Informazione A.Informaz. Granditemi Dividendi Divid.2017 Divid.2018 Divid.2019 Divid.2020 Divid.2021 Divid.2022 Divid.2023 Divid.2024 T.Economia Tuttoborsa Tuttobanche Glossari T.Shopping Sicurezza Inf. Tuttoscuola Tuttoweb Tuttotrading


16/10/2006 Iran Experiments Atomic Bomb. Nuclear Strategy and Matter Iran (Giuseppe Brindisi, http://www.strategiaglobale.com)

  • Pagina Guerra
  • Tutti i Temi Archivio
  • Tutti i Temi
  • Pagina Iraq
  • Problemi del Mondo
  • TUTTOFRANCOBOLLI per iniziare o continuare una collezione a prezzo favorevole o per regalare una bella collezioncina ad un giovane

    Ricerca personalizzata
    TUTTOFRANCOBOLLI per iniziare o continuare una collezione a prezzo favorevole o per regalare una bella collezioncina ad un giovane

    If he intends for Strategy her “Science or the art to achieve, in situation of clash among contrasted wish, definitive general ends (for the note, strategic) developing the sketch of manoeuvre of the available immaterial and material resources”, the same Strategy, if it pursues the attainment of the goals through the employment of nuclear weapons, you can define him Nuclear Strategy, also for the decisive conditioning of the employment of an absolute weapon as that atomic.

    The possession of the nuclear weapon is necessary condition but not enough for the employment of the nuclear devices from the holder. It would be able, instead, to be enough to give the start to the strategic decisional trial of measures and preceding countermeasures to the attainment of a situation of stalemate of the terror as that of the Cold War, or to a point of no return, marked by the initial hit.

    The nuclear offensive-defensive system is constituted by subsystems of which some is conclusive what that of throwing or however, the structure that allows to make to come the nuclear weapon on the objective (from the ballistic missiles, to the airplanes, to the satellites, to the crafts of surface or submarine to other means of transport up to that of the man bomb).

    The limits of a subsystem are limits for the system (power, range or ray of the means of throwing or transport, number available devices, of aerial defense, antimissiles…, of passive defense-bunker, shelter,… -)

    In the Nuclear Strategy, the “first hit” it is very important. The adversary, if it has the ability to protect the hit, it will react or, adjusting to an employment “limited” and “selective” of the nuclear weapon or he/she will answer expressing the whole own nuclear power.

    To the actual state, the nuclear powers that don't have limits of planetary destructive ability, are USA and Russia (or better CSI Confederazione States Independent, heirs of the nuclear system of USSR). You difference between the American absolute Power and the CSI is in the fact that USA are fully operational on planetary staircase, while Russia has only in power the possibilities global but, it seems, that fully is not operational).

    China doesn't possess an intercontinental missile system and, above all it doesn't have the so-called ability of the, “according to hit” (it is the ability of strategic rispota of a nuclear system to attack of sorpesa (°) (hypothesis considered only to the goals of the study).

    It is to specify that, currently, any nuclear power has the ability of the second hit towards USA. It derives of it, that America, could nuclearly destroy theoretically the planet, and nobody could prevent him from it.

    The maximum possibilities of the smaller powers, can take on a shape in the potential ability d' to inflict a serious damage to the usa (of certain calculated by the Pentagon, for every possible hypothesis, independently from the planetary political-strategic actual situation).

    The run to the nuclear armament of the smaller powers, has had the justification to counterbalance the conventional inferiority in comparison to the possible enemy, to balance the nuclear threat of the adversary (case India-Pakistan), to escape to political conditionings towards the power nuclear guarantor of an atomic defensive umbrella (cases France-USA, UK-USA).

    The case of Israel is particular. The Jewish State is certain that the Arabs extremists would not think twice it to conventionally destroy or nuclearly, if they had the possibility of it. It is an evident case of legitimate defense.

    The smaller powers antiamericanes try-with the acquisition of it persuades nuclear - to make “not pagante” a conventional attack of USA extended to invade her.

    It is not reasonable to think that wants to nuclearly attach USA, because well aware of the danger to disappear or to return to the age of the stone.

    They risk, however, to suffer a preventive attack tendente to stop the nuclear development before reaches levels of watch held incompatible with the safety national USA.


    (°) Of here the run to the nuclear armaments among USA and USSR during the Cold War. The precision of the intercontinental missiles (CEP Cerchio probable Errors to 10.000 kms of range <10 meters, that it allows to strike the silos of a missile adversary). The equilibrium was insured with the possession and the line up of an equal number of missil, talchè if, one of the two superpowers, secretly overcame iil number of missiles of the Power avversaria, it acquired the ability of the second hit, instigating immediately runs after her/it some adversary... and so street. The two superpowers entered an infernal and absurd loop, reaching powers nuclear able to destroy more times the whole planet). races her it embittered him with the intercontinental operational immission of missiles to multiple heading.

  • Pagina Guerra
  • Tutti i Temi Archivio
  • Tutti i Temi
  • Pagina Iraq
  • Problemi del Mondo
  • Ricerca personalizzata