The article is from last year, I think the situation is even worse now. In principle, I have long suspected this, but there are serious calculations here. The article is not from a Ukrainian site, if anything.

Russia's nuclear bluff for internal use

Russian rulers are not taken seriously in the West. Not considered by the West and nuclear threat Russia has very serious reasons for this. The myth of the “nuclear shield” is firmly entrenched only in the minds of Russian TV viewers, misinformed by pro-Kremlin TV liars.

Nuclear charges, unlike conventional bombs and shells, cannot be put into storage and forgotten until they are needed. The reason is a process constantly occurring inside nuclear charges, as a result of which the isotopic composition of the charge changes, and it quickly degrades.

The guaranteed life of a nuclear charge in a Russian ballistic missile is 10 years, and then the warhead must be sent to a factory, since the plutonium in it must be changed. Nuclear weapon - expensive pleasure, requiring the maintenance of an entire industry for constant maintenance and replacement of charges. Alexander Kuzmuk, Ukraine's defense minister from 1996 to 2001, said in an interview that Ukraine had 1,740 nuclear weapons, Kuzmuk said, “but those nuclear weapons expired before 1997.” Therefore, Ukraine’s acceptance of nuclear-free status was nothing more than a beautiful gesture

Why “before 1997”? Because Gorbachev stopped the production of new nuclear charges, and the last old Soviet charges expired in the 90s. “Both Russia and the United States have practically not produced either weapons-grade uranium or weapons-grade plutonium for more than 10 years. Somewhere since 1990, all this has been stopped" ( IN AND. Rybachenkov, Advisor to the Department for Security and Disarmament Issues of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Russian Federation). Regarding the United States, the adviser is “misleading the public,” but the fact that under Gorbachev in the USSR the production of weapons-grade uranium and weapons-grade plutonium was completely curtailed is precisely true.

To avoid the temptation to make new nuclear charges for ballistic missiles, the Americans concluded a “very profitable” deal with the leadership of the Russian Ministry of Atomic Energy (for 20 years!). The Americans bought weapons-grade uranium from Russian old warheads (and then promised to buy plutonium), and in return Russian reactors producing weapons-grade plutonium were shut down. “Minatom of Russia: main milestones in the development of the nuclear industry”: “1994 - Adoption by the Government Russian Federation decisions to stop the production of weapons-grade plutonium.”

In Russia, not only did the old Soviet nuclear warheads for missile warheads expire “before 1997,” but they also don’t have the plutonium to make new ones. They cannot be made from old Soviet plutonium, since its isotopic composition, like the plutonium in warheads, has irreversibly changed. And in order to obtain new weapons-grade plutonium and produce new nuclear charges for missiles, it takes not just time - there are no specialists, the equipment is not in working order. In Russia, even the technology for manufacturing tank gun barrels has been lost; after the first few shots, the flight of the next shells from a new Russian tank is hardly predictable. The reasons are the same - specialists have grown old or dispersed from idle production facilities, and the equipment is either dilapidated or stolen.

It is likely that much more complex technologies for producing weapons-grade plutonium and creating nuclear charges from it have been lost, and it will take not a year or two to restore them, but at best 10 years. And will the Americans allow the Russian Federation to restart reactors to produce highly enriched weapons-grade plutonium? Russia has set up a unique experiment to destroy the technosphere of a modern technogenic society; under today’s regime, the technosphere is melting before our eyes, society is losing technology, infrastructure, and most importantly, people who are capable of working not as salesmen or security guards. The Russian Federation quite naturally transformed from a country possessing nuclear weapons into a country potentially capable of possessing them; its status changed from a real superpower to the status of a potential superpower, and this fundamentally changes Russian relations with other countries.

Why did they stand on ceremony with the Russian Federation until recently, and did not slam it down in the late 90s? After the expiration of the warranty period, nuclear charges are still capable of exploding for some time. Even if these explosions are not of the power for which they were previously designed, but if several blocks in New York are destroyed and hundreds of thousands of people are killed, then the American government will have to explain itself.

Therefore, the American government allocated the most powerful supercomputers to the American Department of Energy, officially announcing that for scientists to simulate degradation processes in nuclear charges, the only thing they “forgot” to tell the media was that they were going to simulate degradation processes not in American charges, but in Russian ones. The game was worth the candle and no money was spared for this purpose; the American elite wanted to know exactly when it was guaranteed that not a single Russian nuclear warhead would explode. Scientists gave the answer, and when the estimated time approached, American policy towards Russia began to gradually change as fundamentally as Russian nuclear status.

In the spring of 2006, joint articles by Keir A. Lieber and Daryl G. Press appeared (in Foreign Affairs and International Security) about the possibility of delivering a disarming strike on Russian nuclear forces. Lieber and Press started an open discussion. In Moscow, only a tiny handful of leavened patriots sensed evil and became worried; the elite didn’t even blink; the American plans coincided with its plans (after leaving the completely ruined “this country,” they weren’t going to leave her “weapons of retaliation”?).

But then the position of the Russian elite “suddenly” began to become more complicated. At the beginning of 2007, the influential newspaper Washington Post published an article in which it was recommended not to flirt with the Russian ruling elite anymore, since there is no real power behind it, but to put the crooks in their place. At this point, Putin himself lost his mind, and he launched the “Munich Speech” about a multipolar world. And at the beginning of 2008, Congress instructed Condoleezza Rice to compile a list of leading Russian corrupt officials. Who in Russia earned big money honestly? Nobody. The final fog cleared, and the Kremlin elite acutely sensed the impending end.

Even during Medvedev’s “presidency”, Russian authorities announced grandiose plans in the military sphere - “Serial construction of warships is planned, primarily nuclear submarines with cruise missiles and multi-purpose submarines. An aerospace defense system will be created.” To which Condoleezza Rice calmly responded in an interview with Reuters: “The balance of power in terms of nuclear deterrence will not change from these actions.” Why would he change? What will Medvedev load onto ships and cruise missiles?

There are no usable nuclear warheads. Russian missiles have only false targets, no real targets. Building a missile defense system against missiles like “Satan” is madness, miss once and goodbye to a dozen major cities. But against radioactive scrap metal, which is now on Russian missiles instead of warheads (most likely, it was removed, since old weapons-grade plutonium gets very hot - it’s hot like an iron), you can create a missile defense system against it, if the missile defense system misses, then there’s nothing particularly terrible will happen, although it will be unpleasant to then disinfect a hectare of your territory. The missile defense system is designed to catch radioactive scrap metal when the Russian Federation is finally disarmed.

What about Russian generals? They fell into mysticism. As once upon a time with the collapse of the Third Reich, and today with the expected imminent end of the Energy Superpower, the military has the same belief in secret superweapons, this is the agony of the ability to think soberly. The generals started talking about some warheads maneuvering in space (from a technical point of view - complete nonsense), about hypersonic super-altitude cruise missiles, about installations sending short, super-powerful electromagnetic pulses.

Generals love their homeland, but money even more. Enriched uranium was sold at a price 25 times lower than its value, since it was stolen, stolen from its people, and they did not take the market price for the stolen goods, but sold them for next to nothing, part of the money for the sale of warheads and cutting of Satan missiles went to the generals. The generals were given orderlies like orderlies in Tsarist Russia, they were given a luxurious pension, and in Chechnya you could play toy soldiers to your heart's content, get drunk and send boys who had not been shot at to slaughter, and you wouldn't get anything for it (at least one general was tried for the storming of Grozny?). The son of every general could also become a general; there were more generals in Russia per capita than anywhere else in the world.

Condition details strategic weapons were told in the Duma at closed meetings in order to hide the truth from the population. The media discussed exclusively the condition of nuclear weapons carriers, but kept silent about the main thing, the condition of the nuclear weapons themselves. The lies were beneficial to the Americans, as they allowed them to continue to wave the picture of a dangerous Russian bear in front of their own electorate. The lies suited the oligarchs, since they were planning to leave “this country” in the near future. And the generals are silent, so what can they say now? That they stole the people's nuclear shield, sawed it up and sold it to the enemy?

For 30 years, the balance of nuclear deterrence was determined by treaties between the USSR and the United States; the United States no longer proposes to start a new treaty process, there is nothing to agree on. Putin rushed to urgently legalize the border with China, and China began publishing textbooks, where almost all of Siberia and Far East- territories seized by Russia from China. The EU invited Russia to sign the Energy Charter, according to which the EU will produce oil and gas on the territory of the Russian Federation, transport it to itself, and the Russians are offered a reward - a fig. EU officials frankly explained that Russia has three options - to lie under the EU, to lie under the US, or to become China's cheap one. labor force, that's all the choice. The main players are aware of what is happening and are not shy.

After Russia turned from a real superpower into a potential one, the situation around the bank accounts of the Russian elite began to heat up sharply. The UN has adopted a convention on corruption, and the West is not joking today; it is going to use it against our kleptocracy. So the West decided to repay our traitors for their betrayal. Throwing a dagger - is it a crime, is it immoral? Not at all.

The conversation between the Russian rulers and the West turned into “mine is yours, don’t understand”, both sides are talking about completely different things, Moscow to them - “You promised us!”, and those to the Russians - “So you have nothing else but a cheap bluff!” (the sending of the Tu-160 to Venezuela by the Russian Federation did not cause a new Caribbean crisis, as it was perceived as “ probable enemy"exclusively as a clownery).

Russian richest Natural resources cannot belong to a weak, unpopulated power. The United States has decided to stop buying old weapons-grade uranium from the Russian Federation. Although it is very profitable for Americans to buy it at a price many times lower than its market value, landing Russian generals is more important.

Meanwhile, Russia stopped producing weapons-grade plutonium. NTV reported, how the last reactor of this type existing in Russia was closed in Zheleznogorsk. It has been producing plutonium for the last half century. Especially for its service, the closed city of Krasnoyarsk-26 was created in the USSR, later renamed Zheleznogorsk.

The Zheleznogorsk Mining and Chemical Combine was a unique nuclear enterprise that had no analogues in the world. Its production workshops were located deep underground.

But even if Russia’s nuclear shield had somehow miraculously survived and the production of nuclear plutonium had not been curtailed, then in technical terms the Russian Federation would still be hopelessly behind its closest competitors. For example, the American nuclear potential has long surpassed the Russian one by a third nuclear fake. According to Gazeta.Ru, the United States is one third larger than Russia in the number of deployed long-range ballistic missiles, their launchers and nuclear warheads.

Russia's nuclear potential turned out to be below the level of the Treaty on the Reduction of Offensive Arms, which entered into force in February 2011. Experts doubt that the Russian Federation will be able to raise its potential to this ceiling over the next 10 years.

Already by 2015, Russia could theoretically be swatted like a fly. As St. Petersburg writes: Military parity, maintaining in the required quantitative and qualitative condition the fleet of Russia's strategic nuclear triad - ICBMs, strategic missile submarines and heavy bombers - in the foreseeable future will become a task beyond the capabilities of the country. A number of conceptual errors in the development of the strategic arsenal made in the late Soviet and post-Soviet periods led to the fact that after a certain period of time Russia risks being left with weapons that cannot guarantee the security of the country.

The mobility of strategic weapons as a panacea for their invulnerability played a bad joke on General Staff USSR Armed Forces. First of all, the very concept of creating ICBMs on self-propelled automobile and railway chassis was erroneous. By creating such highly complex systems weapons like mobile ground weapons missile systems(PGRK) RT-2PM "Topol" (NATO code SS-25) and combat railway missile systems (BZHRK) RS-22 "Molodets" (SS-24), the country incurred enormous additional costs for the creation of these strategic groupings. The American Minuteman and MX series ICBMs, similar in their combat capabilities, were placed in highly protected silo launchers, where they were ready for immediate use in an emergency.

What will Russia be left with by 2015? As is known, the RS-22 BZHRK has already been withdrawn from the Strategic Missile Forces and destroyed. A certain number of silo ICBMs of the RS-20 (R-36MUTTH) and RS-19 (UR-100NUTTH, NATO code SS-19) types are in service, but their life cycle is already at the end. These missiles have not been produced for a long time, and the endless “extensions” of their presence in the Strategic Missile Forces can only cause a bitter smile. Only Topol and Topol-M remain the real combat system.

In 1994-2002, the number of ICBMs of this type was maintained at 360 PU. And then, naturally, the collapse began. Launchers and missiles were getting old and needed to be taken out of service. combat personnel Strategic Missile Forces. The deployment of stationary and mobile Topol-M missiles to replace them was catastrophically late. Thus, by 2006, only 252 Topol ICBM launchers remained in service, down from the highest number of 369 in 1993. In exchange, by 2006, only 42 stationary and the first three mobile Topol-Ms entered service with the Strategic Missile Forces. 117 were written off, 45 were received. In 2007, according to Military Parity estimates, approximately 225 “Soviet”-made Topols remained in service, and at the beginning of 2008, according to the website www.russianforces.org, there were only 213 of them units.

According to the calculations of American experts, in the next five to seven years the entire fleet of mobile Topols deployed in 1984-1993 should be written off. And what in return? Russia plans to put into service 120 Topol-M ICBMs by 2015, including 69 in a mobile version. Again, the Russian Federation remains in the red - more than 100 old missiles will not be replaced by anything.

Thus, by approximately 2015, the Russian Strategic Missile Forces will have approximately 76 stationary and 69 mobile Topol-M. In total there will be approximately 145 of them. Note - monoblock ones. As for the new multi-charged RS-24 type, there is no data on their deployment. It is worth noting that the planned deployment of such a number of Topol-Ms is based on the figures of the State Armaments Program (GAP) until 2015, which was never fully implemented. The RF Ministry of Defense cannot in any way fix the cost of certain types of weapons, including strategic ones, as a result of which defense companies inflate their costs to sky-high levels. Chief of the General Staff General Yu. Baluevsky spoke about this in an interview with the Vesti-24 channel. And the reason for this is the fact that Russia’s defense budget is a completely opaque item of government spending, which leads to this kind of financial somersault.

Let's summarize. By 2015, Russia will have 145 ICBMs in service, of which almost half will be mobile. This is a completely unnecessary waste of resources. A monopolist in the development of strategic missiles, the Moscow Institute of Thermal Engineering still holds the Russian Federation hostage to an absolutely outdated “mobility concept.” Even the Americans advise the Chinese not to follow the “Soviet” path, clearly understanding the futility of such a solution. And one feels that the overseas experts are not laughing, but advising the case. At one time, they were smart enough to abandon mobile MX and Midgetmen. But the Russians persist. If you read military forums, the rocket scientists themselves call “Topol” “matches” for their low combat capabilities, and their mobility even gave rise to a joke: “Why are “Topoli” mobile? “And therefore, to increase the flight range.”

As you know, the United States has adopted a program to modernize the B-2 stealth strategic bombers, as a result of which the Americans will be equipped with the latest radar with active phased array, which has fantastic capabilities for detecting small-sized mobile ground targets, and will be able to take on board up to 80 guided bombs with a guidance system GPS. That is, in one flight, the “invisible” can destroy up to several dozen mobile targets, according to combat route of which the destroyed ones will lie in ruins launchers missiles, radar stations and aircraft hangars. Truly, the saying in a slightly modified form would be appropriate here - “How Mamai flew by.”

The situation with the naval component of the strategic triad is even sadder. Currently, according to the same overseas website, the Russian Navy has 12 strategic nuclear missiles carriers - six type 667BDRM (Delta-IV) and six type 667BDR (Delta-III). They carry 162 missiles with 606 nuclear warheads. It would seem like a good arsenal. But this is only at first and cursory glance. Submarines can be destroyed from air and space in an instant. By 2015, the state of the naval component of Russia's strategic nuclear forces also raises many questions.

But what about military aviation? This is where things get really bad. Worse than in the Strategic Missile Forces, and even worse than in the SSBN. According to Western estimates, at the beginning of 2008, the Russian Air Force Long-Range Aviation operated 78 heavy bombers, including 14 Tu-160 (Blackjack) and 64 Tu-95MS (Bear-H), which could theoretically launch 872 long-range cruise missiles.

This type of Russian strategic triad is only suitable for demonstration flights over the World Ocean. It is absolutely unsuitable for combat response to a surprise attack. All bombers will be destroyed in the blink of an eye using the latest means aerospace attack. When strategic bomber flights resumed, the American press and even official representative The White House openly mocked the prehistoric appearance of the Russian Tu-95MS, considering them to be absolute “mothballs”, taken out of nowhere. Indeed, in our time, keeping in service a turboprop bomber whose engine blades have an effective dispersion area (ESR) the size of a football field is nonsense. The Tu-95 has no chance of crossing the airspace of even a third-rate country.

As for the Tu-160, the gigantic dimensions of this aircraft turn each of its flights into some semblance of the launch of the American space shuttle Space Shuttle. It is no coincidence that almost every aircraft of this type has its own honorary name as a warship of the navy. A bomber weighing 275 tons takes on board 150 tons of fuel. Preparing an aircraft for flight, refueling and mounting weapons takes several hours, and during this process a swarm of special maintenance vehicles stands near the aircraft. Of course, at hour X these planes will become easy targets.

What does Russia have as a result?

Sad, frankly speaking, conclusions for imperial hopes.

The grouping of stationary and mobile Topol-Ms, which in 2015 will form the almost exclusive backbone of the Strategic Missile Forces, in its combat capabilities will practically remain at the level of light ICBMs of the mid-70s of the last century. The insufficient throwable mass of 1-1.5 tons will not allow the implementation of powerful combat equipment for these missiles, including multi-charged individually targetable warheads. Of course, in theory it is possible to supply three low-yield nuclear warheads of 200 kt each, but even this solution can reduce the flight range of an ICBM, which today barely reaches 10,000 km.

Equipping these ICBMs with some hypersonic maneuvering warheads that are “capable of overcoming any missile defense system” will make Americans think that Russia views the United States as its main adversary. Against this background, the Chinese, with their much larger strategic programs, will seem to Pentagon hawks to be America's true friends. However, the cunning Chinese are trying to achieve this without advertising, unlike Russia, their weapons programs. The Kremlins are trying to rattle weapons that are not even available. Stupid strategy. And funny.

The ideology of deploying the maritime component of the triad has been destroyed. The SSBNs, which in their total geometric dimensions and displacement are practically not inferior to the American Ohio, will carry small missiles with the formidable name “Bulava”. The insufficient range of these missiles forces them to be based in the Pacific Fleet right next to the United States.

It is no secret that a powerful multi-level missile defense system is being deployed in this region, including ship-based ones with Standard SM-3 interceptor missiles, and not only American ones, but including Japanese and South Korean ships equipped with the AEGIS combat information and control system and vertical missile launch systems . Add to this component the GBI missile defense base in Alaska with the maritime platforms of the SBX multifunctional missile defense radar floating off its coast. These weapon systems can crack like nuts surviving the first strike of a Bulava missile. And it is in this area, which is also teeming with anti-submarine defense systems, that the Russian Borei and Bulava ships will set sail. Needless to say, a “wise” decision.

About strategic aviation nothing to add.

As you can see, the systemic crisis of Putin’s vertical has put an end to our entire Russian Federation – the defense industry and the nuclear shield. “Nuclear Sword” has turned into a fake, which can only be used to scare Georgia or the militants of Chechnya. However, it is not a fact that even these small nations will tremble before the pile of Russian scrap metal that Russia inherited from the militaristic Soviet Union.

Despite the comforting statements of the Russian military leadership, the Russian Federation simply has nothing to defend itself against NATO forces. The date is already known when the Americans will create a full-scale missile defense system; we are talking about 2015.

The American military cruisers Lake Erie are equipped with the Aegis missile defense system; this missile defense system is capable of tracking and destroying not only intercontinental ballistic missiles, but also nuclear submarines and even orbiting satellites moving at a speed of 8 kilometers per second. This super-weapon will block Russia's imaginary and almost rusty nuclear potential by 100%.

The Aegis anti-missile system was developed on the basis of a conventional air defense system with the same name. American designers simply increased the power electromagnetic radiation Radar and modernized it with new software. And due to this, the radar system of the Aegis complex was able to track intercontinental ballistic missiles at a huge distance - 320 km.

The main armament of the Aegis system is the latest-generation heavy-duty Standard-3 missile, which is capable of destroying targets in outer space and at a range of up to 500 km.

In order for Standard-3 to hit targets outside the atmosphere, the developers equipped its body with four stages or blocks with fuel liquid. The first two blocks of the rocket accelerate it within the atmosphere, the third launches the rocket into space, and the fourth part of the rocket is a kinetic projectile, which is what hits the target.

American destroyers with the latest Aegis missile defense system are located not only in the Atlantic Ocean, they periodically enter the Black and Barents Seas. This means one thing - each of them can shoot down a ballistic missile of a Russian nuclear submarine directly on initial stage flight, even if the launch is made from Russian territorial waters. This despite the fact that 40% of Russian nuclear potential based specifically on nuclear submarines.

The Aegis complex can disable Russian missiles already at the acceleration stage, which may be related to the Americans’ refusal of any negotiations on missile defense. That is, the Pentagon became confident that the United States now has such power and such potential that it is able to prevent a nuclear strike from Russia.

By 2015, NATO forces will have 400 cruisers and destroyers equipped with Aegis interceptors and Standard-3 interceptors, each of these interceptors capable of destroying any Russian intercontinental ballistic missile. And this despite the fact that Russia only has about 80 new intercontinental missiles left, the rest were launched in the Soviet Union.

The age of the Satan and Topol missiles, which are on duty in the Russian missile forces, for 30 years now. During this time, the flammable mixture with which they are filled has lost its quality, and the metal casing of the missiles has corroded - this means that in the event of a military conflict, many of them simply will not take off. And this will be better than them taking off, but due to their unpredictability they will strike at their own territory

In an old Soviet joke, children brag about who has which toys. Vanya talked about the teddy bear, Tanya boasted about the new Barbie doll, and the drunkard’s son, listening to them with envy, suddenly burst into a tirade: “And I.. Yes, my.. Yes, I’m giving you all a damn!”

This is exactly how Putin’s kneeling electorate behaves today. The nanoleader has nothing more to offer to society, the President of the Russian Federation cannot explain to the Russians why he pays tribute to Kadyrov, and the terrorist attacks in the Caucasus do not subside, why his Skolkovo project failed, why the Russians screwed up with the Superjet-100 project, and much more. etc. Siberian cranes and Aladdin's amphoras are not impressive. The victories with Colorado scarves are also running out of steam and some kind of boost is required. And here, such happiness - Crimea!

P.S. If you think that this is some kind of propaganda article, then there is more information. In particular, the article: http://censor.net, here is an excerpt from it:

“We have forty Satan missiles with an expiring warranty period, and Topol is not serious at all,” a Moscow professor about Russia’s “nuclear shield.” There is practically no “Russian nuclear shield” anymore. Such a terrible secret for compatriots was revealed in his report by Doctor of Technical Sciences, Professor of the Department of Natural and Technosphere Safety and Risk Management of the Russian State University of Technology Peter Belov.

In recent days, the Korean Peninsula has become the center of attention of the entire world community. The United States and North Korea threaten each other with preventive nuclear strikes, Japan puts its Self-Defense Forces on alert, and the President of the United States promises that he will not let his brilliant comrade go down. has collected all the information necessary for those who are seriously interested in the prospects of a nuclear conflict.

What is the “nuclear club” and who is included in it?

“Nuclear Club” is the unofficial name of a group of states that possess nuclear weapons. The USA was the pioneer here. In June 1945, they were the first to detonate an atomic bomb. According to the American father nuclear project Robert Oppenheimer, when he looked at this, a quote from the Bhagavad Gita came to his mind: “If hundreds of thousands of suns were to rise at once in the sky, their light would be comparable to the radiance emanating from the Supreme Lord... I am death, the destroyer of worlds.” Following the Americans, the USSR, Great Britain, France and China acquired their atomic arsenals - in 1949, 1952, 1960, 1964, respectively. These five states made up the “nuclear club,” entry to which was closed in 1970, when the vast majority of countries in the world signed the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons.

Whether there is a nuclear weapon anyone else?

Yes. The Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty was not signed by Israel, India, North Korea and Pakistan. These countries became unofficial members of the “nuclear club”. India first secretly tested nuclear weapons in 1974, and did so openly in 1998. That same year, India's rival Pakistan detonated an atomic bomb. North Korea acquired nuclear weapons in 2006. India tried to protect itself from China in this way, Pakistan from India, and North Korea from everyone around, and primarily from the United States.

Photo: U.S. Library of Congress / Handout via Reuters

Israel has a special status. This state neither confirms nor denies the existence of nuclear weapons. However, experts are almost unanimous: Israel has an atomic bomb.

Corresponding developments were carried out in South Africa, but in 1991 the country abandoned them under pressure from the international community. Their military nuclear programs existed in different time in Sweden, Brazil, Switzerland and Egypt. Iran has repeatedly been accused of seeking to build a nuclear bomb, but the Islamic Republic insists its research program has always been purely peaceful.

Why are India, Israel, Pakistan and North Korea not part of the official nuclear club?

Because the world is unfair. The countries that were the first to acquire nuclear weapons reserved for themselves the right to possess them. On the other side, political regimes they are stable, this allows us to at least partially guarantee that nuclear weapons will not fall into the hands of terrorists. During the collapse of the Soviet Union, for example, there was great concern about this among the entire world community. In the end, the Soviet atomic arsenal went to Russia as a successor state to the USSR.

What types of nuclear weapons are there?

In general, all such munitions are divided into two large groups: atomic, in which the fission reaction of heavy uranium-235 or plutonium nuclei occurs, and thermonuclear - in which the nuclear fusion reaction of light elements into heavier ones occurs. On this moment Most countries of both the official and unofficial nuclear club possess thermonuclear weapons as they are more destructive. The only notable exception is Pakistan, for which creating its own thermonuclear bomb proved too costly and difficult.

What is the volume of nuclear arsenals of the nuclear club countries?

Russia has the most warheads - 7290, the United States is in second place, they have 7 thousand. But the Americans have more warheads on combat duty - 1930 versus 1790 for Russia. The remaining countries of the nuclear club follow by a wide margin: France - 300, China - 260, Great Britain - 215. Pakistan is believed to have 130 warheads, India - 120. North Korea there are only 10 of them.

What level of uranium enrichment is needed to create a bomb?

The minimum is 20 percent, but this is quite ineffective. In order to make a bomb from this material, hundreds of kilograms of enriched uranium are needed, which must somehow be stuffed into the bomb and sent to the enemy’s head. The optimal level of enrichment for weapons-grade uranium is considered to be 85 percent or higher.

What is easier - to create a bomb or to build a peaceful nuclear power plant?

It's much easier to make a bomb. Of course, to produce weapons-grade uranium or plutonium, a fairly high technological level is required, but to create a uranium bomb, for example, you don’t even need a reactor - gas centrifuges are enough. But uranium or plutonium can be stolen or bought, and then it’s a matter of technology - in this case, even a moderately developed country will be able to make its own bomb. To build and maintain a nuclear power plant, much more effort is required.

What is a "dirty bomb"?

The goal of a “dirty bomb” is to spread a radioactive isotope over as wide an area as possible. Theoretically, a “dirty bomb” can be either nuclear (for example, cobalt) or non-nuclear - say, an ordinary container with isotopes that is detonated by an explosive device. Until now, no country, as far as is known, has created “dirty bombs,” although this plot is often used in feature films.

How big is the risk of nuclear technology leakage?

Big enough. The greatest concern now is Pakistan - the “nuclear supermarket,” as head ElBaradei once called it. In 2004, it turned out that the head of the weapons development program, Abdul Qadir Khan, was selling nuclear technology left and right - in particular, to Libya, Iran and the DPRK. IN last years However, security measures in Pakistan's nuclear arsenal have been seriously strengthened - as the Islamic State, banned in Russia, has threatened to acquire its own bomb by bribing Pakistani scientists and military personnel. But the risk remains - while technology leaks from Islamabad can still be controlled, those from Pyongyang cannot.

Where did North Korea's nuclear weapons come from?

Work on the nuclear program in the DPRK began in 1952 with the support of the USSR. In 1959, the Soviet assistants were joined by Chinese ones. In 1963, Pyongyang asked Moscow to develop nuclear weapons, but the Soviet Union refused, and Beijing did the same. Neither the USSR nor China wanted the emergence of a new nuclear power: moreover, Moscow in 1985 forced the DPRK to sign the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty in exchange for the supply of a research reactor. It is believed that the Koreans have been developing their nuclear bomb since the second half of the 1980s in secret from the IAEA.

Where can North Korean missiles reach?

Hard to tell. South Korea and Japan are definitely within range, but it is unclear whether the US missiles can reach them. Official Pyongyang traditionally states that its missiles will hit the enemy anywhere on Earth, but until recently these threats were perceived by experts with a certain skepticism. Even the successful launch of a satellite into orbit did not mean that North Korean missiles were actually capable of hitting large targets on the American coast. However, the demonstration of the Hwasong-13, also known as KN-08/KN-14 missiles, at a parade in October 2016 indicates that Pyongyang appears to be literally one step away from creating a truly intercontinental ballistic missile. And it is possible that this step has already been taken over the past six months.

Are nuclear weapons a deterrent?

Definitely yes. In 1962, during the Cuban Missile Crisis, it was the prospect of a nuclear apocalypse that prevented war between the USSR and the USA: Khrushchev and Kennedy had enough common sense not to cross the “red line” and not to strike ahead of the curve. Nevertheless, at least two cases of conflict between nuclear powers are known: in 1969 between the USSR and China over Damansky Island and in 1999 between India and Pakistan (formally, militants from the quasi-state Azad Kashmir participated on the Pakistani side) over the border heights in the state of Jammu and Kashmir. In the first case, the possibility of using atomic bomb was not considered at all, in the second both sides led fighting as carefully as possible so as not to provoke the enemy to use nuclear weapons.

Q. Were nuclear weapons used in Hiroshima and Nagasaki? Were these really nuclear bombs?
A. Nuclear bombs.
Q. Have nuclear weapons been used since World War II? Precisely as a weapon, not a test.
A. It was used, the Guardians say, like, somewhere in Vietnam...
Q. Is it true that there were saucer fights in Vietnam?
A. There were.
Q. Why were there saucer battles in Vietnam, but not, say, in Afghanistan?
A. Something to do with the Grays and the transfer of technology from them, which was taking place at that time. The Americans at that time began to use their technology.
Q. Do Russia or the United States currently have combat-ready nuclear weapons?
A. Hmm... The Guardians say no.

Q. No nuclear weapons? What happened to him?
A. Seized. It is stored somewhere in one place, both ours and the American one.
Q. And who took him there?
O. They don’t say...
Q. What about atomic suitcases?
O. Bluff.
Q. That is, neither Russia, nor the United States, nor any organizations or terrorists have access to combat-ready nuclear weapons?
A. Corporations have access. Terrorists... no, not really.
Q. Were nuclear weapons used in Fukushima to create the wave?
A. No, it was not used.
Q. Does Russia have more powerful weapon than nuclear, for example, ultra (hyper) sound, plasma, tectonic weapons, etc.?
A. Yes, hypersonic and something related to radio frequencies.
Q. What about the USA?
ABOUT.HAARP. I don’t see anything special, they have a lot of conventional weapons, we have more powerful ones.
V. The Moscow heat of 2010 isHAARP?
Oh yeah.
Q. Why didn’t Russia respond, since we have better weapons?
A. There are certain agreements. These were tests and both sides were interested.
Q. Is there any connection with installation testing in Saudi Arabia at the same time when abnormal rains occurred there?
A. Yes, there was a joint effect.
Q. Was the 1988 earthquake in Armenia the result of the use of tectonic weapons?
A. No, somehow it’s not right... There is some kind of overlap of a natural process and something else... the feeling that there was an underground explosion. The guardians say it was a nuclear underground explosion carried out by ours. Well, in general, it turns out that tectonic weapons were experimented with the possibility of provoking tremors with an explosion.

Q. Is it true that the main reason for the extraction of all minerals is the creation of cavities to fill them with water and form a reserve drinking water beneath the surface of the planet?
A. Not all, but some - yes, for this too. About 10-15 percent somewhere. Such places are evenly distributed over the surface.

THEMATIC SECTIONS:
| | | | | | | |

The creator of the nuclear bomb, Dr. Robert Oppenheimer, looked tired and worried after the bomb exploded. When asked how he felt at the moment of the explosion, Oppenheimer replied: “I became Death, the destroyer of the world.” After thinking, he added that after the completion there would never be a reversal, ((the prophetic words were etched in the memory: an outstanding achievement of the human mind, concentrated in an atomic flash, was immediately tied to the chariot of Death, and there will be no turning back.
Since July 1945, humanity has continued to exist in nuclear age. Day after day, nuclear weapons were steadily accumulating, their destructive power was being improved, and various means of delivering them to targets were created. This whole process is now slowed down, but not stopped. For mere mortals, 1)H causes two sensations. The first is a feeling of a certain security from war, and the second is a constant danger for the life of mankind. These two sensations exist side by side, they are together all the time. Considering that nuclear weapons are increasingly spreading across the planet and the situation in the world remains turbulent, the second feeling is a real threat even today.
The question arises: are the words of Oppenheimer V that there will never be a reverse move really prophetic? Is it possible to completely eliminate nuclear weapons in the current situation?

From the very beginning of the nuclear era, the Soviet Union began to fight for the prohibition of nuclear weapons, to outlaw them, to ban them forever. In 1946, he submitted a proposal to the UN to ban the production and use of nuclear weapons; destruction of its reserves; creating an effective control system over all enterprises for the extraction of atomic raw materials and the production of atomic materials and atomic energy for military purposes.
The United States, possessing a nuclear monopoly at the time, greeted the Soviet proposal with hostility. They advocated the preservation of nuclear weapons and the establishment of the American nuclear monopoly. The so-called “Baruch Plan” provided for the creation of a control body (actually subordinate to the United States) with unlimited rights in the field of inspection of the use of atomic energy in the territory of other countries. The ban and elimination of nuclear weapons were not envisaged. The point was to secure the US monopoly on nuclear weapons and to deprive other countries, primarily the USSR, of their legal rights to use atomic energy at their own discretion. The Soviet side rejected this plan, considering it a gross violation of the country's sovereignty and security interests.
The Soviet Program for the Complete Elimination of Nuclear Weapons was considered a major event in the mid-80s. The initiator of its development was the Soviet General Staff.

She thought about it for a long time. I had doubts about its feasibility and admissibility from the point of view of the interests of the country’s defense, there was a fear of “firing empty” and assessing it as a “propaganda undertaking,” etc. The final decision and design of the project was completed at the end of 1985. Before its publication, it was necessary to first report on the draft Program to Secretary General M. S. Gorbachev. I was ordered to carry out this mission. This happened unexpectedly for me. I was in the Arkhangelskoe sanatorium near Moscow. Late in the evening of January 5, 1986, the Chief of the General Staff, Marshal S. F. Akhro Meev, called me:

J- You need to be in my office tomorrow at 6 o’clock in the morning. Fly to Mikhail Sergeevich. Got it? Understood. What should you bring with you and what uniform should you wear? Have your head with you. The uniform is military. You'll find out everything else tomorrow. Good night.
However Good night Did not work out. Although I had previously visited M.S. Gorbachev several times, he knew me well, and in December 1984 I was part of the delegation during his visit to London, nevertheless, I was worried - then he was only the secretary of the Central Committee, and now - Secretary General. It's not the same thing. But an order is an order. At 6 o'clock in the morning on January 6 I was in the boss's office. A short conversation took place: I am handing you a package for the report of the document contained in it to M. S. Gorbachev, who is on vacation in the Gagra region. Airplane at the Chkalovskoye airfield. Landing airfield "Gudauta". I have given all the orders. You will go to the airfield in my car. Be with M.S. Gorbachev at 10 o'clock. He's waiting for you. All clear? Clear. Please resolve the issue. What's in the package? The package contains a project of the Program you know. You know it, you wrote it yourself. Report everything in detail to the Secretary General.
(- Let me ask you one more question. With whom was the document agreed upon at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs? Who knows about it in other departments?
’ - At the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the document was agreed upon with Georgy Markovich Kornienko. Not agreed with other departments. Only the Minister of Defense S. Sokolov, G. Kornienko, me and you know about it. All. Goodbye.
At 10 o'clock in the morning on July 6, I visited M. S. Gorbachev. He greeted me friendly. I said hello. Was D good mood, looked rested. Without further ado, we got down to business. What did you come with? I brought a package from Akhromyoev. What's in the package? Draft Program for the complete elimination of nuclear weapons. It is proposed that the Secretary General take the initiative in this regard.
Agreed with whom? Only with the Ministry of Foreign Affairs - Kornienko. What could be new in your “initiative”? After all, we have been talking about this since 1945. Gromyko constantly spoke on this topic at the UN. Is it necessary to repeat the same thing to the Secretary General again? Mikhail Sergeevich, everything you said is correct. However, in the past there was only general talk and wishes about the elimination of nuclear weapons. Nothing specific. Only the idea was expressed: “We are for liquidation,” “Let’s liquidate.” But as? How? What control mechanism? There were a lot of other questions, but there were no clear answers to them. Currently offered completely new program, in which everything is described “on the shelves”. It compares favorably with previous populist statements. I am sure the public will accept it with understanding and support it. After all, the nuclear problem is becoming more pressing every day. I ask you to familiarize yourself with the document.
The Secretary General was in no hurry to take the package and, as if reasoning with himself, asked me: Do we need to destroy all nuclear weapons? In the West they constantly say that the more weapons, the stronger the security. Maybe we can agree with this concept? How do you think? Statements on this matter by Western leaders, for example, Thatcher and others, are known to everyone. I think this is dangerous reasoning. An old wisdom says: when many guns accumulate, they themselves begin to fire. The world now has so many nuclear weapons that they could explode on their own. The Western concept of nuclear deterrence can only be understood if it is based on a level of sufficiency within reasonable limits. Otherwise there is danger nuclear war It will be stronger the more means of intimidation there are. Our program, if you approve it, is based on these provisions and is aimed at strengthening the security of the world.
M. S. Gorbachev listened to me without interrupting. I asked a number of clarifying questions. Then he took the package. Fine. Let's honor it.
Mikhail Sergeevich carefully read the document
ment. I started thinking, as if remembering something. Then he said firmly: This is what we need. Agree. I think, however, that other disarmament problems should be added to the future document. We must embrace the entire disarmament process and put into action the entire existing system of negotiations. That is, add to the document: disarmament problems in all areas; about a moratorium and complete cessation nuclear tests; on Asian security; some ideas of disarmament for development. Do you think this should be added? I completely agree. The significance of the initiative in this form will increase even more. Let's do so.
Taking a blank sheet of paper, M. S. Gorbachev, without lifting his pen, wrote clear and clear instructions to the relevant heads of ministries and departments. Then I read what I had written out loud. So what do you say? Will a couple of weeks be enough for revision? It worked out well. We'll do it in two weeks. Would you like some tea on the way? Thank you, Mikhail Sergeevich. Moscow is waiting for the document and your instructions. There is little time, but there is so much work. I ask for permission to fly to Moscow. Then - with God! Goodbye.
At 15.00 on January 6, I reported the results of the trip to the General Secretary to S.F. Akhromeev, and at 16.00 I returned to the Arkhangelskoye sanatorium.
Thus, to summarize what has been said, I would like to note once again that the draft Program was developed for a long time (about 6-8 months) and seriously. He was born in agony and controversy, but without a shadow of a doubt, without a catch, without deception - in the interests of the world. In accordance with the instructions of the Secretary General, the interdepartmental group outlined a plan for preparing the document. With the direct participation of a number of ministries and departments, the well-known Statement of the General Secretary of the CPSU Central Committee M. S. Gorbachev dated January 15, 1986 was prepared.
gt; In my opinion, the published Program for the Total Elimination of Nuclear Weapons was neither a “trick” nor a fantasy. Unlike previous years, before
Instead of appeals and general phrases, the document outlined a carefully thought-out step-by-step program for the complete elimination of nuclear weapons of the five nuclear powers within 15 years (by the year 2000). The stages, time, volumes of reductions, destruction procedures, and a control system of all types, including on-site inspections, were specifically defined. It was proposed to carry out the elimination of nuclear weapons in such a way that no one's security would be weakened for a single moment. On the contrary, to strengthen general security and stability.
It seemed to us that at that time the situation in the world and in Soviet-American relations was quite conducive to the successful implementation of the Program. Therefore, the General Staff supported and protected her in every possible way. However, the desired did not happen.
The US and NATO did not agree with our proposal. Western leaders kept repeating the same thing: nuclear weapons cannot be completely eliminated. It ensures stability and security, the future of the “free world”. Only the threat of its use will save the capitalist world from communism. At the same time, they advocated the need to modernize the concepts of “nuclear deterrence,” “minimum nuclear deterrence,” “nuclear deterrence,” etc. Washington “got fixated” on SDI and jeopardized the entire process of nuclear disarmament.
Currently, the situation in the world has changed dramatically. The USSR collapsed. There is no Warsaw Pact. NATO has increased from 16 to 19 states. There are many more countries in line to be included in it, including the republics of the former Soviet Union. Russia almost agrees to be a “junior partner” of the United States and is ready to “return the warheads” to its missiles. The NATO bloc no longer has a front line. Moreover, he himself has reached the state borders of Russia and in the near future is ready to surround it from all directions. Increasing its military power, the NATO bloc led by the United States is turning into an aggressive alliance with claims to the whole world.
America's new “nuclear frontiers” are changing with amazing speed in its favor. In this regard, an interesting picture was painted by B. Blair, an expert on
Nuclear Weapons Brookings Institution, former officer strategic forces USA. In his assessment, “today and in the foreseeable future, US nuclear arsenals will have superiority over Russian strategic forces and pose a greater threat to them than they did in the 80s. The current balance of strategic forces has shifted in favor of the United States, even compared to the early 60s, when the American advantage over the USSR was overwhelming” (Washington, press conference, 1998).
This is what turned out to be a severe hangover of Russia’s nuclear policy. But the finale has not yet arrived. The worst is ahead. What does Washington now propose in the field of creating a nuclear-free world?
In my opinion, his plans have become even more cynical and sophisticated than in the past. Now Washington would like to disarm Russia on a contractual basis with our own hands. After the ratification of the START-2 Treaty, we will subsequently be forced to accept START-3 and leave Russia without strategic nuclear weapons, preserving, through various manipulations (American negotiators in this matter have extensive experience in this matter), the strategic nuclear arsenal needed by the United States. In this way, Washington hopes to create a “nuclear-free world for Russia.”
The United States is also hatching another option - to take the entire nuclear arsenal of Russia under American control. Or even better, remove nuclear weapons altogether from the control of the Russian leadership, allegedly due to the unstable situation in the country and the possibility of their seizure by terrorists.
Regarding the establishment of American control over Russia's nuclear arsenal, we can suggest that Washington do this on a reciprocal bilateral basis. There is no other way.
As for the main problem - the complete elimination of nuclear weapons - its solution at present and in the foreseeable future seems undesirable. Why? For a number of reasons.
Firstly, today Russia, although a huge country, is a seriously ill country. Its conventional armed forces, due to their combat qualities, are not capable of resisting
be aware of the diversity of threats, including in connection with the increased belligerence of the NATO bloc. As long as the army is in a weakened state, the importance of nuclear weapons and strategic nuclear forces in ensuring Russia's security does not decrease, but increases. Nuclear forces must remain the main means of ensuring the country's defense. In the current situation, an independent and sovereign Russia can only be nuclear. There is no other option.
Secondly, it would be wrong in principle to talk about the complete elimination of nuclear weapons without taking into account the position of the United States and other nuclear states. The United States and other NATO nuclear powers are not ready for nuclear disarmament. The leadership of these states still believes that nuclear forces are necessary for the defense of the North Atlantic Alliance. Without adequate nuclear weapons, Western security will be precarious. Nuclear weapons are the best long-term security guarantee. This happened in the past and remains valid now and in the future. At the same time, Washington says that they are ready for negotiations on the reduction of nuclear weapons in the new situation.
Thirdly, if you look at the facts in the face, it is not difficult to notice the growing distrust of states towards each other, the fear of being deceived, which can lead to the risk of military conflict. What kind of trust can there be when “friend Boris” says that “Russia will object to the participation of the CIS and Baltic countries in NATO” (TV, 5/19/97), and “friend Bill” immediately answers him: “NATO itself will decide who to accept and who not” (TV, 20.5.97). B. Yeltsin declared that “Russia will not allow the Bosnian issue to be resolved by bombing” (TV, 19.2.94), and his “best friends” soon began to bomb the cities and villages of the Bosnian Serbs. Russia resolutely opposed NATO expansion to the East, but no one even listened to its voice. Russia categorically objected to solving the Kosovo problem by military means, and the “friends” of our “guarantor” unleashed a bloody aggression in the Balkans.
Trust is when the national interests of the parties are not infringed, tension is reduced, and security is strengthened. When you know who you're dealing with,
and I am sure that there will be no catch either now or tomorrow. Such trust is achieved not by unctuous speeches or by forcing oneself into “friends,” but by the power of the country, the statesmanship and wisdom of its leader. Unfortunately, so far Russia has neither one nor the other.
Therefore, our “friends” often act without regard for Russia’s security interests and confront it with a fait accompli. If, for example, we take NATO’s promises “not to deploy large military formations in new territories in peacetime, not to place nuclear weapons on new lands” - then this is a bluff. But the US declaration of the Caucasus and the Baltic states as a “zone of its interests” is a fact that confirms mistrust.
Fourthly, we cannot neglect the fact that, in addition to the five well-known nuclear powers (USA, Russia, China, England, France), India, Pakistan, Israel and a number of other countries have nuclear weapons; There are so-called near-nuclear states. Migration of nuclear specialists is underway, transfer to third countries nuclear technology, sale of enriched fissile materials and individual structures nuclear systems. It should also be remembered that it is impossible to erase from consciousness world scientists technology for creating nuclear weapons. This means that the possibility of recreating them remains.
For the reasons stated above, it becomes clear THAT the desirability of a nuclear-free world in the past is currently undesirable. When some Russian analysts, contrary to the stated facts, talk about the advisability of eliminating all nuclear weapons in the current situation, you think this is an illusion. Complete elimination of its willows today or in the foreseeable future is impossible. The prophetic words of Dr. R. Oppenheimer on this matter are coming true. A world without nuclear weapons is still far beyond the horizon. We need to think about how to live further in nuclear world. How to avoid repeating past mistakes?
Reflecting on the preservation of nuclear weapons and nuclear forces for Russia, we are categorically against the resumption of the arms race, the waving of the “nuclear baton”, the threat of the use of nuclear weapons
you, using it for the purposes of pressure or intimidation.
In this regard, Boris Yeltsin's statements in Beijing on November 9-10, 1999 in response to the challenges posed by the United States are strange [‡‡‡‡‡‡‡]. They sounded loud, but implausible. Of course, in politics there are all sorts of miracles when even white turns black. However, this is not the case here. Boris Yeltsin had just bowed to “friend Bill,” swore allegiance, spoke of equal partnership, and then suddenly began waving nuclear weapons and declared his readiness to walk, like “Christ on the waters,” towards competition with the entire West. Prime Minister V. Putin quickly disavowed the president’s “blunders.” They staged a kind of performance about ratings. And we, sinners, have been “dumped on our ears” - we still won’t figure out what’s what. Although it is not difficult to understand that confrontation with the entire West requires more than loud speeches. If we take the share of world GDP, then in 2000 it will be: NATO - about 50%, USA - 21%, Russia -1.5%. In conditions of complete economic and financial dependence of our country, we have long ceased to be a competitor to the United States and do not pose a threat to the West. Therefore, statements about “war against everyone”, about confrontation - pure water rhetoric that strengthens neither Russia’s prestige nor its national interests.
Such standards of the past are condemned by history and are unacceptable. Nuclear weapons and Russia's strategic nuclear forces will and should remain only as a reliable guarantee of the country's defense. Like nuclear deterrence of aggression. As a defense of the sovereignty of Russia and the peaceful future of Russians.
Two small nuclear bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki shocked the world. The Caribbean crisis, with a nuclear ratio of 17:1 in favor of the United States, misfired. The Chernobyl accident
brought humanity into shock.. How long will it take to understand that four to six mega-ton bombs are enough to wipe out a state like England from the face of the earth; that a dozen nuclear missiles in a dozen cities is a disaster, and hundreds of missiles in a hundred cities is an apocalypse? It seems that sensible politicians living in real world, must understand what nuclear madness can lead to. They understand that nuclear weapons cannot serve the purposes of war. It has one goal - to keep the opponent from using it.
Of course, we have no guarantee that the US leadership will under no circumstances be the first to use nuclear weapons. Moreover, “Truman’s shadow” still looms on the American horizon and mistrust exists. But we are confident that it clearly understands the fatal consequences for its country in the event of a nuclear war. This gives grounds to say that Russia in the 21st century should have a completely different nuclear strategy based on mutual security.
Politically, in order to effectively ban nuclear weapons, it would be advisable to take some specific measures: to stop the proliferation of nuclear weapons in third countries. To do this, use the force of international law on the destruction of secretly created industrial potential and components of nuclear weapons; to help the UN so that it strictly fulfills the requirements of its Charter and plays a leading role in the process of influencing the course of world events. Provide it with a full range of capabilities to control the non-proliferation of nuclear weapons; demand that all nuclear powers undertake obligations not to be the first to use nuclear weapons and not to start a nuclear war against each other; consider at the UN the issue of creating an international tribunal to bring to justice leaders of states who have used nuclear weapons or other types of weapons of mass destruction, resulting in irreparable harm to the population, economy and environment of the nation.

There is no need to have any special illusions about reliability the above measures. The laws today, unfortunately, do not work. International bodies powerless. But still, the chaos can be stopped. Any criminal can be muzzled. If we are not able to do this, then in the future critical situation the world may find itself without nuclear weapons. But there will be no peace as such. The last hope is the Human Mind, which is able to prevent Judgment Day!

To the question "Do nuclear weapons exist"

Fact
August 30, 2007 A US Air Force B-52 bomber flew over American territory with nuclear weapons on board. This caused a stir in the American media. The Pentagon reassures: there was no danger.
The B-52 carried five cruise missiles with nuclear warheads. It turns out that nuclear charges remained on decommissioned carriers sent from storage for disposal...by mistake.

Conclusions:
1) On decommissioned American missiles The warheads are still installed, as if they might be needed at any moment.
2) Unloaded and loaded missiles are stored together, otherwise they would not be mixed up.
3) There is no control over the installation and removal of warheads and there is no instrumental control using sensors that record the removal of radioactive materials outside the storage facility.

Other facts:
1) On February 5, 1958, near the mouth of the Savannah River (Georgia), a B-47 bomber, damaged after a collision with another aircraft, dropped from the ground on command hydrogen bomb"Mark-15" with a power of about 100 "Hiroshima". The bomb has not yet been found.

2) A few weeks later, another B-47 mistakenly dropped a hydrogen bomb on South Carolina. The TNT charge of the fuse detonated, but only the release of plutonium followed.

3) On January 17, 1966, a B-52 and a tanker aircraft collided over the Spanish village of Palomares. The fuses of two of the four dropped bombs detonated, resulting in the spraying of 20 kg of plutonium and uranium.

4) On January 21, 1968, a B-52 bomber caught fire in flight near Thule Air Base (Greenland). The plane crashed into the sea. The bombs crashed on the ice, causing significant radioactive contamination of the area. One bomb was never found.

Speculative reasoning:
1) It is possible that nuclear bombs and warheads are only dummies, imitation or containers with radioactive waste.

2) During testing, nuclear reactors exploded at test sites. Only in a “heated” reactor can conditions for a nuclear chain reaction be created.

3) Nuclear weapons, with a certain degree of assumption, can be considered nuclear submarines, surface nuclear cruisers and nuclear deep-sea stations.
They can be detonated in the immediate vicinity of enemy ports and large coastal cities.

4) A nuclear reactor can be placed on a powerful cargo ship, tanker or barge.
It can also be lifted into the air on a modern large transport aircraft. It is most likely impossible to lift the reactor using a ballistic missile, since the overloads that occur during launch disable the reactor.

5) A nuclear power plant, including a floating nuclear power plant, can explode.

6) There are no compact nuclear weapons that can be quickly delivered to enemy territory.

7) What then happened in Hiroshima and Nagasaki?
It is possible that nuclear reactors located on specially equipped and camouflaged ships were blown up there.
Under the flag of some neutral country, they entered the commercial ports of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
At H-hour, dummy bombs were dropped from American planes and the pilots recorded nuclear explosion on film. It turned out believable.