Nuclear war scenario and survival. The threat of nuclear war is a global problem. What happens if a nuclear war breaks out? Scenario and consequences of the disaster. Sad video about the nuclear attack on Hiroshima

In the context of the 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 discusses the 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 Standoff". As you can imagine this time nuclear weapon allowed. In fact, 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 rocket will be preceded by weeks of rising tensions and preparations for a collision. To track an intercontinental ballistic missile, you must have a network of early warning stations at your disposal. Typically, the first warning signals come from satellites monitoring the hot ejecta that accompanies large rockets into 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 the 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, which will give about 15 additional minutes before the first strikes.

The round shape of the Earth will hide intercontinental ballistic missiles from radar to the very last stage their flight. Missiles in vertical shafts have predictable approach vectors; much more surprises can be presented by mobile, mounted on mobile platforms, launchers. Submarine-launched missiles are arguably the most unpredictable. To try to launch them, you need to cross the ocean and survive. But perhaps the safer way to use submarines is to be close to North Pole, which will also reduce the travel time, as well as the time required for warning systems to be triggered.

Is there protection against intercontinental ballistic missiles? On paper, to some extent, yes. For decades, both sides have had anti-missile systems, but a little. Even today, the defenses are mainly based on limited strikes from small countries, rather than on a large-scale nuclear exchange. There are additional systems that, in theory, could intercept missiles. But they were designed for slower 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 even few of them will be able to intercept, due to the low probability of interception and the small number of funds deployed for this purpose.

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

Moreover, the interception of bombers and cruise missiles may be easier than the interception of ICBMs, resulting in fewer successful volleys. So cruise missiles and bombs will not contribute much to the overall destruction. The main blow will, of course, fall on ICBMs and missiles launched from submarines. The US has slightly more missiles and can carry more warheads on average. However, there are currently fewer warheads on US-deployed missiles than are available, as prepared warheads cost extra money. Russia, on the other hand, seems eager to deploy as many missiles as it takes to bring all warheads on alert. 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, while submarines will require relatively more time for maintenance and preparation for installation.

In reality, no more than a third of the total number of submarines will be prepared for patrol in a couple of weeks. However, as during cold war, some submarines will be able to launch missiles directly from ports. It can be expected that they will launch their projectiles at total no more than 2/3 of all submarines. And part of the American submarines will be on patrol even before the start of hostilities with fewer warheads.

The US will also be able to drop a little more warheads with bombers, as their total number exceeds that of the enemy, as well as the number of warheads on board each aircraft. The total stocks of warheads in both countries are several times larger. But with only a few weeks to prepare, as the scenario suggests, many of them simply will not be able to 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 differing doctrine, which mandates the storage of nuclear weapons in case of a land war in Europe. In an exchange of nuclear strikes, where one of the parties unexpectedly presses the "red button" first, the one with the best preemptive capabilities and more launchers will win. But this scenario does not provide for such a one-way launch. It is also possible the development of events in the partial or complete absence of time for preparation, where the count goes already for days. In this case, Russia may have more advantages, since the missiles ready for battle are already packed with warheads to the eyeballs. Such a sudden unilateral start of war may cause more damage to the opponent, but in reality, no one wants to launch an unprovoked attack. A more plausible nuclear exchange, as shown in this scenario, will be the result of misunderstandings and incidents that will eventually lead to an all-out nuclear war.

Early warning radars, undersea communication lines and command centers will be high-priority targets, as will silo-launched launchers from both sides in the hope of destroying at least some of them before activation. Submarines located in close proximity to the coast of their own country will be the most difficult to find and destroy. But their capabilities are somewhat limited, compared with the huge silo-based missiles.

Various military bases will also become targets. Therefore, the probability of further bomber strikes following the first wave is extremely small. There is a possibility that a small part of the launched missiles will work incorrectly, and some will be intercepted. More bombers and cruise missiles will be intercepted.

For several decades, the doctrines of both sides suggest that it is best to use low-yield warheads, since more of them fit inside the missile.

So what else will be the targets? 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 a while it will become clear that it is more reasonable to use warheads against some factory, large port or power plant than against a small town. In this scenario, therefore, an option is considered in which the majority of warheads will hit military targets, some - on industrial targets, and less than a third of their total number will be used against large settlements. But military and industrial targets are often close to cities, resulting in increased civilian casualties.

Now consider 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", thanks to which, at a distance, other consequences will be less lethal. A high-air detonation would instantly kill many more people, but there would be less radiation-contaminated soil scattered around, reducing the danger from radiation risk in the long run. The probability of destruction at a distance of structures made of concrete is also low.

The explosion spawns a fireball that is relatively small compared to other effects. The shock wave demolishes buildings. There is also a release of direct radiation, lasting only a second, but fatal to anyone who gets close. And finally, heat, that is, thermal radiation. Direct exposure to its rays can be deadly even at some distance. One of key points is radiation protection. All figures given were for a single unprotected target at a given distance. But if a person stands behind a 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 than a given distance. According to studies, the number of victims inside dwellings is about 9% lower than when people are in open spaces.

So how many will be killed by a nuclear explosion in, say, downtown New York? Regardless of whether people are in buildings or not, everyone within a radius of two kilometers from the alleged epicenter will die. An explosion of 450 kilotons usually kills 1.2 million people, despite the fact that they are in open space. It is better, of course, to be inside a building or underground, because thanks to anticipation systems, most of the population will have plenty of time to hide. Another question is how to get out alive from the rubble.

According to the map, to reach high level loss of life in the most densely populated part of New York would require a dozen or more warheads. Moscow has more people and territories. Warheads for its full coverage will require several pieces more. The US has fewer cities with a population of more than 1 million than Russia, but more mid-sized cities with fewer than 500,000 people. The average population density of Russian cities is slightly higher than in America, as there are more apartment buildings. American families are more likely to live in detached buildings. At close range, it is their homes that will be swept away by the aftermath of the explosion and subsequent fire. The overall population density of the two countries is slightly more favorable to the US, all 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 all of them successfully achieve their goals, will destroy somewhere 30% more Russian cities than Russia can destroy American ones. But since there are more cities in the US with an average population, the use of Russian shells will be more effective.

Both sides - USA in more than Russia - they will find a lack of large cities on which it is not a pity to spend 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 side of the United States, since the Russian army is not so numerous, and fewer warheads may be required for the entire set of military targets. Thus, America will be able to spend more missiles on economic targets and cities.

The total number of victims of explosions and their direct consequences, such as injuries, fires and fallen buildings, is likely to be in the tens of millions of people. Not all of them will die instantly, some will die due to injuries within a few days. Health care will not be available in most cases. Millions of people, among other things, will die due to the fallout of radioactive particles that will enter the body days and even months after the war. If we take the bombing of Hiroshima as a model, 20% more people will die from radiation sickness within a few months. To a lesser extent, the causes of death would be various types of cancer and other long-term health problems. Many people would have died over the next few years. The indirect consequences will be much more dangerous. Many will be killed by spreading diseases, and the sudden disappearance of the modern state and infrastructure will lead to a shortage of provisions and housing. Riots will begin, due to the lack of an organized system of law enforcement agencies. Tens of millions will die in the next year or so.

Finally, the effects of nuclear winter cannot be discounted. Due to dust and firestorms thrown into the atmosphere, the temperature on our planet will decrease, and the climate will change accordingly. This will cause problems with crops and livestock. It will not be possible to predict the exact range of consequences, as all studies conducted in recent decades suggest different results. It is important to note that nuclear winter will affect not only two opposing sides but for the whole world as a whole. One hundred million or even a billion people around the world will die of hunger, it is not possible to name a more accurate 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 revised after the emergence of a new world order; only third countries will benefit. Which makes such a bilateral 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 not to start this war at all.

In June of this year, representatives of 122 states voted at the UN headquarters in New York for the adoption of a treaty to prohibit nuclear weapons, which should enter into force after 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.

Specialists who support 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 the sharply escalated rhetoric of the nuclear powers - US President Donald Trump and North Korean leader Kim Jong-un. In March of this year, Matthias Eken, an American analyst and expert on nuclear weapons, published his calculations in The Conversation magazine, and we present his assessment of the consequences of a 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 between states with a total of 220 nuclear warheads could look like. 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; World War I took fewer lives. But on this destructive action atomic bombs will not end: fires ignited by nuclear explosions will raise clouds of soot and smoke; radioactive particles enter the stratosphere.

According to calculations, the Indo-Pakistani nuclear conflict will lead to 6.5 tons of radioactive matter entering the upper atmosphere; soot and soot shield the sun's rays, which can lead to a significant drop in the average annual temperature near the Earth's surface; the cold snap can last for decades.

Nuclear winter, in turn, will affect agriculture. Corn yields in the US (the world leader in its production) will fall by 12% over the first 10 years of a cold snap, the rice crop in China will decrease by 17%, and winter wheat by 31%.

The world stocks of grain that exist today will be enough to meet global demand for 100 days. After these stocks are depleted, a nuclear winter after the Indo-Pakistani nuclear conflict threatens to starve almost a third of the world's population - two billion people.

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, therefore general power there will be fewer explosions than in the Indo-Pakistani version, but will still lead to many deaths. In addition, such a scenario threatens further confrontation between the nuclear powers in other regions of the planet.

Russia VS USA

The worst possible scenario is a US nuclear war with Russia. Most of the nuclear warheads of both countries are 10-50 times more powerful than the bomb that destroyed Hiroshima. If both states use strategic nuclear weapons (designed to destroy non-combat targets - enemy cities and infrastructure), about 150 tons of soot will enter the atmosphere, and 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 US nuclear war with Russia.

All of the scenarios described, 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 have already detonated more than 2,000 nuclear bombs of various capacities, and corn, rice and wheat will be born as if nothing had happened. But this does not mean that one can give up on the most unlikely scenarios of nuclear war: five members of the club of nuclear powers - Great Britain, China, Russia, the USA and France, have nuclear warheads and delivery vehicles, in addition - India, North Korea and Pakistan; it is assumed that nuclear bomb developed by the Israeli military, Iran's nuclear program raises questions. It is better to remember the possible consequences of the use of nuclear weapons than to forget about them.

A detailed article on the means that can be used by Russia 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 application 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 preemptive strike

3) Plan "Storm"

4) Plan "Blizzard"

5) Limited cobalt war

6) Total cobalt war Let's consider 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 system missile defense, which 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. This will result in a stalemate in which a general nuclear strike will not lead to victory for either side. Consequently, the war will take on a protracted character. 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 they are guided by the breakthrough of the anti-missile shield due to the number of missiles themselves and additional decoys, while for short-range missiles the priority is the possibility of maneuverable avoidance of fire in automatic mode.

At the same time, the importance of bacteriological weapons, against which air defense does not save, will sharply increase. The war will almost inevitably escalate from a limited war to an all-out war - following the spread of the pandemic, nuclear missiles will hit the collapsed power - or, more likely, it will launch them first, last. The war may also escalate into a cobalt war, which will be discussed later. It is difficult to assess how likely such a scenario is, as little is known about the possibility latest systems Air defense to resist a massive nuclear strike. However, the ongoing decline missile weapons makes you 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.

Advantages of war in this scenario:

a) less damage environment and the biosphere.

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

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

a) Such a scenario is extremely unlikely.

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

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

2. Bet on a preemptive strike. One of the oldest war plans between the two nuclear powers based on the idea of ​​destruction nuclear forces enemy with the first preemptive strike. Such ideas were abandoned in the United States after achieving strategic parity with the USSR, when the count of warheads from the parties went to tens of thousands, but after large-scale recent disarmament (and taking into account the possibility of destroying by missile defense systems that part of the missiles that still take off), it may be possible to return to such a plan. The main problem is the flight time of missiles. Automatic systems operating on the principle dead hand", are able to respond to missiles seen by the radar very quickly. Fortunately, due to the fact that they can potentially launch due to instrumental error, they are constantly monitored by a person - and there will still be a certain delay before deciding to launch missiles. But you will have to act very quickly. What are the main ways to launch a nuclear strike without receiving a response?

Many of them can be named. First, the use of missiles made using stealth technology (invisible to radar) that should hit command posts and the main missile sites before a retaliatory strike is launched. Apparently, cruise missiles, not ballistic missiles, will have to be used for this. 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 flight time by several times. Plus, such missiles cannot be intercepted in flight using modern technologies. Science in this moment is 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. So, similar ideas regarding astronautics were expressed more than once, in particular, the projects "Orion", "Daedalus"

The tail of the rocket should be a massive metal plate that takes on 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 the Earth in a matter of minutes and pass the radar visibility zone with gigantic speed, after which they can break through 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 a seismic weapon, an underground thermonuclear explosion of hundreds of megatons destroying missile silos at a distance of many kilometers.

Personally, I imagine a rocket with a pulsed nuclear engine in this way: several rockets at some distance from each other (each size corresponds to at least a two-hundred-ton "Satan", or even several times larger than that) are hidden in mines, controlled remotely. At the start, either a bomb hidden in the mine itself is used, or a conventional rocket liquid or solid propellant engine. One way or another, having lifted off the ground, the rocket throws out dozens of low-yield 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 rocket's tail 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 the enemy country, and a monoblock warhead (there is no need to unnecessarily complicate the design, forced to work in conditions of extreme acceleration and temperature) with a protective composite coating is then only able to adjust its flight in accordance with the laid down program.

The obvious problem with this solution is that no one has a single working instance of a pulsed nuclear engine. And in the near future, obviously, will not. How much time is needed to develop such a missile, if it is addressed immediately and the maximum state funding is provided, is unknown. What kind of speed can be achieved without destroying the rocket in flight, and whether such a speed will be sufficient to radically outstrip the enemy is also unknown. The third method of delivering the first strike is the use of systems that allow shooting down enemy missiles that have taken off already in flight over its own territory. For example, to create ballistic missiles with low-yield multiple warheads that could independently target enemy missiles flying towards them (which, however, is difficult because of the flight on a collision course - a high relative speed).

Also here can be attributed the idea of ​​using high-altitude thermonuclear explosions of high power to destroy electronics. electromagnetic impulse(The problem is that most modern ballistic missiles are protected from the effects of such; however, aircraft and cruise missiles can be effectively destroyed in this way). So, the advantages of the preemptive strike idea:

a) It is potentially possible to disable all or almost all of the enemy's ground 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 less dangerous means for the planetary biosphere (chemical, biological weapons).

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

b) It is difficult to prepare such a strike unnoticed by reconnaissance, which brings us back to the previous point.

V) Modern technology does not allow the implementation of such a plan, therefore, additional studies are 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 in the matter of strengthening their nuclear power during this time is also unknown.

d) Ways to destroy 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 is given on the basis of the main damaging factor in such a war - underwater thermonuclear explosions, which will have to cause monstrous tsunamis, sweeping all life tens or even hundreds of kilometers deep into the coast. They will also inevitably result in monstrous atmospheric whirlwinds that will affect the entire planet for an indefinite period of time, hindering 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 decreasing (it is worth considering, however, that the Far East and, possibly, the Baltic States are subject to a giant tsunami, albeit in a weakened form due to distance), and monstrous showers wash out all radioactive ash from the atmosphere in a matter of weeks. A likely consequence of the war in this scenario will also be a sharply accelerated global warming - emissions of large amounts of greenhouse gases will no longer be offset 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-yield thermonuclear bombs (from one hundred megatons or more). We need a means of delivering those to the optimal points of detonation (at least a kilometer deep). How long it will take to prepare for war is difficult to predict, and therefore it is not clear 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 set in advance and, if victory in the war under this scenario is 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 climate, especially if the consequences turned out to be much worse than expected

Cons: a) Extremely heavy and expensive bombs are needed, which means high risk disclosure of the plan at the preparation stage. It is also unknown how long their production will take.

b) Submarines, designed to deliver bombs to explosion sites, can be seen by the enemy.

c) Unpredictable consequences for the planet are possible in the event of a breach oceanic crust(greenhouse gas emissions from underwater volcanoes, global warming, chronic recurrence of large tsunamis in the region for decades to come, plus a global 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 substances will get into the ocean. chemical industries, as well as radioactive substances from destroyed nuclear power plants.

4. Plan "Blizzard". The plan aims to deliberately create the effect of "nuclear winter" for the banal freezing of most of the world's population. Since Russia under such conditions will have the smallest victims 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 gain an advantage over other countries.

Since a significant atmospheric effect cannot be achieved by simple ash emissions from nuclear strikes on cities (taking into account the reductions in missiles that have passed since the 80s, the maximum possible is a relatively mild "nuclear autumn" scenario), you need to think about non-standard methods of using nuclear weapons. So, the writer Alexei Doronin described the possibility of a thermal shock. nuclear missiles on coal seams with the release of a huge amount of ash into the atmosphere.

Whether this is possible is not a fact, and it is a pity for minerals. Therefore, I consider it necessary in this situation to deliver a massive strike with thermonuclear bombs from 5-10 to 50 or more megatons on large volcanoes of the planet - 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 United States. If there are sufficient food supplies, it is possible to strike again at other volcanoes after the effect of "winter" begins to fade - to reduce to a minimum the chances of survival of the population of hostile states.

Pros: a) You do not 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 damage from a retaliatory strike.

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

d) Returning to the previous "Storm" plan, the effect of nuclear winter is relatively easy to eliminate with excessive dangerous consequences(If you prepare in advance for such an opportunity).

e) In Russia, except Far East and to a lesser extent the Caucasus, there are no seismic zones with volcanic activity - accordingly, we will have the best. At the same time, to destroy most of the United States, it is potentially enough to undermine one supervolcano under Yellowstone National Park.

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

b) Damage to the nature of the planet - but the "volcanic winter" in history has happened more than once or twice, 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 Russian arsenal, radiological weapons, primarily cobalt ones, can be used to inflict maximum damage on other countries. It is intended for intentional radioactive contamination of enemy territory and is dangerous primarily because of the possibility of carrying radioactive isotopes by the wind towards Russia.

In order to prevent cobalt bombs from having a widespread effect, ideally, relatively a large number of low-yield cobalt-clad nuclear bombs in ground-based explosions. From tactical low-yield nuclear weapons (such as the bombs detonated in Hiroshima and Nagasaki), most of the atomic decay products fall in the immediate vicinity of the explosion site. The problem, however, is the number of missiles required - and with sufficiently high yield cobalt bombs, it is necessary to pre-calculate the direction of the wind during the war and thereafter.

Pros: a) A relatively small number of bombs can cause monstrous 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-yield bombs.

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), it is potentially possible to organize the production of shells for cobalt bombs with sufficient secrecy.

d) The destruction of part of the bombs by enemy nuclear missiles on the ground is not capable of leading to fatal consequences, since for the effective passage of the reaction, cobalt must be in close proximity to the bomb, and nuclear and thermonuclear munitions are incapable of arbitrary detonation in a close explosion - they simply collapse before the start of a chain reaction. Cons: a) Unreliability is the biggest disadvantage.

The wind can bring a radioactive isotope of cobalt in sufficient quantities to the territory of Russia and at the same time strong wind at the site of the bombs, it is able to drive all the products of the explosion so that the target is almost unaffected. Everything must 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 climate for a long time.

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

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

c) Great danger to Agriculture. Even in the event that our country receives a slight radioactive contamination from cobalt-60 brought by 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 food grown in the fields.

d) The underground bunkers of the enemy are not destroyed, where, among other things, missiles or biological weapons can survive, which it will 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. It focuses on the situation in which Russia has no chance of winning the war due to the extreme weakness of its strategic nuclear forces and the powerful anti-missile defense of the United States or China. Cobalt bombs are perhaps the only known modern science a way (besides bacteriological or viral weapons) to destroy humanity.

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

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

a) Catastrophic consequences for the population of Russia. In modern conditions, it is hardly possible to hide in bunkers and metro 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 metro by enemy missiles.

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

V) Environmental consequences- the death of most species of large plants, all species of birds living on the surface, all or almost all mammals, 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 at the expense of seeds.

d) The cobalt war does not guarantee us 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 fit perfectly if there is food and air filters to save several million people.

e) On the other hand, the cobalt war guarantees SUCH hatred on the part of all the surviving inhabitants of other countries that after the cleansing of the planet from radiation, the war with everyone who has the opportunity to get to us will continue immediately - until either we exterminate them all, or until they exterminate us. To win a future Fourth World War, it is necessary to keep a small part of the missiles in secret bunkers, perhaps even cobalt ones, and, of course, bacteriological or viral weapons. Plus - just one. "That war is just, which is necessary, and that weapon is sacred, for which the only hope" - an aphorism from Niccolò 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 be necessary - just like 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 have to risk the entire planet, is better than a guaranteed defeat.

Nuclear war is called hypothetical collision between countries or military-political blocs that have thermonuclear or nuclear weapons and have 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 start of the Cold War in the second half of the last century, a nuclear war between the US and the USSR was considered a very likely development.

• What happens if a nuclear war breaks out?
• Doctrines of nuclear war in the past
• US nuclear doctrine during the thaw
• Russian nuclear doctrine

What happens if a nuclear war breaks out?

Many fearfully asked the question: what will happen if a nuclear war breaks out? This is a major environmental hazard:

• Explosions would release a huge amount of energy.
• Ashes and soot from fires would block the sun for a long time, which would lead to the effect of "nuclear night" or "nuclear winter" with a sharp drop in temperature on the planet.
• The apocalyptic picture was to be supplemented by radioactive contamination, which would have no less catastrophic consequences for life.

It was assumed that most of the countries of the world would inevitably be drawn into such a war, directly or indirectly.

The danger of a nuclear war is that it would lead to a global environmental catastrophe and even the death of our civilization.

What will happen in the event of a nuclear war? A powerful explosion is only part of the disaster:

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

After a nuclear war, the Earth would hardly have remained at least a little like its former self, it would be scorched, and almost all living things would die.

An instructive video about what will happen if a nuclear war starts:

Doctrines of nuclear war in the past

The first doctrine (theory, concept) of nuclear war arose immediately after the end of World War II, in the United States. Then it was invariably reflected in the strategic concepts of NATO and the United States. However, military doctrine The USSR also took nuclear missile weapons decisive role in the next big war.

Initially, a massive nuclear war scenario was envisaged with the unlimited use of all available nuclear weapons, and their goals would be not only military, but also civilian objects. It was believed that in such a conflict, the advantage would have been given to the country that was the first to launch a massive nuclear strike against the enemy, the purpose of which was the preemptive destruction of his nuclear weapons.

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

Since the late 1950s, the United States has new concept"limited nuclear war". In the 1970s, according to this concept, various weapons systems could be used in a hypothetical armed conflict, including operational-tactical and tactical nuclear weapons, which had limitations on the scale of use and means of delivery. Nuclear weapons in such a conflict would only be used to destroy military and important economic facilities. If a distortion of history could happen, nuclear wars in the recent past could actually follow a similar scenario.

One way or another, but the United States is still the only state that in practice used nuclear weapons in 1945 not against the military, but dropped 2 bombs on the civilian population of Hiroshima (August 6) and Nagasaki (August 9).

Hiroshima

On August 6, 1945, under the guise of the Potsdam Declaration, which set an ultimatum regarding the immediate surrender of Japan, the American government sent an American bomber to the Japanese Islands, and at 08:15 Japanese time, it dropped the first nuclear bomb on the city of Hiroshima, which had the code name "Kid".

The power of this charge was relatively small - about 20,000 tons of TNT. The explosion of the charge occurred at an altitude of about 600 meters above the ground, and its epicenter was above the Sima hospital. Hiroshima was not chosen by chance as the target of a demonstrative nuclear strike - it was there at that time that the General Staff of the Japanese Navy and the Second General Staff of the Japanese Army were located.

• The explosion destroyed a large part of Hiroshima.
• Over 70,000 people were killed instantly.
• Near 60,000 died later from wounds, burns and radiation sickness.
• Within a radius of about 1.6 kilometers there was a zone of complete destruction, while fires spread over an area of ​​11.4 square meters. km.
• 90% of the city's buildings were either completely destroyed or badly damaged.
• The tram system miraculously survived the bombardment.

In the six months following the bombing, they died from its consequences. 140,000 people.

This “insignificant”, according to the military, charge once again proved that the consequences of a nuclear war for humanity are devastating, as for a race.

Sad video about the nuclear attack on Hiroshima:

Nagasaki

On August 9, at 11:02 am, another American plane dropped another nuclear charge on the city of Nagasaki - "Fat Man". It was blown up high above the Nagasaki Valley, where industrial enterprises. The second consecutive American nuclear attack on Japan caused new catastrophic destruction and loss of life:

• 74,000 Japanese were killed instantly.
• 14,000 buildings were completely destroyed.

In fact, these terrible moments can be called the days when a nuclear war almost started, since bombs were dropped on civilians, and only a miracle stopped the moment when the world was on the brink of nuclear war.

US nuclear doctrine during the thaw

After the end of the Cold War, the American doctrine of limited nuclear war was transformed into the concept of counterproliferation. It was first voiced by US Secretary of Defense L. Espin in December 1993. The Americans considered that with the help of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons it was no longer possible to achieve this goal, therefore, at critical moments, the United States reserved the right to inflict "disarming strikes" on nuclear facilities of objectionable regimes.

In 1997, a directive was adopted according to which the US Army must be ready to strike at foreign facilities for the production and storage of biological, chemical and nuclear weapons. And in 2002, the concept of counterproliferation was included in the US national security strategy. Within its framework, the United States intended to destroy nuclear facilities in Korea and Iran or take control of Pakistani facilities.

Russian nuclear doctrine

The military doctrine of Russia also periodically changes its wording. In the latter version, Russia reserves the right to use nuclear weapons if not only nuclear or other types of weapons were used against it or its allies. mass destruction, but also conventional weapons, if it threatens the very foundations of the existence of the state, which can become one of the causes of nuclear war. This indicates the main thing - the likelihood of a nuclear war is currently quite acute, but the rulers understand that no one can survive in this conflict.

Russian nuclear weapons

An alternative story with a nuclear war developed in Russia. The US State Department for 2016 estimated, based on the data provided under the START-3 treaty, that in Russian army deployed 508 strategic nuclear launchers:

• intercontinental ballistic missiles;
• strategic bombers;
• submarine missiles.

In total, there are 847 nuclear charge carriers, on which 1796 charges are installed. It should be noted that nuclear weapons in Russia are being reduced quite intensively - in half a year their number is reduced by 6%.

With such weapons and more than 10 countries in the world that have officially confirmed the presence of nuclear weapons, the threat of nuclear war is global problem, the prevention of which is a guarantee of life on Earth.

Are you afraid of nuclear war? Do you think it will come and how soon? Share your opinion or guesses in the comments.

An armed conflict between NATO and Russia could turn into a nuclear war, according to the American edition of The National Interest.

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

But now the representatives of the alliance are haunted by the fact that the place of the USSR on the world stage is occupied by Russia. 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 answer - what deceit. As conceived by 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, it remains only to shoot and put on the 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 still doubted these one and a half years. 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 the whole article is based on this initially crazy assumption. Some remind that, as a rule, it is not Russia that attacks Western countries, but just the opposite - Napoleon, Hitler, - and NATO all these years has been slowly creeping up to the Russian borders. Others can't figure out why it's necessary to fight Russia at all.

And it's really not clear. But surely journalists and military officials will come up with something or find some forgotten article already three years ago - all means are good to increase the military budget.