"Мы можем победить в ядерной войне, если потери населения уложатся в пару десятков лямов"
Вы смеялись над Джоном "Порвем Венесэлу как грелку" Болтоном - предыдущим советником по нацбезопасности США?
Вот вам новый. На линии Чарльз Купперман, новый советник Трампа по нацбезопасности.
Он был членом еще администрации Рейгана (исполнительным директором General Advisory Committee on Arms Control and Disarmament) и в тот период сделал следующие заявления - конечно, это было давно, но логику рассуждений раскрывает превосходно:
1. В ядерной войне вполне можно победить классическим способом, рассуждения о ней как о тотальном разрушении беспочвенны.2. Если, к примеру, потери США удастся ограничить 20 миллионами населения против 150 миллионов, США смогут восстановиться и стать сильнее противника
3. США требуется усилить планирование и гражданскую оборону, использовать усиленные материалы в строительстве - это позволит сократить разрушения от масштабного обмена ядерными ударами с Россией, и ускорить восстановление.
4. Пусть восстановление займет даже 15 лет. Ну и что? Посмотрите на скорость восстановления Европы после второй мировой. Или, к примеру, взгляните на Хиросиму - город вышел в операционный режим всего лишь через 3 дня после того, как мы его бомбанули.
Современники заявления сравнивали степень его безумия с известным персонажем Dr. Strangelove. Теперь он ближайшее окружение Трампа. Защитный щит России, конечно, прибавил ядерных иголок, а вот что насчет Китая, которые является основной экономической угрозой для гегемонии США?П.С.
Дословные цитаты Куппермана (на английском):
Here are excerpts of Kupperman’s comments from his interview with Scheer:
On what kind of life we could visualize after a nuclear attack:
It means that, you know, it would be tough. It would be a struggle to reconstitute the society that we have. It certainly wouldn’t be the same society [as] prior to an exchange, there is no question about that. But in terms of having an organized nation, and having enough means left after the war to reconstitute itself, I think that is entirely possible. It may take 15 years, but geez, look how long it took Europe to recover after the Second World War.
On disagreeing with the Physicians for Social Responsibility organization’s view of nuclear war:
Scheer: But in terms of nuclear war, do you factor in what those doctors were saying?
Kupperman: Yes, that is why I want to have a civil defense system, because it can be very effective in reducing casualties. That is my point. If doctors are so concerned about it, the answer isn’t necessarily disarming the United States or cutting our weapons programs. … it might be having a civil defense program. You can make a very good case that is exactly what those doctors ought to be shouting for.
Scheer: But they say that it is impossible to protect the population from nuclear attack.
Kupperman: Yes, but the thing is, nuclear weapons have certain effects and if you take steps to deny those effects, you save a lot of people. And unless you are right in the middle of ground zero, you are not going to have a lot of burn victims if you take those steps. And if you evacuate these people out of the targeted areas, or what you think are targeted areas, they are not going to get burned or destroyed.
On society surviving nuclear war:
Scheer: Is it possible to survive it with your civilization intact?
Kupperman: Well, it is possible to survive it with a certain amount of society intact, it depends on what steps we take to ensure that survivability. It certainly won’t be the same as before the war. But generally societies have been intact ― like Germany and Japan and Western Europe in the Second World War weren’t the same after the war as they were before. But generally societies have been intact. The question really gets down to political credibility in the conduct of your foriegn policy. If you look like you are serious about defending yourself and your allies with real civil defense programs and other measures, I think that has political credibility with the adversary. An adversary isn’t going to take somebody seriously if they don’t take steps to protect themselves. Nuclear war is a destructive thing, but it is still in large part a physics problem.
Scheer: What do you mean?
Kupperman: Well, sheltering yourself against nuclear effects can be done, it just depends on how much effort and money one wants to spend on it, but a certain layer of dirt and some reinforced construction materials can assure the survivability of somebody, assuming they aren’t at ground zero of a detonation. Hiroshima, after it was bombed, was back and operating three days later. So it is certainly a destructive weapon, and nobody wants a nuclear war, but I don’t think the United States in the past has been serious enough about planning for its survival in the event of a nuclear war...
On winning nuclear war “in a classical sense”:
Kupperman: It depends on what one considers all-out. If the objective in a war is to try to destroy as many Soviet civilians and as many American civilians as is feasible, and the casualty levels approached 150 million on each side, then it’s going to be tough to say you have a surviving nation after that. But depending on how the nuclear war is fought, it could mean the difference between 150 casualties and 20 million casualties. I think that is a significant difference, and if the country loses 20 million people, you may have a chance of surviving after that.
Scheer: Would that mean the other nation would survive as well? You’re not talking about winning a nuclear war, you’re talking about a stalemate of some kind.
Kupperman: It may or may not be a stalemate, depending on who had more surviving national power and military power.
Scheer: So you think it is possible to win?
Kupperman: I think it is possible to win, in the classical sense.
Scheer: What does that mean, “in the classical sense”?
Kupperman: It means that it is clear after the war that one side is stronger than the other side, the weaker side is going to accede to the demands of the stronger side.
Вот вам новый. На линии Чарльз Купперман, новый советник Трампа по нацбезопасности.
Он был членом еще администрации Рейгана (исполнительным директором General Advisory Committee on Arms Control and Disarmament) и в тот период сделал следующие заявления - конечно, это было давно, но логику рассуждений раскрывает превосходно:
1. В ядерной войне вполне можно победить классическим способом, рассуждения о ней как о тотальном разрушении беспочвенны.2. Если, к примеру, потери США удастся ограничить 20 миллионами населения против 150 миллионов, США смогут восстановиться и стать сильнее противника
3. США требуется усилить планирование и гражданскую оборону, использовать усиленные материалы в строительстве - это позволит сократить разрушения от масштабного обмена ядерными ударами с Россией, и ускорить восстановление.
4. Пусть восстановление займет даже 15 лет. Ну и что? Посмотрите на скорость восстановления Европы после второй мировой. Или, к примеру, взгляните на Хиросиму - город вышел в операционный режим всего лишь через 3 дня после того, как мы его бомбанули.
Современники заявления сравнивали степень его безумия с известным персонажем Dr. Strangelove. Теперь он ближайшее окружение Трампа. Защитный щит России, конечно, прибавил ядерных иголок, а вот что насчет Китая, которые является основной экономической угрозой для гегемонии США?П.С.
Дословные цитаты Куппермана (на английском):
Here are excerpts of Kupperman’s comments from his interview with Scheer:
On what kind of life we could visualize after a nuclear attack:
It means that, you know, it would be tough. It would be a struggle to reconstitute the society that we have. It certainly wouldn’t be the same society [as] prior to an exchange, there is no question about that. But in terms of having an organized nation, and having enough means left after the war to reconstitute itself, I think that is entirely possible. It may take 15 years, but geez, look how long it took Europe to recover after the Second World War.
On disagreeing with the Physicians for Social Responsibility organization’s view of nuclear war:
Scheer: But in terms of nuclear war, do you factor in what those doctors were saying?
Kupperman: Yes, that is why I want to have a civil defense system, because it can be very effective in reducing casualties. That is my point. If doctors are so concerned about it, the answer isn’t necessarily disarming the United States or cutting our weapons programs. … it might be having a civil defense program. You can make a very good case that is exactly what those doctors ought to be shouting for.
Scheer: But they say that it is impossible to protect the population from nuclear attack.
Kupperman: Yes, but the thing is, nuclear weapons have certain effects and if you take steps to deny those effects, you save a lot of people. And unless you are right in the middle of ground zero, you are not going to have a lot of burn victims if you take those steps. And if you evacuate these people out of the targeted areas, or what you think are targeted areas, they are not going to get burned or destroyed.
On society surviving nuclear war:
Scheer: Is it possible to survive it with your civilization intact?
Kupperman: Well, it is possible to survive it with a certain amount of society intact, it depends on what steps we take to ensure that survivability. It certainly won’t be the same as before the war. But generally societies have been intact ― like Germany and Japan and Western Europe in the Second World War weren’t the same after the war as they were before. But generally societies have been intact. The question really gets down to political credibility in the conduct of your foriegn policy. If you look like you are serious about defending yourself and your allies with real civil defense programs and other measures, I think that has political credibility with the adversary. An adversary isn’t going to take somebody seriously if they don’t take steps to protect themselves. Nuclear war is a destructive thing, but it is still in large part a physics problem.
Scheer: What do you mean?
Kupperman: Well, sheltering yourself against nuclear effects can be done, it just depends on how much effort and money one wants to spend on it, but a certain layer of dirt and some reinforced construction materials can assure the survivability of somebody, assuming they aren’t at ground zero of a detonation. Hiroshima, after it was bombed, was back and operating three days later. So it is certainly a destructive weapon, and nobody wants a nuclear war, but I don’t think the United States in the past has been serious enough about planning for its survival in the event of a nuclear war...
On winning nuclear war “in a classical sense”:
Kupperman: It depends on what one considers all-out. If the objective in a war is to try to destroy as many Soviet civilians and as many American civilians as is feasible, and the casualty levels approached 150 million on each side, then it’s going to be tough to say you have a surviving nation after that. But depending on how the nuclear war is fought, it could mean the difference between 150 casualties and 20 million casualties. I think that is a significant difference, and if the country loses 20 million people, you may have a chance of surviving after that.
Scheer: Would that mean the other nation would survive as well? You’re not talking about winning a nuclear war, you’re talking about a stalemate of some kind.
Kupperman: It may or may not be a stalemate, depending on who had more surviving national power and military power.
Scheer: So you think it is possible to win?
Kupperman: I think it is possible to win, in the classical sense.
Scheer: What does that mean, “in the classical sense”?
Kupperman: It means that it is clear after the war that one side is stronger than the other side, the weaker side is going to accede to the demands of the stronger side.