These can be addressed at all!

Having a potential enemy of the Western world, Russia should not entertain illusions that they have an aversion to mass murder on any scale. From the media: the use of modern weapons, primarily high-precision weapons, and actions of subversive groups may be the most likely scenario of possible military conflict with russia, according to a published scientific-methodical work of emercom of russia, reports RIA-novosti. The authors of the study believe that the use of weapons of mass destruction, including nuclear, in the conflict with Russia unlikely. "In forecasting environment as the original position was adopted that targeted strikes to destroy the civilian population of the Russian Federation as a potential enemy is not applied", — the document says. Earlier it was reported that the agency is taking into account modern views on the conduct of war proposes to abandon the practice of mass evacuation in time of war emergency services called the most likely scenarios for war with Russia if this is not another stuffing by the competent authorities, designed to completely confuse a potential enemy on the subject of the Russian understanding of the nature of a future war, it makes sense to look at the theoretical work of the ministry of emergency situations more closely. And, above all, to celebrate as the indisputable fact that the agency in charge of civil defense, never in our history has engaged in research in matters of military strategy and nature of future wars. Such matter has always been the prerogative of the relevant departments of the general staff, who brought their vision of this global perspective to the individual structures, in part related to their contribution to the defense of the country. thus, it is possible to assume that in this case, using "Scientific work" of the moe, the will leaked some conceptual information from the bowels of the general staff of the armed forces, which is good, would not have become the subject of public exposure. The in any case, it is clear that its source is not the emergency workers, who have other things to do besides military strategy.

Anyway, their initiative in this matter is completely excluded. And as soon as this vision is, at least, agreed with the superior in the military hierarchy point of view, then the question inevitably arises about the degree of adequacy of such. So, judging by the "Leakage" of moe and take for granted that it is not misleading the enemy stuffing, then it turns out that the Russian military planning in principle excludes such a form of war against Russia as "Targeted strikes to destroy the civilian population of the Russian Federation". how solid is this conclusion? especially considering the fact that potential enemy of Russia is NATO headed by the usa. If you approach the subject in its historical retrospect, the optimism of the authors of the work of the moe looks, to put it mildly, not entirely justified. Because no one other than the United States of america, together with its ally Britain, are historically the pioneers and the only in world history, the practical implementers of the strategy of total air war, whose main goal is the complete destruction of enemy cities with all their population. The strategy on a large scale was used against the civilian population of Germany and Japan during the second world war.

At the same time, the number of victims of the massive bombing only in Germany and only official probably low, us data has reached one million people. In fact, because of the enormous variation in estimates of the effects of air raids (e. G. Dresden – from 35 thousand to 250 thousand people), there is reason to believe that the number of victims was multiples higher. What city will burn tonight? the commander of the raf sir charles portal, is planning another massive raid. 1943. as for Japan, here for the mass extermination of the civilian population of the United States air force first use of nuclear weapons.

Thus, no lack of historical precedent for the military strategy in the case of the current potential enemy of the Russian Federation can not be even speech. As well as the existence in the West of any moral and ethical taboos, eliminating entirely this method of warfare. it turns out that in the historical and value perspective, voiced by moe the conclusion about the unreality of "Targeted strikes to destroy the civilian population of the Russian Federation" clearly hangs in the air. The argument of another kind in favor of such approval – military-strategic, also raises questions. It is clear that the authors of these conceptual calculations proceed from the situation of nuclear-missile parity between Russia and the West, which supposedly eliminates this kind of action because of russia's potential retaliatory strike. At first glance, the way it is. But do not forget that the West and primarily the us most actively developing its system of global missile defense, the main purpose of which is to neutralize retaliatory nuclear missile attack of the Russian Federation and on the basis of receiving one-sided, with decisive military advantages.

Which would enable him with impunity to inflict on Russia the impact of any capacity and of any scale. Thus, under certain circumstances, which could not necessarily be completely excluded, especially from military planning, devastating attacks on the cities of Russia may become acceptable in the military-strategic purpose for the West. It is on the basis of this assumption, in russia, incidentally, is actively working to improve missile defense the Moscow region, which hardly should be carried out, based on the fundamental unreality of the enemy attack against cities. Just this week, on the ground sary-shagan in Kazakhstan was conducted a successful test of a new missile prs-1m. Meanwhile, it is reported that the ministry of civil defence has already made a practical conclusion about inexpediency of carrying out of actions for preparation of mass evacuation of population (cities) in time of war. It is obvious that the refusal of such preparatory work, it is possible to achieve very substantial savings of public funds. But at the same time this means that in case of reaching the Western frontier of psychological readiness to attack against Russian cities, which may be, for example, the result of his confidence in the reliability of its missile defence system, the civilian population is a major administrative and industrial centers of Russia will not have even a theoretical chance for survival, due to the complete lack of early organizational activities of public authorities in such a case. This is all the more regrettable that even a nuclear attack, as historical experience shows, does not lead to a complete destruction of the population, but requires very large-scale efforts to overcome its consequences, the evacuation of survivors and providing them with comprehensive support.

This is not to mention that the system is a full evacuation of a major settlement must exist and must be practically worked out even regardless of the presence or absence of a threat of a nuclear attack. Especially in this age of major technological accidents and the threat of recurrence of disasters, like chernobyl or fukushima. That is why the withdrawal of the agency directly responsible for the salvation of the population in emergency situations and at the same time excluding from the list such situations the possibility of a massive attack of the enemy, seems to me a little strange and not quite logical.