In the last one and a half to two years, the global geopolitical situation has worsened significantly. Russia's relations with Ukraine, Georgia, the EU, the USA, Japan, Canada, Australia and other countries have deteriorated. The countries exchanged mutual sanctions. The military confrontation between the United States and Russia has also intensified, and normal relations between Russia and Ukraine have been practically destroyed.
The US is testing new types of weapons. Recently, a new modernized atomic bomb was tested. Russia is also constantly testing promising types of weapons. Military aircraft and ships of NATO and Russia periodically collide and display unfriendly behavior. Against this background, Ukraine continues to passive-aggressively destroy the east of its own country. The whole thing looks very alarming.
WILL THERE BE WAR IN RUSSIA IN 2016?
In general, people are afraid of two scenarios. This is the war between Russia and Ukraine in 2016. Which is scary. But even worse is the possible war between Russia and the United States in 2016. However, both scenarios look almost impossible.
If in Ukraine the adequacy of the top leadership raises questions, then in Russia the main people in the country think soberly and will never allow a war with Ukraine. Such a scenario could lead to conflict with NATO countries.
The conflict between Russia and NATO is also very dangerous, given the presence of nuclear weapons and large quantity powerful cruise missiles and other non-nuclear weapons. The war between Russia and the United States also extremely frightens people, because an exchange of nuclear strikes will lead to the fact that there will be no winners.
The United States is developing a lightning strike strategy, which provides for the rapid destruction of all the most important components of Russia's infrastructure, and the missile defense (missile defense) system should protect against a retaliatory strike from Russia.
However, no one knows how the missile defense system will work against Russian missiles. In addition, Russia is developing promising hypersonic missiles that are almost impossible to shoot down. Russia also has a nuclear triad - nuclear-armed submarines, static nuclear silos, and nuclear-armed air forces. Also, no one knows whether the “Perimeter, Dead Hand” system, a system of automatic retaliation from Russia if it is seriously hit, is currently working. No US leader in his right mind would attack Russia. Rather, in the United States they are escalating the situation with their rhetoric, focusing on the domestic voter.
However, recently the United States named Russia one of the main threats to the world and specifically to the United States. But it is obvious that Russia does not threaten the States, Europe or anyone else.
IN THE DRY RESIDUE
Of course, there will be no large-scale war in Russia in 2016. You don't need to be a military analyst or psychic to do this. Our country suffered so much war in the 20th century that now the country's population could be twice as large as it is. And we still feel the demographic waves that remained with us after World Wars 1 and 2. And given that Russia is spending astronomical amounts of money on rearmament of the army itself modern technology, no one will dare to attack us.
It is already ceasing to be a myth and turning into a fairly real prospect. After all, today there are too many hot spots on the map that are literally exploding and require the close attention of the world community. Naturally, make your own predictions on the topic: is a third one expected? world war in 2016, this is done not only by political scientists and economists, but also by psychics. And they begin to listen to them. After all, when official predictors are powerless, people begin to turn to those who see the invisible.
Vanga spoke quite unequivocally about the third world war in 2016. The old lady made the most accurate predictions - experts say that about 80% of the statements she made came true. And all this, even though the clairvoyant has long been dead.
According to the provided visions of the Bulgarian clairvoyant, it can be judged that the world is on the verge of a severe armed conflict. The old woman argued that the European part would suffer very seriously - it was the armed conflict that would fall on it first. He will also wipe out the European part of the map almost completely from the face of the earth.
The war will be started by an Arab country. If we apply the predictions of the blind Bulgarian seer to reality, then it is quite possible to find similarities with the real state of affairs. After all, today almost the entire Middle East is engulfed in hostilities. Moreover, in some zones there are full-scale military conflicts, while in others local problems are noted (however, it should be understood that they are no less bloody). One of the most problematic areas is Syria.
By the way, there is one incident connected with Syria. Vanga made a statement about Syria back in the 20th century, which few believed. After all, at that moment everything was calm there. And today it is in this region that very serious problems have arisen.
Related news:
In principle, it is possible to explain the fact that Vanga claimed the destruction of Europe. Today, America and Europe, which agrees with it in everything, are considered the birthplace of military strife. Therefore, the Third World War in Europe can be explained by the current US assistance in exterminating the population of Arab countries.
In addition, the clairvoyant claimed that the war would be quite serious and cruel. After all, they will begin to use chemical weapons, which will destroy a lot of civilians. The soothsayer claimed that people would die slowly, painfully, suffocating and suffering from wounds on the body.
Nostradamus's opinion on the third world war
He is considered one of the strongest and most authoritative predictors in the world. And this takes into account the fact that he lived 500 years ago. Experts are still deciphering the seer’s quatrains, which are arranged in a completely unusual order. And today researchers have just gotten to such quatrains that claim that the link: 2016 – World War III, is quite real.
The seer, just like the Bulgarian blind clairvoyant, claimed that the conflict will start from the Arab side. In addition, he also said that a special poison would be used - all this indicates the use of chemical weapons.
Nostradamus insisted that Europe should be most afraid. Since it will be the main target of the militants. And the reasons are still the same - aggressive behavior towards the Arab world. After such a bloody conflict, as Nostradamus assured, there will be empty and scorched territories where the old traditional and prosperous Europe used to be. Only a few hundred thousand people will remain on earth, who will then populate the planet.
The elders' predictions about World War III in 2016 should be taken seriously. After all, it is quite possible, knowing the predictions and prospects, to correct the problem and prevent further development of the conflict.
Pavel Globa's visions on the topic of military conflict
Pavel Globa is not exactly a psychic; he positions himself more as an astrologer. He is also a very respected expert in the field of the unknown. Naturally, he could not help but speak out on this kind of topic. He bases his predictions on the basis of the location of the planets in the sky and their relationship to each other.
Based on the results of compiling an astromap, the seer realized that the traditionally considered warlike planet Uranus is located in the constellation called Aries. Therefore, the likelihood of military tension is extremely high. And again, all this directly reflects the situation that is developing today in the world community. In addition, the economic situation is added to the astrological predictions. Today the American economy is in serious trouble, and the only way to quickly and easily revive it is through military conflict. Therefore, the likelihood of developing this kind of problem is very high. So World War III in 2016 is quite likely. If only the governments of America and European countries won't stop.
What fate awaits Russia against this background?
Naturally, many are interested in how Russia will behave in World War III in 2016. After all, it is Russia that represents the most serious enemy for everyone, because it traditionally defended its territories and defeated the most serious armies. In addition, the country has a rich potential of various types of weapons.
People who think about defense policy and national security for a living like things to fit into neat boxes, the kind that can be displayed on PowerPoint slides. If you are unlucky enough to find yourself sitting next to two Pentagon-speaking officials at a reception, you will notice that their speech is full of acronyms for obscure projects and arcane government departments, and that they regularly refer to strategic concepts and systems, in including the venerable “triad” of nuclear deterrence.
The "triad" concept states that when a country has land-, air-, and sea-launched nuclear weapons, it greatly increases its chances of retaliating after a nuclear attack. For example, regarding the USA and the USSR in the years cold war, then if one of the sides delivered the first strike, which destroyed the enemy’s ground and air-based systems, they were left with submarines capable of delivering a crushing second strike. The prospect of a nuclear war was so terrible that it for a long time called an absolute and universal deterrent, which made a real armed conflict between NATO and the Warsaw Pact unthinkable.
With the end of the Cold War in 1991, the chances of a nuclear conflict seemed to diminish even further, although the proliferation of nuclear weapons continued. But no one expected the level of hostility towards Russia that is now completely obvious. And today all the talk in the Pentagon is again about how to win the war against a clearly strengthening Moscow. Russian President Vladimir Putin, for his part, this week withdrew from the nuclear security treaty, citing "hostile actions" by the United States.
Context
Refusing the possibility of a first strike is nonsense
The National Interest 08/05/2016US: revive nuclear deterrence strategy
American Thinker 03/11/2016How dangerous is “plutonium blackmail”?
Ukrainian Truth 05.10.2016Is Poland in danger of a nuclear strike?
Rzeczpospolita 08/24/2016Of course, much of the Pentagon's hostility toward Moscow is due to budgetary reasons. Generals and admirals need a more powerful and formidable enemy than “international terrorism” in order to justify increasing the role of their branches of the armed forces and branches of the armed forces. Recent claims by staff officers that the Russian military is superior to the American army are credible only if you count the tanks, not the planes and helicopters of the opposing forces. The alarm raised by former general and self-promoting new politician Wesley Clark, who claimed that Russia had built an “invulnerable” tank, was met with ridicule. Many statements regarding modern systems of Russia's weapons are heard from the lips of the Ukrainian authorities, who clearly need reasons to ask the United States for advanced offensive weapons and military assistance.
The reality is that, apart from its nuclear arsenal, Russia is like the proverbial mouse that growled. Its struggling economy produces a gross national product roughly equal to Italy's, and it spends seven times less on defense than the United States. Russia has one aircraft carrier versus 10 American ones, six times fewer helicopters, three times fewer fighters, and more than two times fewer active-duty personnel. It has no effective military allies, while the US allies are almost all countries of the Eastern and Western Europe members of NATO.
Official American policy is that NATO provides conventional deterrence to such an extent that Russia has no desire to enter into conflict with members of the alliance, since it could be defeated in as soon as possible. But Russia will have certain advantages if it attacks without warning, relying on internal communications and deploying superior forces in some areas. And the reliability of a coordinated response by the North Atlantic Alliance can be doubted, since the basis for NATO's existence is becoming increasingly less, although the alliance is expanding its ranks, and recently included Montenegro. One US Army officer recently remarked to journalist Mark Perry: “How many British soldiers do you think are willing to die for Estonia?”
The problem with organizing a credible conventional defense is that there is a second level of deterrence: the nuclear umbrella extended over Europe by the United States, Britain and France. American leaders previously assumed that Washington and NATO would not be the first to use nuclear weapons in the event of a conflict, but this could never be called a real policy. And last month, reports emerged that President Obama wanted to endorse a no-first-use pledge, but his own Cabinet rejected the proposal, with Defense Secretary Ash Carter calling the pledge a "sign of weakness." Two liberal congressmen then introduced a bill to prohibit the United States from launching a nuclear first strike, but it has little support and appears likely to die in committee.
Carter, who calls nuclear weapons a "strong foundation" and a "guarantee" of American security, recently spoke at several U.S. bases that house Minuteman missiles. He said the United States and its European allies are now “refreshing” American strategy by integrating conventional and nuclear weapons systems to “discourage Russia from thinking that it would gain an advantage by using nuclear weapons in a conflict with NATO.” Carter explained that Moscow does not want to comply with "multi-year agreements on the use of nuclear weapons" and this raises serious doubts that it is exercising "the same extreme caution in the use of nuclear weapons as Cold War leaders."
Ash Carter also noted: “If deterrence fails, you must present to the President options for achieving the goals of the United States and its allies... to reduce the risk of using nuclear weapons in the first place.” He emphasized America's "willingness and ability" to act. It should be noted that Carter did not say that the United States would not be the first to use nuclear weapons. He made it clear that such weapons are part of the arsenal of tools to respond to what he believes is a growing Russian threat.
By all accounts, Carter is an anti-Russian hawk. And by training he is a physicist, and to a certain extent an expert on the use of nuclear weapons. Some of the changes he has made to our nuclear deterrence policy were recently featured on CBS's 60 Minutes, which aired a series on the state of America's nuclear arsenal. Officers aboard the Ohio-class nuclear-powered submarine have openly talked about how combat readiness has been raised to Cold War levels since Russia's invasion of Crimea. The film also discusses a relatively new tactic called "escalate to de-escalate," which involves disrupting a conventional offensive with a show-stopping nuclear strike. Such a strike should be a warning that more will follow if the offensive continues.
The concept of launching a nuclear strike as a warning is not new. America considered the option of using nuclear weapons acceptable during the two Iraq wars, reserving it in case Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction and demonstrated readiness to use them. Nuclear strikes were to be included in the combat plan in the event of a war between the United States and Iran. But all the calculations have changed, because the weapons themselves have become more modern and sophisticated.
New operational-tactical nuclear weapons such as latest version American bomb B61, is small in size and easily transported. A nuclear charge can be dropped from an aircraft, delivered to a target by a cruise missile, and even from a ground facility or from vehicle. Next, the operator can “tune” the power of the explosion by setting it on the bomb itself. This means that a demonstrative nuclear strike could be essentially a nuclear strike, but with limited impact to reduce military and civilian casualties. According to some generals and politicians, such selectivity turns the bomb into effective remedy warning rather than escalating hostilities - and as a result, these weapons become much more acceptable and usable.
Of course, the Russians also have such weapons, and according to some sources, their arsenal is now more modern than the American one. The principles of Russian military doctrine were recently clearly explained by Putin. According to him, Moscow retains the right to use nuclear weapons in the event of a threat to Russia's existence. This could be interpreted as Putin acknowledging that Russian conventional forces would not survive a direct confrontation with American forces, and as a warning that Russia may be forced to launch a nuclear strike first in self-defense early in the conflict.
Therefore, it must be concluded that both sides opposing each other in Eastern Europe may, under certain circumstances, use nuclear weapons. No one asks the opinion of the Poles and Slovaks, whose land could become a target for such a demonstration, but the governments of these countries officially agree with NATO's strategy to contain Russia. But Germany is seriously nervous about such saber rattling, since memories of the Red Army are still fresh there.
Articles on the topic
Lethal nuclear arsenal personnel
The National Interest 10/05/2016“What time is Buratin” to evaluate Hillary’s self-promotion
The Washington Post 10/05/2016 Die Welt 10/04/2016Is Russia preparing for war?
The National Interest 09/15/2016Are there any scary signs that some high-ranking army officers may be making a mess of themselves, confident that the war against Russia can be won? Wesley Clark, who, as is known, tried to provoke a confrontation with Russian peacekeepers in Kosovo in 1999, can be called such an insane source of increased danger. An even more reckless General Philip Breedlove (who retired this year), as NATO's commander in chief in Europe, persistently sought to drag the Alliance and the United States into a proxy war over Ukraine. Among the leaked information is an email suggesting that Breedlove, together with the UN Secretary General, develop “a NATO strategy to persuade, cajole or compel the United States to respond to the Russian threat.” Breedlove found the idea "very promising." The general, who systematically lied about the extent of the Russian presence in Ukraine, hysterically called Moscow “a long-term existential threat to the United States and our European allies.” Breedlove also maintained ties to Under Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs Victoria Nuland, who helped organize the coup to overthrow the Ukrainian government in 2014.
Meanwhile, Hillary Clinton calls Putin the new Hitler, and the New York Times writes in its editorials about “the illegal state of Vladimir Putin.” The real threat here is that the Russian people are watching this demonstration with concern and at some point may believe that an implacable enemy is trying to back them into a corner. Putin has warned several times about Russia's growing sense of being encircled and in grave danger due to NATO's ongoing expansion and threats made against it over Russian actions in Syria. Polls public opinion show that the average Russian today expects a war with the West.
The insistence of numerous Western representatives that Putin must be confronted, using force if necessary, is based on a gross exaggeration of the degree of threat emanating from Moscow. That nuclear weapons are now clearly included in NATO's deterrence plans, as well as in Russian defense plans, should be a dire warning to all those who care about what happens next.
Philip Geraldi is a former CIA officer who now works as director of the non-governmental organization Council for the National Interest.
InoSMI materials contain assessments exclusively from foreign media and do not reflect the position of the InoSMI editorial staff.
Experts believe that military technical superiority lies on the side armed forces USA. Therefore, in the event of a war with the Russians, the Americans will win. The Americans will defeat the Chinese too. Other analysts easily talk about a “small victorious” war. Still others object to the first two: they say, the Kremlin will have something to answer.
Who would win the war if Russia, China and America collided “right now”?
According to Logan Nye, whose article was published in, the United States is the most powerful militarily.
1. Stealth fighters.
The US Air Force currently has a fifth-generation stealth aircraft. However, there are problems here. The Air Force has only 187 F-22 fighters, and the brand new F-35 has encountered a number of difficulties, and even the high-tech pilot helmet still cannot be completed. Meanwhile, the Chinese and Russians are building their own planes. Beijing is building four models: J-31, J-22, J-23 and J-25 (the latter is rumored). Russia is working on one fighter, the T-50 (aka PAK FA), a stealth fighter with capabilities that some experts rate on par with the F-22. This T-50 will most likely enter service at the end of 2016 or early 2017.
In 1980, the US Army adopted the first M-1 Abrams. Since then, the tank has been significantly modernized, including in armor, transmission and weapon systems. Essentially, this is a new product with a 120mm main gun, excellent electronics, armor configuration, etc.
Russian T-90. Russia is currently developing a prototype of the T-14 on the Armata platform, but now the Kremlin is counting on the T-90A. And this tank still “surprises”: one of these tanks “survived a direct hit from a TOW missile in Syria.”
The Chinese tank is Type-99, equipped with a 125 mm cannon. The tank is upgraded with reactive armor and is considered almost as survivable in battle as Western or Russian tanks.
Likely winner? It's probably a draw here. However, America has more tanks and “better crew training.” And the US has more combat skills than its rivals, the author is sure.
3. Surface ships.
The US Navy has the largest military fleet in the world. 10 full-fledged aircraft carriers, 9 helicopter carriers. At the same time, technical advantages and the enormous size of the Navy alone may not be enough to overcome the attack of Chinese missiles or attacks by Russian submarines (in the event that the Americans had to fight in enemy waters).
As for Russia, its launch of Kalibr cruise missiles against targets in Syria showed that Moscow has found a way to carry out serious attacks even from its relatively small ships.
The Chinese Navy has hundreds of surface ships with advanced missiles and more.
Likely Winner: US Navy. American forces are still the "undisputed world champion." However, this champion “will suffer great losses if he decides to fight with China or Russia on their territory.”
4. Submarines.
The US Navy has 14 ballistic missile submarines (a total of 280 nuclear missiles), each of which can destroy an entire enemy city, four submarines with 154 Tomahawk cruise missiles, and 54 nuclear submarines. They are technologically equipped, heavily armed and stealthy.
Russia only has 60 submarines, but they are very maneuverable. Russian nuclear submarines are at the level or close to their Western counterparts. Russia is working on new underwater weapons, including a nuclear torpedo.
The Chinese Navy has a total of five nuclear submarines, 53 diesel submarines and four nuclear ballistic missile submarines. Chinese submarines are easy to track.
Likely winner: The US submarine fleet wins here, although the gap is narrowing over time.
Military expert Alexey Arestovich expressed the following thought in a material for: It’s time for Moscow to get nervous, because America needs a “small war.”
Arestovich notes that the Americans intend to repeat the bluff of the SDI (Strategic Defense Initiative) system, hoping to kill two birds with one stone. They want to force Russia and China, that is, their opponents, to enter into an arms race - one that both states will not survive. At the same time, they will actually test their missile system (the material mentions a test launch of the Minuteman III long-range ballistic missile). The level of technology already makes it possible to shoot down missiles on a ballistic curve, the expert notes, and the Americans are succeeding.
Such launches greatly irritate both US adversaries and those who have ballistic missiles. Because they raise questions about the effectiveness of the missile shield, the ability to launch a preemptive strike, a retaliatory strike, and so on. The US actions are not only related to the North Korean crisis, but are also a warning to everyone that it is time to be nervous. If you don’t want to be nervous, then you need to negotiate with us. The United States is slowly, millimeter by millimeter, gaining even greater superiority even over those adversaries who have nuclear weapons and can produce ballistic missiles. Another 10 years of such tests, and Russia’s missile power will become completely different from what was previously customary to talk about it, and which was usually feared. The same applies to Chinese, Korean, Pakistani and Indian nuclear potential.
According to the Ukrainian author, the United States “needs a small, victorious war.” Trump personally needs it to overcome the wave of criticism. And the White House is now deciding who to beat, the expert believes. Missile tests, he notes, are not only routine tests, but also acts of political influence “on the brains of the North Korean, Chinese, and Russian leadership.”
Harlan Ullman sees American, and at the same time NATO, power completely differently, in 2004-2016. who served as an employee of the main advisory group of the Supreme Commander of NATO in Europe, now Art. Advisor to the Atlantic Council in Washington.
In an article on the website, he talks about “black holes” that are not studied by physicists. There are also “strategic black holes,” and their origins are much more complicated than those that are “located in deep space.”
NATO will have to deal with three such holes.
The first black hole is from the area of strategy. “Russian interference in the affairs of Ukraine and the seizure of Crimea,” the author notes, turned out to be frightening. Russia's involvement in Syria supported the "diabolical regime of Bashar al-Assad." Russia has also become much more visible in Libya and the Persian Gulf.
What about NATO? The Alliance at one time created strategic concepts necessary after the end of the Cold War and the collapse of Soviet Union. And today NATO’s responses to Russia’s actions reflect the thinking and concepts of the 20th, not the 21st, century, the expert is sure. By the way, Russian President Vladimir Putin does not intend to go to war with NATO, the author believes. The Kremlin's policies rely on more than just blunt military force. Moscow was “not impressed” by the deployment of four battalions in the Baltic countries and the rotation of the brigade combat group within NATO.
The expert believes that the alliance needs a new strategy to solve these real problems and to plug the “second black hole”: countering Russia’s “active measures” or what some analysts call “asymmetric warfare.”
Here's an expert's suggestion: NATO should move to a "pro-porcupine" strategy, especially for its eastern members. Fundamental concept: any attack is so bad that under no circumstances will Moscow even think about using military force. Where does this “so bad” come from?
What is needed here are Javelin anti-tank missile systems and surface-to-air guided missiles (Stinger and Patriot), and they are needed “in very large quantities.” Using thousands of drones will also deter any attack attempt, but this method is "too expensive." In addition, Harlan Ullman advises the use of manpower in the form of local fighters who could fight "guerrilla and insurgent warfare." But this is not enough.
Russian “active measures” include cyberattacks, propaganda, disinformation, intimidation and political interference, the author lists. And so far NATO can do little to counter these measures. Therefore, the alliance urgently needs to “make efforts to plug this black hole.”
The last black hole is the procurement of weapons systems. These processes take too long and are unable to keep up with the rapid development of technology. And NATO should take this into account.
Will the alliance be able to realize all this? After all, these are “vital issues” and “NATO’s future rests” on them.
While some experts and analysts are prophesying to the world a “small war” in which the United States (apparently, even without NATO’s participation) will deal with some of its opponents in no time (apparently not the DPRK, but someone more powerful), others warn: NATO - There are holes all around! Without patching them up, the West may end up as losers. The alliance is stuck in the twentieth century, and it cannot resist the smart policies of the Kremlin.
From time to time, both hamsters in zhezhe and people who are quite experienced in real life express the same thought.
Like, “if this country is attacked, then it’s fucked, no one will fight for it, the army is in ruins, there’s no one to fight, the people will go and wait.”
This is so fucked up that I decided to speak out.
My dear friend.
Let me outline such a scenario for you.
Let's say NATO struck the first blow. Partly nuclear, but mostly not.
Well, our response there was sluggish, it turned out badly, the tanks are crossing the border, the advanced units are overturned, crushed, partly destroyed, and are fleeing to the east. Resistance is minimal, the Abrams are heading towards Moscow.
This is where some discrepancy begins between the ideas of hamsters and reality.
In fact, when such a topic is realized where it needs to be, the following will happen.
Your doorbell will ring.
Opening it, you will see a hungover cop, an even hungover flyer and a couple of sods.
They will hand you a summons and tell you that by order of the Supreme Commander-in-Chief you have been called up for military service. And you must pack your things and leave the house right now, otherwise you will be arrested.
Realizing that there are more of them, and together they are stronger, you obey, and dressed in anything, with a couple of changes of underwear and socks, you go out into the yard.
There will be a bus there. Old and tattered. Or two.
Your neighbors will sit in it - the same ones you saw every day in the parking lot when you came there to pick up your Corolla in the morning.
You will be taken to the nearest training center. They are not considered training now, but it won’t take long to restore them.
True, there will not be enough windows in the barracks, and you will have to cover yourself at night with a mattress, but this will not be fatal.
They will teach you quickly. You will dig five or two full-length trenches. You will shoot three or four hundred rounds of ammunition from an AK, and pierce a withered scarecrow with a bayonet several dozen times.
Throw a dummy grenade. Ten times.
One time you will have to run across the field amid the explosions of firecrackers, firing blanks as you go.
Then you will do the same thing at night, under the lighting shells hanging in the sky - not fully understanding what you are doing.
True, there will be guys there who will fire two dozen shots from the granite. But you don't.
And then, you will be sent to war.
People like you in the appointed place will meet others - who fired from cannons pulled out from storage warehouses - on one of them you will see the stamp “1956”.
Then others will catch up - they will have KamAZ and ZiL trucks confiscated in civilian life, which they hastily repainted olive green with brushes.
Senior commanders will walk among you - personnel ones who were sent to command you, and when you manage to see with what eyes they look at you, you will see fear and pity.
Nearby there will be those mobilized who have already pulled out an emergency, and you will greedily ask them about everything, instinctively realizing that you do not know what you need to survive.
You will have a shabby steel helmet - not like the one you saw on TV before the war.
You won't have an armored vehicle - it simply won't be enough for you. You will have kirzachi instead of boots. But even though you won’t get a Soviet uniform, there will be those among you who were given an overcoat, and maybe even breeches.
On the last day, a gloomy, gray-haired general with a fat belly will arrive. He will hand your commander a banner and say that now you are all the 105th Motorized Rifle Brigade, and must bear this name proudly. He hopes that you will do your duty.
The regular army, where there were real tanks and real soldiers who had normal Kevlar helmets and boots, has already died, there is no one behind you.
In the morning you will be given anti-tank weapons - if you are lucky, disposable RPGs, you will be given old and heavy anti-tank grenades, two of them.
The system administrator who will be next on the list after you will generally have an SKS carbine instead of a machine gun. And he won’t be the only one.
Then you, in your requisitioned trucks, with old guns in tow, go out to the deployment area.
The neighboring columns will be bombed, you will see burnt out cars and corpses, but you will have time to turn around on the ground and dig in.
They will fill you with vodka, and you will take turns drinking a fusel bottle, because they forgot to give you mugs.
And then, one by one, the assembled army will stop the hordes of high-tech tanks, robots, helicopters, and airplanes. There will be a fiery hell all around, at the last second before the first explosion on your positions you will finally realize how much stronger the enemy is.
And then they will go on the attack, and you will stop them with your machine gun and a couple of grenades. And the system administrator - with a carbine and one grenade. And it will seem that everything.
And you know what guy?
You will stop them. Yes, yes, that’s exactly what you will do, and then you will stop them again in another place, and then you will drive them back, and mark my words, you will plant a flag in the ruins of their capital.
And if they kill you, it will be done by the system administrator. And if they kill him too, it will be the guy who looks like a p***** who was selling phones in the store across the street. And if they kill him, then the bastard whom you fucked for pissing in the entrance. If not you, then one of them will definitely do it.
Simply because they MUST be stopped, because on the day when they are not stopped, darkness will cover the Universe, because it will be the end of humanity. Because this will be the end of everything.
Remember, they were always stopped. Despite the fact that they were always stronger. And this time this honor will fall to you, hamster.
Because there is no one else.
Good luck.
I kind of understand that this awaits me too, but unlike you, I know about it and treat it as some kind of irresistible given. Why am I turning to you, because you don’t know. In the end, you can be cunning and twist as much as you like, but death cannot be avoided. When you get into this, it will become easy and simple for you too.
At the next international conference of science fiction writers, professional military officers chose the best (most consistent with reality) description of the beginning of a nuclear war between Russia and the United States.
Alexey Doronin: Even after all the “disarmaments,” Russia’s nuclear arsenal remained significant. But what good are heavy intercontinental missiles if they all burn up in their silos, hit by tiny Fasthawk cruise missiles that travel three times faster than sound?
A quarter of an hour ago, fifteen thousand harbingers of death took to the air, crossed the border and, passing over the territory of the future-former Russian Federation, minimum height, practically invisible to radar, hit their targets: command posts, air defense facilities and missile silos, where giants with multiple warheads languished, “undercut” during the disarmament race. They overtook all, with rare exceptions, mobile “Topol-M”, previously tracked from satellites. Airplanes were burned at airfields, strategic nuclear-powered ships - mostly right at the docks. From the first minutes the army was beheaded. Supreme Commander, the General Staff and the Minister of Defense disappeared without a trace. The war would have ended without a single shot fired by the doomed power, if not for the determination of several officers in the Yamantau reserve command post. Moments before they were covered by a cluster of tactical nuclear missiles of the "Bunker-buster" type, they managed to press the coveted button, send a launch command and let the atomic genie out of the bottle. The Russian "response" has begun...
Two dozen ballistic monsters still took off. Almost a third of them were shot down by drones circling near the launch points, and the same number were shot down by anti-missiles over Eastern Europe and Alaska. Only two reached the Metropolis, causing terrible, but not critical damage in such a situation. In fact, the death of two megacities could only unite the people of the United States and justify the government's actions to introduce an open dictatorship, which was needed like air. And at the same time show the whole world the justification for the most drastic actions against “barbaric Russia.” But the draw of the war was not decided by these ICBMs. Its finale was determined under the thickness of the world's oceans. Of the three Russian missile submarines that were on combat duty, two were quickly sent to the bottom by the torpedoes of the underwater killers that followed on their heels. But with the third there was a mistake. No one will say what it was - a mistake by the captain of the US Navy Narwhal-class anti-submarine submarine, an equipment failure, or a fatal coincidence... fatal for hundreds of cities on the North American continent. "Alexander Suvorov", a huge submarine of the "Akula-3" class, launched five years earlier, managed to work on targets. The 48,000 ton, 172 meter long Leviathan emptied its launchers before one hundred and eighty nameless heroes found rest on the floor of the Atlantic. Multiple-warhead ballistic missiles carried two hundred warheads, and the notorious US missile defense system was in a mess. The NORAD system could not cope with the abundance of false targets, managing to shoot down barely a tenth. Largest cities the “bastion of democracy” that remained was more than enough...
Before the first Russian missiles had time to explode among the skyscrapers of the Metropolis, hundreds and hundreds of “Minutemen” were already flying towards them from the American shore. At the same time, the submarine fleet in the Arctic and Pacific Oceans struck with Tridents with nuclear warheads on an already bloodless Russia. The first of them reached the cities of Siberia less than half an hour after the Suvorov salvo. This was America's response - a response to a retaliatory strike. Its goal was no longer the defeat of military targets, but the total destruction of the economy and populated centers. When it became clear that the running conveyor of death could not be stopped, the fragments of both powers put everything they had into action. They used combat strains of bacteria and viruses, spores and toxins, everything that had been carefully stored, despite all the treaties and obligations for destruction. Stockpiles of chemical weapons that had been accumulating since the Second and even the First World War were also thrown at the enemy: phosgene and mustard gas, sarin and soman, lewisite and VX. A barrage of missiles hit both countries almost simultaneously, wiping out not only cities, but also the states themselves. Those hit by nuclear and conventional explosives are lucky. It was worse for victims of chemical and biological weapons. There were fewer of them, since there were difficulties in delivering these funds to their destination. But it was brought to the border cities of the European part of Russia by bombers and sabotage groups. Yes and East Europe got its due from the uncoordinated but decisive actions of what was left of the GRU special forces...
