The most terrible scenario of nuclear war. The threat of nuclear war is a global problem

In the context of growing confrontation between the United States and Russia, we are increasingly beginning to think about the likelihood of a full-scale nuclear war. This article examines a nuclear exchange scenario. Who is more likely to survive? Whose strikes will be more effective? Can anyone win such a war? Read the article and watch the video (in English at the very end).

We also invite you to get acquainted with other ways of how you can destroy all of humanity.

Welcome, Commissar Binkov is with you. Today's video is called "Russia vs. USA: Global Nuclear Confrontation." As you can imagine, this time nuclear weapons are allowed. Actually, this time we will talk only about him.

So how would a sudden nuclear exchange between these two superpowers work? According to the scenario, the launch of the first missile will be preceded by weeks of rising tensions and preparations for a collision. To track an intercontinental ballistic missile, you need to have a network of early warning stations at your disposal. Typically, the first warning signals come from satellites monitoring the hot emissions that accompany large rockets entering orbit. The United States has more such satellites, which increases the likelihood of timely detection. Spies can also warn about mass missile launches, since the locations of missile launch silos are known, and it is almost impossible to hide the launches. Finally, incoming missiles and their warheads can be tracked by early warning radar, giving about 15 additional minutes before the first strikes.

The round shape of the Earth will hide intercontinental ballistic missiles from radar until the very last stage of their flight. Missiles in vertical silos have predictable approach vectors; Mobile launchers mounted on moving platforms can bring many more surprises. Submarine-launched missiles are supposedly the most unpredictable. To try to launch them, you need to cross the ocean and survive. But it is likely that the safer way to use submarines is proximity to the North Pole, which will also reduce travel time and the time it takes for warning systems to activate.

Is there defense against intercontinental ballistic missiles? On paper, to some extent, yes. For decades, both sides had anti-missile systems, but not many. Even today, defenses are designed primarily for limited strikes by small countries rather than large-scale nuclear exchanges. There are additional systems that, in theory, could intercept missiles. But they were designed for lower speed targets, and their launch platforms would need to be ideally positioned in advance. None of these systems will be able to “catch” a missile until the warhead separates from it, and few of them will be able to be intercepted, due to the low probability of interception and the small number of weapons deployed for this purpose.

But ballistic missiles are not only a way to launch a nuclear strike. Since at the moment there is nothing faster than them, they will be accompanied by attacks from cruise missiles and even, possibly, Boomerangs. It is important to note that only a small proportion of bombers can be kept ready for patrols and operational missions. By the time the first wave of missiles is launched, their airfields will most likely be destroyed.

Moreover, intercepting bombers and cruise missiles may be easier than intercepting ICBMs, leading to fewer successful salvos. So cruise missiles and bombs will not make much of a contribution to the overall scale of destruction. The main blow, of course, will fall on ICBMs and missiles launched from submarines. The US has slightly more missiles and can carry more warheads on average. However, the missiles deployed by the US currently have fewer warheads than are available because prepared warheads cost extra money. Russia, however, appears to be seeking to deploy as many missiles as needed to bring all warheads into combat readiness. In the event of a potential war, they will be able to deploy additional warheads if time and missile design permit.

It is important to note that almost all land-based missiles and warheads will be ready within a few weeks, but submarines will require relatively more time for maintenance and preparation for installation.

In reality, in a couple of weeks it will be possible to prepare no more than a third of the total number of submarines for patrol. However, as during the Cold War, some submarines will be able to launch missiles directly from their ports. We can expect that a total of no more than 2/3 of all submarines will launch their shells. And some American submarines will be on patrol even before the start of hostilities with fewer warheads.

The US will also be able to drop slightly more warheads using bombers, since their total number exceeds that of the enemy, as well as the number of warheads on board each aircraft. The total warhead reserves of both countries are several times greater. But with only a few weeks of preparation, as assumed in the scenario, many of them simply will not be put into operation on time. These figures also include tactical nuclear weapons, of which Russia has many more than the United States due to its different doctrine, which requires the storage of nuclear weapons in the event of a land war in Europe. In a nuclear exchange where one side unexpectedly presses the red button first, the one with the best pre-emptive capabilities and the most launchers will win. But this scenario does not provide for such a one-sided launch. It is also possible for events to develop with a partial or complete lack of time for preparation, where days are already counting. In this case, Russia may have more advantages, since the missiles ready for combat are already filled to capacity with warheads. Such a sudden, one-sided start to war may cause more damage to the opponent, but in reality no one will want to launch an unprovoked attack. A more plausible nuclear exchange, as illustrated in this scenario, would result from misunderstandings and accidents that would ultimately lead to all-out nuclear war.

Early warning radars, underwater communications links and command centers will be prime targets, as will silo-based launchers on both sides in the hope of destroying at least some of them before activation. Submarines located in close proximity to the coast of their country will be the most difficult to find and destroy. But their capabilities are somewhat limited compared to huge silo-based missiles.

Various military bases will also be targeted. Therefore, the likelihood of further bomber attacks following the first wave is extremely low. There is a possibility that a small part of the launched missiles will not work correctly, and some will be intercepted. Even more bombers and cruise missiles will be intercepted.

For several decades, doctrines on both sides have suggested that low-yield warheads are best because more can fit inside a missile.

So what else will be targeted? Anything that can significantly harm the military and economic potential of the other side. The missiles will also be aimed at many cities, but after some time it will become clear that it makes more sense to use warheads against some factory, large port or power plant than against a small town. This scenario thus considers an option in which most warheads will hit military targets, some will hit industrial targets, and less than a third of their total number will be used against large populated areas. But military and industrial targets are often located near cities, resulting in an increased number of civilian casualties.

Now let's look at the consequences of a nuclear explosion. If the detonation occurs close to the ground, there will be more radioactive fallout as the emitted particles fall into the soil, which in turn is released into the air. But the ground and nearby buildings will create a kind of “shield” that will make other effects less lethal at a distance. A detonation high in the air would kill many more people instantly, but there would be less radiation-contaminated soil scattered about, reducing the danger from radiation risk in the long term. The probability of destruction of concrete structures at a distance is also low.

The explosion creates a fireball that is relatively small compared to other effects. The shock wave demolishes buildings. There is also a burst of direct radiation that lasts only a second, but is fatal to anyone nearby. And finally, heat, that is, thermal radiation. Direct exposure to its rays can be fatal even at some distance. One of the key points is protection against radiation absorption. All given indicators related to a single unprotected target at a given distance. But if a person stands behind any structure, it can save his life.

In general, if a brick building has not collapsed, it will largely protect a person from the effects of radiation and direct heat rays, even at a closer distance than the specified one. According to studies, the number of victims inside homes is approximately 9% lower than when people are in open spaces.

So how many would a nuclear explosion kill in, say, downtown New York? Regardless of whether people are in buildings or not, everyone within a two-kilometer radius of the supposed epicenter will die. An explosion with a yield of 450 kilotons usually kills 1.2 million people, despite the fact that they are in open space. It’s better, of course, to be inside a building or underground, because thanks to anticipatory systems, the majority of the population will have plenty of time to hide. Another question is how to get out of the rubble alive.

According to the map, a dozen or more warheads would be needed to achieve a high level of casualties in the most populous part of New York. Moscow has more people and more territories. To fully cover it, several more warheads will be required. In the United States, there are fewer cities with a population exceeding 1 million people than in Russia, but there are more medium-sized cities with populations of less than 500 thousand people. The average population density of Russian cities is slightly higher than in America, as there are more apartment buildings there. American families are more likely to live in detached buildings. At close distances, it is their houses that will be swept away by the consequences of the explosion and subsequent fire. The overall population density of the two countries favors the United States slightly more, and that's because a huge part of Russia is largely uninhabited. All this suggests that the United States, if it has more warheads at its disposal and they all successfully achieve their goals, will destroy about 30% more Russian cities than Russia can destroy American ones. But since the United States has more cities with average populations, the use of Russian shells will be more effective.

Both sides - the USA to a greater extent than Russia - will find a lack of large cities on which they would not mind spending warheads. As already mentioned, given the size of certain cities, they are more likely to be used to hit military or industrial targets. The advantage here is on the US side, since the Russian army is not so numerous, and fewer warheads may be required for the entire range of military targets. This way, America will be able to spend more missiles on economic purposes and cities.

The total number of victims of the explosions and their direct consequences, such as injuries, fires and fallen buildings, will most likely be tens of millions of people. Not all of them will die instantly; some will die due to their injuries within a few days. Medical care will not be available in most cases. Millions of people, among other things, will die due to the fallout of radioactive particles that enter the body days and even months after the war. Using the bombing of Hiroshima as an example, 20% more people would die from radiation sickness within a few months. To a lesser extent, the causes of death would be all sorts of cancers and other long-term health problems. Many people would die over the next few years. The indirect consequences will be much more dangerous. Spreading diseases would kill many, and the sudden disappearance of the modern state and infrastructure would lead to food and housing shortages. Riots will begin due to the lack of an organized law enforcement system. Tens of millions will die in the next year or so.

Finally, the consequences of a nuclear winter cannot be discounted. Due to dust released into the atmosphere and firestorms, the temperature on our planet will decrease and the climate will change accordingly. This will lead to problems with crops and livestock. It will be impossible to predict the exact range of effects, as all studies conducted in recent decades have suggested different results. It is important to note that nuclear winter will affect not only the two warring sides, but the entire world as a whole. One hundred million or even a billion people around the world will die of hunger; it is impossible to give a more precise figure. Most likely, Russia and the United States will cease to exist in the form in which we know them now. Governments will fall apart and the geopolitical map will be redefined as a new world order emerges; Only third countries will benefit. Which makes such a two-sided nuclear war unlikely. There will be no winner as such, only the side that has lost less than the other. In the end, the only winning move would be to not start this war at all.

An armed conflict between NATO and Russia could result in a nuclear war, according to the American publication The National Interest.

Here, they write, how good it was with the Soviet Union - it promised not to attack first.+ This, of course, raises the question: if so, why do you even need an organization like NATO? Well, okay, what's done is done.

But now representatives of the alliance are haunted by the fact that Russia is taking the place of the USSR on the world stage. And with a different doctrine: now it allows the use of nuclear weapons if the existence of the state as such is threatened.

And The National Interest has already come up with a threat: NATO will attack, so Russia will respond - what treachery. According to the journalists, Moscow will launch an attack on the Baltic states, the alliance will defend it, apparently threatening the existence of Russia, and Russia will use nuclear weapons in response. The script is ready, all that remains is to film it and put it on air.

As stated in the material, all this nonsense was written back in 2016, but due to the interest of readers it was reprinted. In general, they are even too lazy to invent and hope that the re-publication will instantly convince everyone who was still in doubt these year and a half. Although some might have a question: you promised the year before last that Russia was preparing an attack on the Baltic states - and Where?..

Readers in the comments on the site, in principle, cannot understand why Russia might need Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia and why an entire article is based on this initially insane assumption. Some remind that, as a rule, it is not Russia that attacks Western countries, but quite the opposite - Napoleon, Hitler - and NATO has been slowly approaching Russian borders all these years. Others cannot understand why it is necessary to fight with Russia in the first place.

And it's really unclear. But surely journalists and military officials will come up with something or find some forgotten article from three years ago - all means are good to increase the military budget.

In June of this year, representatives of 122 states voted at UN headquarters in New York to adopt a treaty on the prohibition of nuclear weapons, which should come into force once fifty countries ratify it. The first article of this peace document reads:

Each State Party undertakes never, under any circumstances, to develop, test, manufacture, manufacture, otherwise acquire, possess or stockpile nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices.

Experts speaking in support of the document remind that even a regional nuclear war can lead to a global humanitarian and environmental catastrophe. Their arguments sound convincing and alarming against the backdrop of sharply escalating rhetoric from the nuclear powers - US President Donald Trump and North Korean leader Kim Jong-un. In March of this year, American analyst and nuclear weapons specialist Matthias Eken published his calculations in The Conversation magazine, and we present his assessments of the consequences of nuclear war on the PM website.

India VS Pakistan

The most studied option is an exchange of nuclear strikes between India and Pakistan, 50 on each side, with explosions mainly over cities; experts believe that this is what a nuclear war could look like between states with a total of 220 nuclear warheads. In this scenario, 20 million people will die in the first week of the war - directly during the explosions, as well as from the fires and radiation caused by them. This in itself is terrible; The First World War claimed fewer lives. But the destructive effect of atomic bombs will not end there: fires ignited by nuclear explosions will raise clouds of soot and smoke; radioactive particles will enter the stratosphere.

According to calculations, the Indo-Pakistan nuclear conflict will lead to the release of 6.5 tons of radioactive matter into the upper atmosphere; soot and soot screen the sun's rays, which can lead to a significant drop in the average annual temperature at the Earth's surface; The cooling may last for decades.

Nuclear winter, in turn, will affect agriculture. Corn yields in the United States (the world leader in its production) will fall by 12% in the first 10 years of cooling, rice yields in China will decrease by 17%, and winter wheat by 31%.

The world's grain reserves today are sufficient to meet global demand for 100 days. Once these reserves are depleted, a nuclear winter following the Indo-Pakistani nuclear conflict threatens nearly a third of the world's population—two billion people—with starvation.

USA VS DPRK

Another scenario is a nuclear exchange between North Korea and the United States. The nuclear arsenal, according to political scientists, is small, so the total power of the explosions will be less than in the Indo-Pakistani version, but will still lead to many deaths. In addition, such a scenario threatens further confrontation between nuclear powers in other regions of the planet.

Russia VS USA

The worst possible scenario is a nuclear war between the United States and Russia. Most of both countries' nuclear warheads are 10 to 50 times more powerful than the bomb that destroyed Hiroshima. If both states use strategic nuclear weapons (designed to destroy non-combat targets such as enemy cities and infrastructure), about 150 tons of soot will be released into the atmosphere, and the average temperature at the surface will drop by 8 ° C. Under these conditions, agriculture throughout the world will suffer a catastrophe, and most of humanity will be left without food.

The worst possible scenario is a nuclear war between the United States and Russia.

All the described scenarios, Eken believes, are unlikely, and everyone - especially politicians and the media - should avoid apocalyptic scenarios and alarmist rhetoric. The analyst recalls that by 2017, people had already detonated more than 2,000 nuclear bombs of varying power, and corn, rice and wheat would be born as if nothing had happened. But this does not mean that one can give up on the most unlikely scenarios of a nuclear war: five members of the club of nuclear powers - Great Britain, China, Russia, the USA and France - have nuclear warheads and delivery systems, in addition - India, North Korea and Pakistan; It is assumed that the nuclear bomb was developed by the Israeli military; Iran's nuclear program raises questions. It is better to remember the possible consequences of using nuclear weapons than to forget about them.

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. Atomic 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 outbreak of the Cold War in the second half of the last century, nuclear war between the United States and the USSR was considered a likely development.

• What will happen if there is a nuclear war?
• Doctrines of nuclear war in the past
• US nuclear doctrine during the Thaw
• Russian nuclear doctrine

What will happen if there is a nuclear war?

Many people fearfully asked the question: what will happen if a nuclear war breaks out? This conceals a large-scale environmental danger:

• The explosions would release enormous amounts of energy.
• Ash and soot from the fires would obscure the sun for a long time, which would lead to the effect of “nuclear night” or “nuclear winter” with a sharp drop in temperature on the planet.
• The apocalyptic picture would be complemented by radioactive contamination, which would have no less catastrophic consequences for life.

It was assumed that most 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 disaster 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:

1. As a result of a nuclear explosion, a giant fireball is formed, the heat from which chars or completely burns all living things at a sufficiently large distance from the epicenter of the explosion.
2. A third of the energy is released in the form of a powerful light pulse, a thousand times brighter than the radiation of the sun, so it instantly ignites all easily flammable materials (fabrics, paper, wood), and causes third-degree burns to people.
3. But the primary fires do not have time to flare up, since they are partially extinguished by a powerful blast wave. Flying burning debris, sparks, household gas explosions, short circuits and burning petroleum products cause extensive and long-lasting secondary fires.
4. Individual fires merge into a terrifying fire tornado that can easily burn down any metropolis. Such firestorms, created by the Allies, destroyed Dresden and Hamburg during the Second World War.
5. Since massive fires release heat in huge quantities, heated air masses rush upward, forming hurricanes at the surface of the earth, bringing new portions of oxygen to the fire.
6. Dust and soot rise to the stratosphere, forming a giant cloud there that blocks out the sunlight. And prolonged darkening leads to nuclear winter.

The earth after a nuclear war would hardly remain even 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 breaks out:

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, the military doctrine of the USSR also assigned a decisive role to nuclear missile weapons 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 military, but also civilian targets. It was believed that in such a conflict the country that would be the first to launch a massive nuclear strike against the enemy, the purpose of which was the preemptive destruction of its nuclear weapons, would gain an advantage.

But there was the main problem of a nuclear war - a preventive nuclear attack might not be so effective, and the enemy would be able to launch a retaliatory nuclear strike on industrial centers and large cities.

Since the late 50s, a new concept of “limited nuclear war” has emerged in the United States. In the 70s, according to this concept, various weapons systems could be used in a hypothetical armed conflict, including operational-tactical and tactical nuclear weapons, which had restrictions on the scale of use and means of delivery. In such a conflict, atomic weapons would only be used to destroy military and important economic facilities. If history could be distorted, nuclear wars in the recent past could realistically follow a similar scenario.

One way or another, the United States still remains 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, codenamed “Baby,” on the city of Hiroshima.

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 surface of the earth, and its epicenter was above the Sima hospital. It was not by chance that Hiroshima was chosen as the target of a demonstrative nuclear strike - it was there at that time that the general headquarters 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.
• There was a zone of complete destruction within a radius of about 1.6 kilometers, while the fires spread over an area of ​​11.4 square meters. km.
• 90% of the city's buildings were either completely destroyed or severely damaged.
• The tram system miraculously survived the bombing.

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 destructive, as for a race.

Sad video about the nuclear attack on Hiroshima:

Nagasaki

On August 9 at 11:02, another American plane dropped another nuclear charge, “Fat Man,” on the city of Nagasaki. It was detonated high above the Nagasaki Valley, where industrial plants were located. The second American nuclear attack on Japan in a row caused further catastrophic destruction and loss of life:

• 74,000 Japanese died 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

At 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 it was no longer possible to achieve this goal with the help of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, therefore, at critical moments, the United States reserved the right to carry out “disarmament strikes” on the nuclear facilities of undesirable regimes.

In 1997, a directive was adopted according to which the US Army must be prepared to strike foreign facilities for the production and storage of biological, chemical and nuclear weapons. And in 2002, the concept of counterproliferation entered the American 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

Russia's military doctrine also periodically changes its wording. In the latter option, 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 could become one of the reasons for nuclear war. This speaks to the main thing - the likelihood of a nuclear war currently exists quite acutely, but the rulers understand that no one can survive in this conflict.

Russian nuclear weapons

An alternative history with nuclear war was developed in Russia. In 2016, the US State Department estimated, based on the data provided under the START-3 treaty, that the Russian army deployed 508 strategic nuclear delivery vehicles:

• intercontinental ballistic missiles;
• strategic bombers;
• missiles on submarines.

There are 847 nuclear charge carriers in total, on which 1,796 charges are installed. It should be noted that nuclear weapons in Russia are being reduced quite intensively - over six months their number decreases 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 a 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.

A detailed article on the means that Russia can use to achieve victory in a nuclear war has already been written. However, it is worth clarifying that not all of them are compatible, and some consequences of their use are not mentioned. In total, I was able to identify six possible scenarios for the development of events:

1) Moderate scenario

2) Bet on a pre-emptive strike

3) Plan "Storm"

4) Plan "Blizzard"

5) Limited Cobalt War

6) Total cobalt war Let's look at each in more detail.

1. Moderate war scenario. Based on the strategic priority of defense. It is assumed that before the start of the war it will be possible to create a missile defense system that will reduce the number of Russian losses in the war to acceptable levels. At the same time, it should be considered very likely that Russia’s opponents will have similar systems. The result will be a stalemate in which a general nuclear strike will not lead to victory for either side. Consequently, the war will become protracted. It is likely that nuclear weapons will be used primarily for tactical purposes. Short-range missiles are usually more protected from air defenses; strategic missiles are focused on breaking through the anti-missile shield due to the number of missiles themselves and additional decoys, while for short-range missiles the priority is the ability to maneuver away from fire in automatic mode.

At the same time, the importance of bacteriological weapons, from which air defense cannot protect, will sharply increase. The war will almost inevitably escalate from a limited war into a total war - following the spread of the pandemic, nuclear missiles will hit the collapsed power - or, more likely, it will launch them first, as a last resort. The war may also develop into a cobalt war, which will be discussed later. It is difficult to assess how likely such a scenario is, since little is known about the ability of the latest air defense systems to withstand a massive nuclear strike. However, the ongoing reduction of missile weapons makes us think about this possibility. In this regard, it is necessary to remember the development of bacteriological and viral weapons, as well as the creation of vaccines against them.

The advantages of war in this scenario:

a) Less damage to the environment and the biosphere.

b) In case of victory, there will probably be fewer losses.

c) It's never too late to move on to Plan Storm or the Cobalt War. In general, this is where the advantages are exhausted.

a) This scenario is extremely unlikely.

b) The role of the economy and industry is increasing, especially in a protracted war - and Russia has no chance of getting ahead of China or the United States in this matter. That is, the advantage is given to the enemies.

c) The risk of the use of particularly dangerous strains of biological weapons or the use of cobalt weapons by the losing side, since they will have time to prepare.

2. Bet on a pre-emptive strike. One of the oldest plans for a war between two nuclear powers, based on the idea of ​​destroying the enemy's nuclear forces with a first preemptive strike. Such ideas were abandoned in the United States after achieving strategic parity with the USSR, when the number of warheads on both sides reached tens of thousands, but after large-scale disarmaments of recent times (and taking into account the possibility of missile defense systems destroying that part of the missiles that do take off) it may turn out to be possible return to this plan. The main problem is the flight time of the missiles. Automatic systems operating on the “Dead Hand” principle are capable of responding to missiles detected by radar very quickly. Fortunately, due to the fact that they can potentially launch due to instrument error, they are constantly monitored by humans - and there will still be a certain delay before making a decision to launch the missiles. But you will have to act very quickly. What are the main ways to launch a nuclear strike without receiving a response?

There are many of them that can be named. First, the use of missiles made using stealth technology (invisible to radar), which should hit command posts and main missile bases before a retaliatory strike is launched. For this, apparently, it will be necessary to use cruise missiles rather than ballistic missiles. It is best to launch from submarines. A few minutes later, what was not destroyed by the first wave is achieved by intercontinental ballistic missiles using conventional technology.

Secondly, missiles that are not intended for covert flight, but have a speed that reduces the flight time by several times. Plus, such missiles will be impossible to intercept in flight using modern technologies. Science is currently able to offer us only one way to create such missiles - a pulsed nuclear engine, in which nuclear explosions behind it are used to accelerate a nuclear missile. Thus, similar ideas regarding astronautics have been expressed repeatedly, in particular, the projects “Orion”, “Daedalus”

The tail of the rocket should be a massive metal plate that absorbs the energy of the explosion, and due to this it is potentially possible to accelerate the rocket to a speed of hundreds or thousands of kilometers per second (naturally, in a vacuum, since in the atmosphere such a speed means instantaneous combustion). This principle can be used to create ultra-high-speed missiles that can reach any point on Earth in a matter of minutes and pass through the radar visibility zone at a gigantic speed, after which they can penetrate an arbitrarily large layer of soil, hitting any enemy bunker. Such missiles, which consume many times less fuel relative to the payload, could be given titanic dimensions - and used as seismic weapons, destroying missile silos at a distance of many kilometers with an underground thermonuclear explosion of hundreds of megatons.

Personally, I imagine a rocket with a pulsed nuclear engine in this way: several rockets at some distance from each other (each in size corresponds to at least a two-hundred-ton "Satan", or even several times larger than that) hidden in silos, controlled remotely. At launch, either a bomb hidden in the silo itself or a conventional liquid or solid rocket engine is used. One way or another, having taken off from the ground, the rocket throws out dozens of low-power nuclear bombs (within a few kilotons), exploding at a strictly specified distance from the rocket and pushing it forward.

After the bombs run out and the tail of the rocket is partially destroyed by explosions, the first stage of the rocket (as in rockets with conventional engines) is discarded, and the next stage carries the rocket further. Probably, the second stage is discarded upon re-entry into the atmosphere over the territory of an enemy country, and a monoblock warhead (there is no need to overly complicate the design, forced to operate under conditions of extreme acceleration and temperature) with a protective composite coating is then only capable of adjusting its flight in accordance with the intended program.

The obvious problem with this solution: no one has a single working copy of the pulsed nuclear engine. And in the near future, obviously, it won’t be. How long it takes to develop such a rocket, if we tackle it immediately and ensure maximum government funding, is unknown. Exactly what speed can be achieved without destroying the rocket in flight, and whether such speed will be sufficient to radically outstrip the enemy is also unknown. The third method of delivering a first strike is the use of systems that make it possible to shoot down enemy missiles that have taken off while already in flight over their own territory. For example, to create ballistic missiles with low-power multiple warheads that could independently target enemy missiles flying towards them (which, however, is difficult due to flying on a collision course - high relative speed).

This also includes the idea of ​​​​using high-altitude thermonuclear explosions of high power to destroy electronics with an electromagnetic pulse (the problem is that most modern ballistic missiles are protected from the effects of this; however, aircraft and cruise missiles can be effectively destroyed in this way). So, the advantages of the idea of ​​a preemptive strike:

a) It is potentially possible to disable all or almost all of the enemy’s ground-based nuclear forces, which, with a sufficiently powerful air defense network, means an almost bloodless victory.

b) We can afford not to wage a war for the total destruction of the enemy if we do not suffer during the war. In the same case, if genocide is chosen as the optimal next move, it can be carried out using means less dangerous to the planetary biosphere (chemical, biological weapons).

a) The main disadvantage is that in the event of a preemptive strike by the enemy, all preparations for war turn out to be empty.

b) It is difficult to prepare such a strike without being noticed by reconnaissance, which brings us back to the previous point.

c) Modern technology does not allow the implementation of such a plan, so additional research is needed. The period during which the means necessary for the reliable destruction of enemy nuclear forces will be ready is unknown. What the United States and China will have time to do to strengthen their nuclear power during this time is also unknown.

d) Methods for destroying nuclear submarines in the oceans will have to be looked for separately - and it is not a fact that they can be neutralized with a sufficient level of reliability.

3. Plan "Storm". The name was given based on the main damaging factor in such a war - underwater thermonuclear explosions, which would cause monstrous tsunamis that would sweep away all living things tens or even hundreds of kilometers deep into the coast. Their consequence will also inevitably be monstrous atmospheric vortices, which will influence the entire planet for an indefinite time, preventing aviation flights and normal communication between regions.

The results of the implementation of such a plan look quite optimistic - since the use of aviation and cruise missiles will be difficult, Russia's losses are reduced (it is worth considering, however, that the Far East and, possibly, the Baltic are exposed to the impact of a giant tsunami, albeit weakened due to distances), and monstrous downpours wash away all radioactive ash from the atmosphere in a matter of weeks. The likely consequence of a war in such a scenario will also be sharply accelerated global warming - emissions of large amounts of greenhouse gases will no longer be compensated by ash emissions.

However, for Russia, which is extremely cold by the standards of the planet, this is only for the better. Difficulties: you need several ultra-high-power thermonuclear bombs (one hundred megatons or more). We need means of delivering them to the optimal detonation points (depth of at least a kilometer). How long it will take to prepare for war is difficult to predict, and therefore it is unclear whether we will have this time.

Pros: a) Makes it difficult to use aircraft and cruise missiles.

b) There is no “nuclear winter” effect.

c) Less radiation contamination of the planet (more precisely, it is distributed more evenly - which is the same thing).

d) Bombs can be planted in advance and, if winning the war in a given scenario turns out to be impossible, used for blackmail, instead moving on to, for example, a cobalt war plan.

e) When using plans 1 and 3, one or two thermonuclear bombs can be used according to the described principle to reduce the negative impact of war on the climate, especially if the consequences turned out to be significantly worse than expected

Disadvantages: a) Extremely heavy and expensive bombs are required, which means a high risk of the plan being revealed during the preparation stage. It is also unknown how long their production will take.

b) Submarines designed to deliver bombs to explosion sites may be spotted by the enemy.

c) Unpredictable consequences for the planet are possible in the event of a break in the oceanic crust (emission of greenhouse gases as a result of the eruption of underwater volcanoes, global warming, chronic repetition of large tsunamis in the region for decades to come, plus a planet-wide increase in seismic activity).

d) Damage to the nature of the oceans and coastal regions, which will be washed away by a giant wave. It is also worth noting that the products of many harmful chemical industries, as well as radioactive substances from destroyed nuclear power plants, will end up in the ocean.

4. Plan "Blizzard". The plan aims to deliberately create the effect of a “nuclear winter” to simply freeze out most of the Earth’s population. Since Russia, under such conditions, will have the least casualties on the planet (the situation may be better only in the Scandinavian countries and Northern Canada), then at the end of the nuclear winter we will have an advantage over other countries.

Since simple ash emissions from nuclear strikes on cities cannot achieve a significant atmospheric effect (taking into account the missile reductions that have taken place since the 80s, the maximum possible is a relatively mild “nuclear autumn” scenario), we need to think about non-standard methods of using nuclear weapons. Thus, the writer Alexey Doronin described the possibility of thermonuclear missiles hitting coal seams with the release of gigantic amounts of ash into the atmosphere.

Whether this is possible is not a fact, and it’s a pity for minerals. Therefore, I consider it necessary in this situation to deliver a massive blow with thermonuclear bombs from 5-10 to 50 or more megatons on the planet’s large volcanoes - unlike a “nuclear” winter, the possibility of a volcanic winter is a proven fact. First of all, of course, we are talking about the Yellowstone supervolcano in the USA. If there are sufficient food supplies, it is possible to strike again at other volcanoes after the effect of “winter” begins to fade away - in order to reduce to a minimum the chances of survival of the population of hostile states.

Pros: a) You don’t need a large number of missiles (with a rational distribution of targets).

b) As a consequence, low-yield warheads can be used for missile defense systems to reduce the damage from a retaliatory strike.

c) Frosts reduce the threat posed by bacteriological weapons (albeit temporarily) and facilitate quarantine measures.

d) Returning to the previous “Storm” plan, the effect of nuclear winter is relatively easy to eliminate if the consequences are excessively dangerous (if you prepare in advance for such a possibility).

e) In Russia, except for the Far East and, to a lesser extent, the Caucasus, there are no seismic zones with volcanic activity - accordingly, we will have to do better than anyone else. At the same time, the explosion of one supervolcano under Yellowstone National Park is potentially sufficient to destroy most of the United States.

Cons: a) The biggest disadvantage is food and fuel for survival during the “winter” process. Reserves for the entire country are needed for several years, and if such reserves are noticed, this may be fraught with a preemptive strike by opponents.

b) Damage to the nature of the planet - but “volcanic winter” has happened more than once or twice in history, including a maximum of approximately 5-6 years. Nature, as we know, survived this, although each time there were species of living beings that failed to adapt and became extinct. So it's not fatal.

5. Limited cobalt war. Given the lack of bombs and missiles in Russia's arsenal, radiological weapons, primarily cobalt, can be used to inflict maximum damage on other countries. It is intended for deliberate radioactive contamination of enemy territory and is dangerous primarily due to the possibility of transfer of radioactive isotopes by wind towards Russia.

To prevent cobalt bombs from having widespread effects, ideally a relatively large number of low-yield cobalt-clad nuclear bombs should be used in ground explosions. From low-yield tactical nuclear weapons (such as the bombs detonated in Hiroshima and Nagasaki), most of the atomic fission products fall out in the immediate vicinity of the explosion site. The problem, however, is the number of missiles required - and when using cobalt bombs of sufficiently high power, it is necessary to calculate in advance the direction of the wind during the war and beyond.

Pros: a) A relatively small number of bombs can cause enormous damage - unfortunately, with almost unpredictable consequences.

b) Cheap (one kilogram of cobalt has a market value of eight hundred rubles - for comparison, after the collapse of the USSR, Russia sold 500 tons of weapons-grade uranium to the United States at a price of $24,000 per kilogram, which is more than 700 thousand rubles in modern figures) and does not require high-level bombs power.

c) Due to the fact that cobalt is used in large quantities in industry (for alloying steel, making permanent magnets, in batteries, and its radioactive isotope cobalt-60 is used for medical purposes in radiotherapy), the production of casings for cobalt bombs can potentially be organized with sufficient secrecy.

d) The destruction of part of the bombs by enemy nuclear missiles on the ground cannot lead to fatal consequences, since for the reaction to take place effectively, cobalt must be in close proximity to the bomb, and nuclear and thermonuclear ammunition are incapable of arbitrary detonation in the event of a nearby explosion - they are simply destroyed before the start chain reaction. Cons: a) Unreliability is the biggest disadvantage.

The wind can bring the radioactive isotope of cobalt in sufficient quantities to the territory of Russia, and at the same time, a strong wind at the site where the bombs are used can drive all the explosion products so that the target is almost unaffected. Everything needs to be accurately calculated in advance, and at the same time, the very use of nuclear bombs can dramatically change the direction of the wind and the climate for a long period of time

b) When radiological weapons are used, the ecology of the planet suffers greatly.

In fact, a cobalt bomb of a couple of megatons in radioactive consequences is equivalent to at least a dozen Chernobyls or Fukushimas.

c) Great danger for agriculture. Even if our country receives minor radioactive contamination from cobalt-60 carried in the air, it is not difficult to protect people with ordinary respirators and protective raincoats (with a moderate amount of cobalt, of course) - but extremely serious problems will arise with the food grown in the fields.

d) The enemy’s underground bunkers are not destroyed, where, among other things, missiles or biological weapons may survive, which it would be more profitable for the enemy to use a little later, when we stop expecting a retaliatory strike.

6. Total cobalt war. The most extreme case possible. The ultimate scenario, if not beyond the pale. It is focused on a situation in which Russia does not have any chance of winning the war due to the extreme weakness of its strategic nuclear forces and the powerful missile defense of the United States or China. Cobalt bombs are perhaps the only way known to modern science (besides bacteriological or viral weapons) to destroy humanity.

With their sufficiently massive use, the entire surface of the planet will become unsuitable for human life for several decades - as a result, we get the global “Metro-2033”. This, in fact, is the only possible war scenario in which people will be forced to sit in bunkers for many years without going to the surface - although such a plot is common in science fiction, a war under a different scenario has no chance of releasing a sufficient amount of radiation.

It is quite possible that we will have to detonate bombs over our own territory at a high altitude due to counteraction from enemy air defense and missile defense. In this case, explosions of the highest possible power are effective, from which radioactive substances, transformed into a vapor or plasma state, will spread through the stratosphere throughout the planet, driving the surviving part of people into underground shelters. My story “The Unthinkable” is dedicated to such a terrible war scenario (http://samlib.ru/t/tokmakow_k_d/nemislimoe.shtml). Unlike the previous war scenarios described, I will start by listing the disadvantages of this plan:

a) Catastrophic consequences for the population of Russia. In modern conditions, it is hardly possible to hide in bunkers and subways more than 1-2 million people out of one hundred and forty million of the country's population - even if we do not take into account the destruction of part of the bunkers and especially the subway by enemy missiles.

b) Extremely large reserves of food or ways to sufficiently produce it for at least 20-30 years are needed. At the same time, communication between bunkers, with the exception of existing separate underground tunnels and the possibility of building them between nearby bunkers, will be practically impossible (at least in the first time after the war).

c) Ecological consequences - the death of most species of large plants, all species of birds living on the surface, all or almost all mammals, and many other animals. Although, of course, their DNA can be stored in bunkers in order to clone representatives of extinct species in the future, and plants can be saved by seeds.

d) The Cobalt War does not guarantee our victory, since in other countries the number of survivors may be higher. Especially in China, where there is an extremely large number of special tunnels designed to shelter nuclear forces - they will also be quite suitable for saving several million people, if there is food and air filters.

e) But the cobalt war guarantees SUCH hatred on the part of all surviving inhabitants of other countries that after clearing the planet of radiation, the war with everyone who has the opportunity to reach us will continue immediately - until either we exterminate them all, or until they exterminate us. To win the future Fourth World War, it is necessary to keep in secret bunkers a small part of the missiles, perhaps even cobalt ones, and, of course, bacteriological or viral weapons. There is only one plus. “That war is just, which is necessary, and that weapon is sacred, for which there is only hope” - an aphorism from Niccolo Machiavelli. A total cobalt war is the last chance to save the country and people if all other methods fail. The last, extreme scenario that may turn out to be necessary - just as a soldier with the last grenade threw himself under a fascist tank, we can take almost the entire population of the planet with us to the next world - and get a second chance to prepare for a new war and win it. Without a 100% guarantee of success, but an unlikely victory, for which you will have to risk the entire planet, is better than a guaranteed defeat.