge was relatively small - about 20,000 tons of TNT. The explosion of the charge occurred at an altitude of about 600 meters above the ground, and its epicenter was above the Sima hospital. Hiroshima was not chosen by chance as the target of a demonstrative nuclear strike - it was there at that time that the General Staff of the Japanese Navy and the Second General Staff of the Japanese Army were located.
- The explosion destroyed a large part of Hiroshima.
- Over 70,000 people were killed instantly.
- Near 60,000 died later from wounds, burns and radiation sickness.
- Within a radius of about 1.6 kilometers there was a zone of complete destruction, while fires spread over an area of 11.4 square meters. km.
- 90% of the city's buildings were either completely destroyed or badly damaged.
- The tram system miraculously survived the bombardment.
In the six months following the bombing, they died from its consequences. 140,000 people.
This “insignificant”, according to the military, charge once again proved that the consequences of a nuclear war for humanity are devastating, as for a race.
Sad video about the nuclear attack on Hiroshima:
Nagasaki
On August 9, at 11:02 am, another American plane dropped another nuclear charge on the city of Nagasaki - "Fat Man". It was blown up high above the Nagasaki Valley, where industrial plants were located. The second consecutive American nuclear attack on Japan caused new catastrophic destruction and loss of life:
- 74,000 Japanese were killed instantly.
- 14,000 buildings were completely destroyed.
In fact, these terrible moments can be called the days when a nuclear war almost started, since bombs were dropped on civilians, and only a miracle stopped the moment when the world was on the brink of nuclear war.
US nuclear doctrine during the thaw
After the end of the Cold War, the American doctrine of limited nuclear war was transformed into the concept of counterproliferation. It was first voiced by US Secretary of Defense L. Espin in December 1993. The Americans considered that with the help of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons it was no longer possible to achieve this goal, therefore, at critical moments, the United States reserved the right to inflict "disarming strikes" on nuclear facilities of objectionable regimes.
In 1997, a directive was adopted according to which the US Army must be ready to strike at foreign facilities for the production and storage of biological, chemical and nuclear weapons. And in 2002, the concept of counterproliferation was included in the US national security strategy. Within its framework, the United States intended to destroy nuclear facilities in Korea and Iran or take control of Pakistani facilities.
Russian nuclear doctrine
The military doctrine of Russia also periodically changes its wording. In the latter version, Russia reserves the right to use nuclear weapons if not only nuclear or other types of weapons of mass destruction, but also conventional weapons were used against it or its allies, if this threatens the very foundations of the existence of the state, which may become one of the causes of nuclear wars. This indicates the main thing - the likelihood of a nuclear war is currently quite acute, but the rulers understand that no one can survive in this conflict.
Russian nuclear weapons
An alternative story with a nuclear war developed in Russia. The US State Department for 2016 estimated, based on the data provided under the START-3 treaty, that in Russian army deployed 508 strategic nuclear launchers:
- intercontinental ballistic missiles;
- strategic bombers;
- submarine missiles.
In total, there are 847 nuclear charge carriers, on which 1796 charges are installed. It should be noted that nuclear weapons in Russia are being reduced quite intensively - in half a year their number is reduced by 6%.
With such weapons and more than 10 countries in the world that have officially confirmed the presence of nuclear weapons, the threat of nuclear war is global problem, the prevention of which is a guarantee of life on Earth.
Are you afraid of nuclear war? Do you think it will come and how soon? Share your opinion or guesses in the comments.
Describing the facts of the redeployment of NATO troops in order to increase the concentration of personnel and equipment along our borders, I often encounter misunderstanding on the part of my readers. A certain part of Russians considers all these publications nothing more than whipping up passions and exaggerating colors, aimed at introducing confusion into the minds of our gullible population. The main argument is that Russia has nuclear weapons. According to some of my readers, the nuclear potential is a kind of guarantee against direct aggression. A clash of two or more nuclear powers is impossible - our skeptical compatriots repeat like a mantra. The maximum that threatens us is a hybrid war, and since it already underway, then there is nothing more to be afraid of.
Everything seems to be logical. An exchange of nuclear strikes, which in theory is inevitable in an open conflict between two nuclear powers, will make any territorial disputes pointless. After such a duel, there will be nothing to capture, and most likely, there will be no one. It's good that we Russians understand this! But what about Europeans and Americans? Don't they know these common truths? Why are colossal budgets being spent on building up a grouping along our borders? Why did they increase the number of military contingent in Moldova and the Baltic states by 19 times?
In order to get answers to the above questions, I suggest you return to another period. period before the start of World War II. Germany, which first used poisonous substances on the battlefield in 1915, gave rise to a new era of the arms race. Leading tacticians and strategists of warfare were able to see for themselves that victory no longer depends on the number of soldiers, tanks and guns. The concept of "mustard gas" has firmly entered the everyday life of the military. This name was given to a gas that is capable of killing soldiers, regardless of where they were. Neither armored vehicles, nor trenches and fortifications saved from this insidious weapon.
After the defeat in the First World War, Germany was deprived of the right to produce poisonous substances and chemical weapons. The only thing that German chemists could develop in their laboratories was poisons for agriculture. But other countries, realizing the potential of the new weapons, launched the production of chemical warfare agents in a very short time and were soon able to produce new-generation ammunition. Most of European countries, the United States of America, Great Britain and the Soviet Union filled their warehouses with chemical munitions and improved the means of delivering them to positions and locality potential enemy. Poisonous substances were loaded with mortar mines, artillery and tank shells, and aerial bombs. Moreover, special aircraft appeared that were capable of spraying toxic substances over a rather large territory, destroying all life on it. Millions and millions of shells, toxic substances, thermites, mixtures that give a temperature of 4000 degrees when burned, gases - it would seem that the next war will definitely be the last for the population of the planet. Plus, Germany, which in 1934 also joined the arms race and "gave" the world such poisons as "tabun" and "sarin". I cannot confirm, but I sincerely suspect that each of the countries stuffing their arsenals with poisons believed that it was this weapon of deterrence that would protect them from external aggression. However…
The outbreak of World War II once again split the world into two poles, and Germany, the ancestor of the use of chemical warfare agents on the battlefield, again found itself at the center of one of them. It would seem that this is the moment to open the arsenals and wrap the country of the aggressor in a chemical cloud, once and for all stopping the obsessive German aggressiveness. But Germany seizes one by one the countries of Europe, and mustard gas, sarin, phosgene and termites are in no hurry to leave the military warehouses of the Western powers. And the aggressor country itself is conquering new territories in an exclusively old-fashioned way, as if forgetting about the millions of shells filled with quick and inevitable death.
Great Britain was the first to think about the use of poisonous substances, which allowed the landing of German troops on its coast. Mustard gas was seen as a means of displacing the Germans from their positions on the coast. But Germany refused to conduct Operation Sea Lion and the mustard gas never left the British military arsenals. It would seem that the USSR, which was subjected to direct aggression from Germany, had a good reason for using chemical weapons and chemical warfare agents. In the summer of 1941, near Kerch, Soviet troops used RZS-132 rocket-incendiary shells during the shelling of German positions. This ammunition was equipped with 36 termite incendiary elements of the brand "6" weighing 4.2 kg each, and was intended for firing from the BM-13-16 multiple rocket launcher, better known as "Katyusha". For one volley, "Katyusha" fired 1500 incendiary elements. The combustion temperature of the thermite mixture reached 4000°C. When thermite got on the armor of tanks and gun barrels, alloy steel changed its properties and military equipment could no longer be used. People, "marked" with termite, died a terrible and painful death. In response, the Germans fired chemical shells at the Soviet positions with Nebelwerfer-41 rocket-propelled mortars. Thus, Germany demonstrated to the Soviet Union its readiness to violate the terms of the Geneva Protocol of 1925 if the use of RZS-132 shells continues. These shells were no longer used by the Soviet troops to shell the Germans, and the Germans did not seek to use chemical warfare agents. In 1935, the Soviet capacity for the production of mustard gas per year was 35 thousand tons, for phosgene - 13 thousand tons, for diphosgene - 1.9 thousand tons. As of December 1, 1936, the Soviet Air Force was armed with 90,000 chemical aerial bombs, and the mobilization capacities of industry were designed to produce 796,000 chemical bombs during the year. An equally impressive arsenal of chemical weapons, the most powerful at that time, had Germany and other countries participating in the World War. But almost all of it remained gathering dust in warehouses ...
The main factor that stopped the countries participating in the military conflict from using chemical weapons was, of course, the realization that an equally monstrous retaliatory strike would follow. Plus, an understanding of the responsibility that the losing side in the conflict will inevitably bear. In 1945, America used nuclear weapons in Japan, understanding that the war had already ended and the United States was in the camp of the winners, who, as a rule, were not judged. And in 1941 and even in 1942, it was impossible to predict who would become the winner in the conflict. Germany did not yet believe in its victory, and no longer believed in its loss to the USSR.
Today, nine countries have nuclear weapons in their arsenals: Russia, the United States, Great Britain, France, China, Pakistan, India, Israel and North Korea. Only Russia, the United States, Great Britain and France have nuclear weapons suitable for immediate use. According to SIPRI, these nuclear warheads are already installed on missiles or stored at military bases from where they can be launched. Are these countries ready to use nuclear weapons in the event of a conflict between nuclear powers? I doubt it very much. Most likely, nuclear weapons will suffer the same fate that befell the huge stockpiles of chemical weapons. It will simply collect dust in a warehouse or be on combat duty until such time as any of the countries nevertheless crosses the barrier and uses doomsday weapons. But this is unlikely. The inevitability of a retaliatory strike, the inevitability of punishment in the event of a loss, will stop the leadership of any of the powers mentioned above. Nuclear weapons are more of a psychological factor, nothing more. No one dares to use it for its intended purpose today. It is precisely with this that the high concentration of NATO troops on our border is connected, which are assigned a decisive role in the planned conflict. It is precisely with this that the creation of new divisions and strike groups on the territory of Russia is connected, which, in principle, is not necessary for a power determined to respond to any aggression with a nuclear strike.
In general, one should not rely heavily on nuclear potential and regard the increase in the concentration of NATO troops on our border as banal game muscles. Apparently, the West is preparing for a direct clash with Russia. Prepare for this conflict and our country. When the thunder will strike and whether it will strike at all, the question is extremely complicated. But it is hard not to notice that preparations for war are in full swing. It is enough just to open the English-language press and look at the notes of analysts. The pumping of the local population, which day after day is hammered with information that Russia is preparing aggression either against the Baltic states, or against another state, is in full swing. And this is no accident. Europeans are being convinced of the inevitability of a military conflict, without giving only the approximate timing of its start.
What are we? Are we ready for conflict? I don't mean the army Russian Federation, which by itself is in full combat readiness, namely the population of Russia. Judging by the fact that VTsIOM has already begun to conduct surveys that describe our actions in the event of a war, it is still worth preparing. Even if and just in case, it doesn't hurt. But how to prepare if the Civil Defense system is completely destroyed, and the population is in a state of sweet delusion that we are a nuclear power, which means that any aggression in our direction is excluded? Where are the bomb shelters, the vaults of which are filled with gas masks and first aid supplies? When was the last time civil defense exercises were conducted with the population? Do you know what to do and where to go in case of an air raid alert? A real air raid alert? The Soviet Union was also a nuclear power. Superpower. But at the same time, we practiced both evacuation and fire fighting, studied chemical protection means and knew how to provide first aid. What changed? Have we received 100% guarantees that an exclusively peaceful life awaits Russia, since there are only friends around and aggression is basically excluded? Silly. It is stupid and reckless to think so! If Russia falls, it will fall not defeated on the battlefields, but becoming a victim of betrayal and carelessness of its own citizens, who so believed in their invincibility that they forgot even about elementary security measures.
Russia is not going to be the first to use nuclear weapons and will not initiate a global catastrophe, Russian President Vladimir Putin said.
He explained that the Russian concept of using this type of WMD does not provide for preemptive strike, only a response to an attack is possible. And it will all end in mutual destruction.
The issue of nuclear weapons is once again becoming topical with the growing tension around the world. The possibility of a preemptive strike was allowed in the Pentagon, however, with the stipulation that they would go for it only if they were firmly convinced that a strike against the United States was inevitable.
In the spring, they seriously discussed a possible attack on the DPRK - in response to threats from the North Korean leader.
And experts are speculating when the Third World War and whether any of the potential participants will go for the suicidal use of nuclear weapons.
USA: Donald Trump is at war on Twitter
The belligerent tweets of the president of the most powerful state in the world at the moment have long been the talk of the tongue. Trump won the presidential race, among other things, thanks to the manner of saying what he thinks, which bribed many, even if it is far from the standards accepted in politics. For example, why can't America use nuclear weapons if it has them?
Having become head of state, Trump did not abandon this manner, so sometimes there are calls to take away the account from the US president - or rather, the nuclear button.
In April of this year, a tweet in which Trump urged Russia to prepare for the arrival of “good, new and smart” missiles in Syria and accused it of supporting the “killer animal”, that is, the Syrian leader Bashar al-Assad, made the whole world afraid of the start of World War III.
The president himself, it seems, did not expect such a reaction at all. Less than an hour later, he published a completely different post in which he wondered why relations with Russia are now worse than during the Cold War, because there is essentially no reason for this.
The Kremlin reacted briefly to a question about Trump's tweets - they say, we are not for Twitter diplomacy, but for a serious approach. Collisions between American and Russian troops in Syria, which everyone feared, once again did not happen.
North Korean leader: smarter than you think
Russia is a long-time adversary of the United States, and relations between the countries are really tense right now. However, the idea of a preventive nuclear strike at the Pentagon arose for a completely different reason: the US military was alerted by the threats of the leaders of the DPRK, whose rhetoric has become completely belligerent.
A small country in the north of the Korean Peninsula was engaged in the development of nuclear weapons, which did not suit the members of the so-called "nuclear club", that is, countries that already possess WMD. Sanctions were imposed against the DPRK, but this did not bother the leaders of the state.
A sharp aggravation of relations, called the August crisis, occurred last year. The head of the DPRK, Kim Jong-un, even threatened to launch a nuclear strike on the US air base on the island of Guam. The forces of the tiny Asian state and the United States, it would seem, are incomparable, but the DPRK, in the event of an armed conflict, could cause serious damage to its neighbors, South Korea and Japan. So the war had to be avoided.
Trump, of course, could not stand the threats of the North Korean leader and averted his soul on Twitter. The apotheosis was the exchange of "New Year's greetings": the leader of the DPRK, addressing the nation, said that he always kept the nuclear button at hand so that the United States could not start a war. Trump replied on the same Twitter that his button is bigger and it works.
As a result, both opponents turned out to be more reasonable than it seemed from their statements. Not without difficulty, efforts and difficulties on both sides, the crisis in relations was overcome, the leaders of the United States and the DPRK met in Singapore for the first time in history and even reached an agreement that the DPRK would denuclearize the Korean Peninsula if the United States provided security guarantees. True, the document does not contain any specifics, and many analysts said that Kim Jong-un outplayed his overseas counterpart. But war on the Korean Peninsula was avoided.
Russia: retribution is inevitable
In February of this year, the United States promulgated a new nuclear doctrine, which provides for the modernization of nuclear weapons and the development of their low-yield types.
It names Russia, China, North Korea and Iran as potential adversaries. Unlike small North Korea and relatively small Iran, Russia, as the successor to the USSR, is a longtime geopolitical rival of the United States. It was these two countries that became the first and main owners of terrifying weapons of mass destruction, capable of destroying any potential enemy - and at the same time the planet.
In 1987, after Soviet Secretary General Mikhail Gorbachev and US President Ronald Reagan signed an agreement on the elimination of intermediate and shorter-range nuclear missiles (INF). Massive disarmament continued for 30 years. However, now many experts fear that the new race weapons, and calculate which side has the advantage.
Some analysts believe that Vladimir Putin's famous March speech with a message Federal Assembly, in which he spoke about new types of weapons for the Russian army, was a response to the updated US nuclear doctrine. And Trump's tweet about "smart missiles", in turn, was a response to Putin's speech.
At a meeting of the Valdai International Discussion Club, the Russian leader recalled that Russia does not intend to be the first to use nuclear weapons, but that a strike will be answered. To make sure that the attack happened, they will help modern systems early warning of a missile attack, capable of fixing the launch of missiles on any territory within a few seconds, as well as determining the flight path and the places where the warheads fall.
“The aggressor must know that retribution is inevitable, that he will be destroyed. And we, the victims of aggression, we, as martyrs, will go to heaven, and they will simply die, because they won’t even have time to repent,” the president summed up emotionally, assuring that Russia would not be the initiator of a “global catastrophe.”
Apocalypse in 40 minutes
The political situation in the world is becoming more and more tense, and experts and journalists are increasingly talking about the Third World War.
Some people think that it is already underway, others do not rule out that the conflict will begin in the near future. The most likely opponents are the United States on the one hand and Russia and China on the other. Some even believe that it is worth waiting for a clash between the US and China, but in this case, Russia, as an ally of China, is unlikely to be able to stay out of the fight.
Analysts see the future war in different ways, most often mentioning a hybrid war, in which the main role is played not so much by direct fighting, how much political and economic pressure and non-military attacks, such as electronic and information.
Opinions are expressed very different, but the vast majority of experts agree on one thing - there will be no "classic" nuclear war between Russia and the United States. According to calculations, the exchange of nuclear strikes will last 40 minutes and end with the death of mankind. And hardly any of the politicians will take such a suicidal step.
A large number of geological, paleontological and archaeological evidence indicates that about 13,000 years ago something terrible happened on the entire planet, which destroyed not only many representatives of the animal world, but also the developed civilization that existed at that time, and almost led mankind to death.
The fact that Plato attributed the death to the same time is clearly not a coincidence ... Many people attribute the famous Flood to approximately the same period. In total, about 200 species of animals become extinct at this time. At the same time, when there is a mass extinction of such animals as mammoths, saber-toothed tigers, woolly rhinos, etc., there is evidence of various geological cataclysms - strong earthquakes and volcanic eruptions, giant tidal waves, rapid melting of glaciers and, as a result, a rise in the level oceans.
By the same time, finds of a huge number of quickly frozen animal corpses in, in the west of Alaska and in the eastern regions of Siberia. This suggests that something terrible has happened on the planet, with the Northern Hemisphere affected more than the Southern, it seems.
In the 1940s, American archaeologist Frank Hibben led a scientific expedition to Alaska to search for human fossils. He did not find them, but he found them in the permafrost vast spaces filled with the corpses of mammoths, mastodons, bison, horses, wolves, and lions. Many animal corpses were literally torn to pieces. And these fields of permafrost with animal remains spread hundreds of kilometers around... There were trees, animals, layers of peat and moss, mixed together, as if some giant cosmic mixer sucked them all 13,000 years ago, and then instantly froze, turning it into a solid mass.
North of Siberia entire islands are formed from animal bones taken from the continent to the Arctic Ocean. According to some estimates, 10 million animals may be buried along the rivers of northern Siberia. This indicates that a huge tsunami swept through these lands, mixing animals and plants, which then quickly froze.
But animal extinction was not limited to the Arctic. Huge piles of mixed bones of mammoths and saber-toothed tigers have been found in Florida. Mastodons and other animals have also been found quickly frozen in mountain glaciers.
It was a global event. The mammoths and bison of Siberia disappeared at the same time as the giant rhinos in Europe, the mastodons in Alaska, and the American camels. It is quite obvious that the cause of all this extinction was common, and it did not occur gradually.
What could cause such a global cataclysm?
The theory of “glacial floods” was proposed by Graham Hankock… What could have caused such a catastrophically fast melting of glaciers? According to American scientists Richard Firestone and William Topping, the entire Great Lakes region of North America was the site of a "nuclear catastrophe" about 12,500 years ago.
Dr. Paul LaViolette, in his book Earth Under Fire, states that he has found evidence of a different sort of cataclysm, caused by a high-energy particle stream that hit the Earth as a result of an explosion at the core of our Galaxy. This is another attempt to explain the cause of the "nuclear catastrophe" in North America.
There are also suggestions that the collision of the Earth with a fairly large celestial body (the figure is called - at least 50 meters) at a "critical angle" can also lead to a catastrophically fast shift of the earth's crust.
The fall of the ancient Moon to the Earth led to a shift in its axis. Otto Mack, in his book The Secret of Atlantis (Muck, Otto, The Secret of Atlantis), writes about numerous mysterious bays in the states of North and South Carolina, which, in his opinion, are the remains of meteorite craters. They are oval in shape and oriented in the same direction. Some researchers believe that these craters are the result of a "meteor shower" that happened about 13,000 years ago. It strikes the number of such craters is more than 500 thousand located on the coastal plain from Georgia to Delaware.
But could even such a massive “shelling” of the Earth cause a global catastrophe with kilometer-long tsunamis, etc.? Of course, if this was indeed the result of the collapse of a satellite, even if it was not too large compared to the current Moon, then there must have been fragments and larger ones ...
On the ground over a hundred craters with a diameter of 2-3 kilometers were found, among which there are two huge ones: in South America(diameter - 40 km) and in South Africa (diameter - 120 km). If they were formed in the Paleozoic era (350 million years ago), then nothing would have been left of them long ago, since the thickness of the Earth's upper layer increases by about a meter in a hundred years.
And the funnels are still intact. This suggests that a nuclear strike occurred 25-35 thousand years ago. Taking 100 funnels for 3 km, we get that 5000 Mt of bombs were blown up during the war. These facts confirm that it was. The fire burned for “three days and three nights” (as the “Code of Rio” of the Mayan people tells) and led to a nuclear rain - where bombs did not fall, radiation fell. Another terrible phenomenon caused by radiation is light burns of the body. They are explained by the fact that the shock wave propagates not only along the earth, but also upwards. Reaching the stratosphere, it destroys the ozone layer that protects the Earth from harmful ultraviolet radiation. Ultraviolet, as you know, burns unprotected areas of the skin. Nuclear explosions caused a significant decrease in pressure and poisoning of the gas composition of the atmosphere, killing the survivors.
People tried to escape from death in their underground cities, but rains and earthquakes destroyed shelters and drove the inhabitants back to the surface of the earth. Previously, scientists believed that the “pipes” that operate in our time, going from caves to the surface of the earth, are of natural origin. In fact, they are made with . These "pipes" have a regular rounded shape, which is unusual for funnels. natural origin(there are many of them in the caves of the Perm region, including in the vicinity of the city of Kungur).
In Antarctica, high in the mountains, American scientist Joseph Skipper discovered a mysterious hole. Where it leads is unknown. According to legend, inside Antarctica there are warm cavities in which the remains of aliens or extinct developed civilizations are located. Other legends claim that Antarctica was once Atlantis.
Of course, it's hard to believe, but how then to explain the entrance and ice-free oases with ice-free lakes and a rather mild climate? A team of scientists from Japan, China and enlightened a 5-kilometer layer of ice with radar. It turned out that earlier on the site of permafrost there were mountains and plains with flowering meadows. Frozen plants and trees are still hiding under the ice. But it's almost impossible to get to them.
Atlantis before the catastrophe was a huge state, which is why traces of this country are found on different continents. It is often mistakenly attributed to it the artifacts left over from, of which Atlantis was once a part. This is directly stated in the records of Plato, in a dialogue with an Egyptian priest.
In Spain, recently discovered one of the cities of Atlantis
A group of researchers claims that it was possible to finally establish the location of one of the cities of the Atlanteans. He, scientists suggested, was buried under the water as a result of a devastating tsunami. Data obtained through radar, digital mapping and other technical innovations has allowed specialists to identify an entire city hidden under the swamps of Dona Ana Parca, a place north of Cadiz. The complex of buildings is built in the form of concentric rings - in strict accordance with the description of the ancient Greek philosopher Plato.
The main guide from which scientists repelled in their research was historical records dating back to 360 BC. The Greek philosopher Plato described Atlantis 2,600 years ago as "an island opposite the Pillars of Hercules." According to him, civilization was destroyed in just one day, and the city of Atlantis disappeared forever under the water column. According to these descriptions, a group of archaeologists and geologists focused their attention on the Atlantic and the Mediterranean region - and, in the end, they were lucky. According to the representatives of the research group, a natural disaster led to the death of Atlantis. An important piece of the historical puzzle is the elevated background of methane over the ancient ruins. The release of gas, scientists said, indicates that a huge number of people died overnight at this place.
7. The winning side rescued many representatives of the red race and resettled them on the American continent.
8. After eliminating most of the environmental consequences of a nuclear war, representatives of the white race began to actively help other peoples in raising their evolutionary levels of development, through the transfer of some knowledge and training to them.
Nikolai Levashov: Antlan, Atlantis. Thermonuclear war 13 thousand years ago.
As soon as the international situation sharply worsens through the efforts of the West, many begin to think about the possibility of a real nuclear conflict. And figures like Ukrainian Defense Minister Valery Heletey even “give answers”, assuring that Moscow has already threatened Kyiv several times with the use of tactical nuclear weapons. He did this on the first of September, forcing doubts about the adequacy of high-ranking officials of the “new Ukraine”.
"What if?" - experts and "ordinary citizens" ask each other. To shrug off is to make a mistake. An even bigger mistake is the belief in the inevitability of a "nuclear apocalypse", and that it can be avoided only by bringing the process of nuclear arms reduction to its logical point, to "global nuclear zero".
These questions arose in the public and scientific consciousness almost simultaneously with the American atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. And the first attempts to comprehend the military-political role of the nuclear factor date back to even earlier times. They began on the eve of the first US nuclear test at the Alamogordo test site in July 1945.
Even after the Second World War, the West could not suddenly, overnight, abandon the view that was appropriate in the time of Clausewitz: "War is the continuation of politics by other means."
After Stalingrad and Sevastopol, completely swept away by the war, after the "carpet" bombing of Hamburg and Dresden by the Anglo-Saxons, and especially after Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the future war began to be seen rather as the final and irrevocable completion of any civilized policy. And some in the West began to understand this. For example, John Fuller, author of The Second World War 1939-1945. Strategic and Tactical Review, published in 1948 in London and in 1956 (in Russian) in Moscow, emotionally and nervously stated: everything that Douai and Mitchell (the authors of the total "aviation" doctrines. - S.B.) preached about for many years is possible. Without the atomic bomb, their theory was a dream. With it, their theory became the darkest reality that man has ever faced.
John Fuller also quoted the English professor Ernest Woodward, who in his book "Some Political Aspects of the Atomic Bomb" in 1946 remarked: in Europe may be too much of a test for us. Humanity will not disappear, but people, without help and material means to restore, will return back to something like the end of the Bronze Age.
It was said correctly and, so to speak, "for growth."
The West could not abandon the idea of war as such, even under the threat of a return to the Bronze Age, or even to the Stone Age. But the thought of war now led to a state of passion. Throwing between the thesis of Clausewitz and the threat of the apocalypse began to determine the views of the West on the nuclear factor.
And what happened during those years in the Soviet Union? I.V. Stalin and the curator of the Soviet "Atomic Project" L.P. Beria was clearly aware of the deterrent role of nuclear weapons as a guarantor of peace.
In the early fifties, Beria, apparently with the knowledge of Stalin, ordered the preparation for open publication of a collection on the mastery of atomic energy in the USSR.
Unfortunately, after the death of Stalin and Beria, this much-needed publication did not take place. latest version draft version with notes by L. Beria is dated June 15, 1953. In particular, it said: “After the first copies of atomic bombs were manufactured and tested by the United States of America in 1945, the aggressive leaders of the United States dreamed of conquering domination over the world with the help of new weapons ... The atomic hysteria was accompanied by widespread propaganda of the inevitability of an atomic war and invincibility in this US war. The peoples of the world are under the immediate threat of a new nuclear war, unprecedented in its devastating consequences. The interests of preserving peace forced the Soviet Union to create atomic weapons.
Further, even more definitely: “In the Soviet Union, long before the war, there was a deep interest in the atomic problem, just as there is an interest in everything new, advanced, in all the achievements of science and technology ... If there were no threat of an atomic attack and the need to create a reliable defense of the socialist states - all the forces of scientists and technicians would be directed to the use of atomic energy for the development of peaceful branches of the national economy of the country. In the USSR, the atomic bomb was created as a means of protection, as a guarantee of the country's further peaceful development ... The Soviet Union urgently needed to create its own atomic bomb and thereby avert the impending threat of a new world war.
In the West, military theorists, publicists, political and military leaders intimidated the coming apocalypse, but the Soviet leadership looked at the problem from the standpoint of excluding war and ensuring peace. In fact, this was the first formulation of the concept of nuclear deterrence.
In 1955, a native of the former Austria-Hungary, General of the Headquarters Academy of the Portuguese Army F. Mikshe published the book "Atomic Weapons and Armies" simultaneously in London and New York. Soon it was also published in Paris under the title "Atomic War Tactics". In the preface to the French edition, the book was recommended not only to the military, but also to Western statesmen and politicians. So, despite the seemingly unserious status of the author of the book, serious attention was paid to her in NATO and in the United States. In 1956, the book was published in the Soviet Union, and it is not useless to leaf through it.
The general theorized within the framework of the theory not of peace, but of war, and for him a nuclear war was something like the recently ended World War II, but with atomic bombs to boot.
It is curious that the Austro-Portuguese General Staff officer believed that if, after an atomic strike, “all shortwave radio stations fail within a radius of 4 miles,” then messengers may turn out to be “the most reliable means of communication” ...
There was something of paranoia in this efficiency, but after all, the American theorist of nuclear war Herman Kahn called one of his old books “Thoughts about the Unthinkable”, but he was not written down as a schizophrenic. This is the subject of discussion: accepting the thesis about the possibility and admissibility of nuclear war, even quite, seemingly, reasonable in everything else, serious people begin to argue, to put it mildly, inadequately.
At the same time, General Miksche played out the nuclear war in 1940 in a very detailed and thorough manner on a dozen and a half pages of his book, assuming that “both belligerents (the Germans and the British and French opposing them. - S.B.) would have armies with modern technology and used nuclear weapons. He depicted these hypothetical events in the form of a war correspondent's diary, beginning on Tuesday, May 10, 1940. Let me give you a few fragments: the NATO general painted a very vivid picture.
"LA FERTE (Allied Headquarters, Tuesday, May 10, 1940). After the “strange war” that has been going on since the autumn of last year, the current day is so full of events that it is difficult to describe them coherently ... The 1st Army Group of General Billotte crossed the Belgian border ... The population greeted the long impressive columns with stormy applause ... artillery."
LILL AREA (first echelon of Allied headquarters, Saturday, May 14, 1940). The atomic strikes carried out yesterday significantly slowed down the advance of the enemy ... Our air reconnaissance determines the number of destroyed vehicles at several thousand ...
June 15th. From this day forward, the BBC succinctly repeats: “On western front no change." The struggle is more and more transferred deep into the front. German aircraft dropped atomic bombs to London, Paris, Limoges and Saint-Etienne. Berlin, Düsseldorf, Cologne and other cities suffered the same fate. This is how the war goes. And what's next?
The general does not answer his own question about the further development of events. But really, what's next? In Miksche's view, up to 80 atomic charges fell on a small but densely populated part of Europe in a month, European capitals turned into hell, and Miksche states: "The picture may not be entirely clear, but ...".
Reading all this in the book of a Western theorist, and not in the diary of a doctor on duty in a psychiatric hospital, you refuse to believe your own eyes. All this is reminiscent of a hackneyed and gloomy anecdote. When asked what to do in the event of an atomic alarm, the answer was given: "Cover yourself with a white sheet and crawl to the cemetery." It took the Cuban Missile Crisis of 1962 for theorists and practitioners of nuclear planning to begin to realize that a real nuclear war is unacceptable, and only nuclear deterrence can be the policy of the present era.
At one time in the West, the theory of mutually assured destruction was in vogue - the MSU, in fact, without publicity, was not denied in the USSR either. It was fashionable in the West to count how many times the Soviet Union could destroy America, and how many times America could destroy the Soviet Union. Each time it turned out that with the total megatonnage of nuclear weapons - dozens of times. But these were idle mind games of amateurs. Yes, those stockpiles of nuclear weapons in the US and the USSR in the tens of thousands of nuclear warheads that the parties had by the 1980s were to a large extent excessive. But there were also certain circumstances that forced the buildup of nuclear weapons.
More precisely, the Soviet Union was forced to increase them insofar as it was forced to do so by the US nuclear policy. The pace, scale and nature of the arms race were set by Washington's position.
America's enduring desire to secure overwhelming military superiority over the USSR constantly led the United States to make more and more attempts to become a "world hegemon." The USSR was forced to respond to them. And this led to the quantitative growth of carriers and warheads.
The ratio of the nuclear arsenals of the USSR and the USA in 1960 was 1605 charges to 20434, that is, approximately 1:13. Even by the beginning of the seventies, the USSR had 10,538 nuclear charges against 26,910 US charges - two and a half times less.
And in the United States, the so-called "McNamara criterion" was then in use: the thesis that it was necessary to destroy up to 60 percent of the military-economic potential of the USSR in order to ensure victory in a nuclear war. What could be opposed to this, except equal strength?
Therefore, Russia had to move towards parity: if in 1977 the ratio of arsenals was 25099 to 23044 units in favor of the United States, then by 1979 it had changed in favor of the USSR: 27935 to 24107. But instead of an equal reduction in existing weapons, America continued to seek new scientific and technical path to a systemic nuclear monopoly. She is busy with this, by the way, to this day.
Washington's desire to create an impenetrable missile defense also played its part in the arms race. This also necessitated the improvement of the Soviet nuclear missile forces in order to guarantee its overcoming. The problem was not to be able to "destroy" the United States ten or forty times. And in being able, in the event of a massive US strike on the USSR and its strategic forces, to strike back at the US - once, but guaranteed. This requires a quantitative "margin of safety". Due to the uncertainty of the result, it was believed that this stock should be multiple - so they increased the number of weapons, which from some point really turned out to be redundant. After realizing this fact, the process of arms limitation and reduction began on the basis of the concept of nuclear deterrence, in fact, the same modified concept of the VSU.
Emphasizing primarily psychological meaning, the US Department of Defense dictionary defines nuclear deterrence as follows: “Preventing action in view of threatening consequences. Deterrence is a state of mind caused by the existence of a reasonable threat of unacceptable counteractions.
It is clear that curbing the US propensity to solve problems by force is possible only if they feel a real, justified threat of unacceptable counter-actions against themselves. The minimization of Russia's nuclear weapons against the backdrop of the creation and deployment of a nationwide US missile defense system with the ability to intercept hundreds of Russian ballistic missiles is precisely capable of removing the psychological barrier. Give Washington a false sense of invulnerability.
The psychological aspect - as the most important component of the nuclear factor - made itself known even during the preparations for the first test of a nuclear weapon in the United States, in the Alamogordo desert.
Then the idea was seriously discussed: not to drop a bomb on Japan, but to invite representatives of the Land of the Rising Sun to the American test site, and achieve surrender due to a visual frightening effect.
This was something completely new in the history of wars! Has it ever been seen before that one belligerent counted on victory by blowing up something in the presence of the enemy on its own territory thousands of kilometers from the war zone?
Be that as it may, this damned question will torment many of us: "Is it possible to imagine such a situation when ... And isn't it better to simply destroy all nuclear weapons, eliminating the possibility of a nuclear war?"
In principle, a "global nuclear zero" is not only acceptable, but necessary. Accordingly, a reasonable planetary paradigm in the field of armaments is exclusively the idea of general and complete disarmament, first put forward by Russia at the end of the century before last, and then proposed by our country several times (the last time in 1971).
For the time being, there can be no question of a “global nuclear zero” for Russia. Otherwise, our country runs the risk of becoming this same zero itself. As long as Russia has such nuclear missile weapons that provide a deep retaliatory strike against an aggressor even after its first strike, a "nuclear apocalypse" is impossible.
But let's try to imagine a different development of events ...
Russia agrees to further reductions in its nuclear missile weapons, increasingly limiting the number of its ICBMs, both silo and mobile. At the same time, America also makes cuts, while maintaining its ICBMs, nuclear boats from SLBMs to them, as well as a powerful anti-submarine defense - PLO - and a fleet of attack submarines capable of destroying Russian missile boats in the first strike. Saves America and massive high-precision sea-based cruise missiles capable of carrying a nuclear warhead. Time after time, the US refuses to include these SLCMs in the overall standings, and yet these and other precision-guided weapons are effective against Russia's mobile ICBMs.
All this against the backdrop of the development of the national missile defense infrastructure in the United States. To make it quite simple: America must be sure that after the “button is pressed” and the missiles fly towards Russia, not a single one of our missiles will fall on US territory. Or a few will fall. The missile defense system, according to Washington's plan, should guarantee its security. Opportunity to avoid answering.
The scenario is as follows: US strategic strike assets strike at Russia's strategic retaliatory strike assets. The missile defense system neutralizes Russia's extremely weakened retaliatory strike and thus ensures the desired impunity. America can have all this by about 2020 or a little later.
And that's when...
Then everything can start.
For example, yes.
1. US ASW assets and their attack submarines detect and destroy missile submarines of the Russian Navy that are on combat duty.
2. US ICBMs, their SLBM missile boats, and SLCM attack boats jointly deliver a disarming first strike against Russia's ground-based retaliatory strikes, that is, silo and mobile ICBMs. Perhaps the connection to this strike and nuclear missile submarines of the UK.
3. Mobile ICBMs of the Russian Federation are vulnerable, in fact, even to US sabotage groups, therefore, a strike against them by "specialists" sent to Russia in advance, or a strike against mobile Russian ICBMs by non-nuclear high-precision means is not ruled out.
4. Then, even in the event of an extremely weakened Russian retaliatory strike against a nuclear aggressor, a few warheads of Russia's retaliatory strike are intercepted by an echeloned US missile defense system.
Previously, everyone imagined the “nuclear apocalypse” as an exchange of massive nuclear strikes on cities and objects of military and economic potential. Today there is reason to believe that the concept of the United States has changed.
In conditions when America would have to destroy thousands of Soviet ICBMs and dozens of Soviet missile boats with many hundreds of SLBMs in the first strike, planning a disarming first US strike on the strategic assets of the USSR was a matter doomed to failure in advance. Inevitably, a massive retaliatory strike by the surviving part of the Soviet Strategic Nuclear Forces against the cities and facilities of the US VEP would unequivocally put an end to not only the power of America, but also to itself. And that was guaranteed to deter Washington.
In conditions when Russian strategic nuclear forces are minimized, and a considerable part of them are rather vulnerable mobile targets, in the presence of a massive layered missile defense system in the United States, a disarming first US strike on strategic assets of the Russian Federation becomes possible - with high chances of success.
There is no need to destroy the WEP of the Russian Federation: why destroy what can be used - it is enough to knock out Russia's strategic assets.
After that, Russia can be treated as the United States wishes. And such a variant of a "nuclear apocalypse" for Russia in the future is not excluded.
This means that we will continue to ask the same question for a long time: "What if ...".
- Dignities and clothes of Orthodox priests and monasticism
- Healers and fortune tellers - why do people go to them?
- During confession. Preparing for confession. List of sins for confession. How to dress for confession
- Praise of the Most Holy Theotokos Praise of the Mother of God with an akathist what they pray for