8 ms·

Is there any information out there, how the use of tactical nuclear weapons by Russia against Ukraine would change the war? Every news station is talking about

by TekMol 4y ago

Is there any information out there, how the use of tactical nuclear weapons by Russia against Ukraine would change the war? Every news station is talking about this possibility now. But I cannot find a single analysis of how likely it is. And how likely it is seems to depend on the effect these weapons would have on the situation on the battlefield. But I cannot find any info on this.

_kbh_ 4y ago
> Is there any information out there, how the use of tactical nuclear weapons by Russia against Ukraine would change the war? There’s only vague assertions by the west about what will happen and that is intentional. It’s likely to lead to a heavy retaliatory strike against Russia, I believe one of the options floated was effectively sinking the entire Black Sea fleet if Russia uses a nuke. Keep in mind that any use of a nuke effectively necessitates a large reaction physically to try and avoid nuclear proliferation and use going wild.
- epicureanideal 4y ago
  > Keep in mind that any use of a nuke effectively necessitates a large reaction physically to try and avoid nuclear proliferation and use going wild. Seems more likely that sinking their fleet would cause them to use more and bigger nukes, and/or to sink every fleet of ours within missile range.
  - _kbh_ 4y ago
    > Seems more likely that sinking their fleet would cause them to use more and bigger nukes, and/or to sink every fleet of ours within missile range. There’s no other choice, doing nothing signals to Russia that they can use nukes without repercussions and signals to the rest of the nuclear armed countries they can do the same. You also assume Russia is capable of a strike against US fleets in any decent capacity when they cannot even capture a city less then 300km from there border and lost there Black Sea flag ship to a country with no functional navy.
mongol 4y ago
I don't think we can know. Either it leads to nuclear response, or it does not. If it does not, I think it will embolden Putin, which would not be good news. So I actually think a limited nuclear exchange would be better if that happens Risk is though that it escalates further and then all bets are off.
- epicureanideal 4y ago
  Or we could de-escalate?
  - Teknoman117 4y ago
    You really can't at that point. You'd just be showing them that if they bring out the nuclear weapons, everyone else will just fold. Say Putin nukes Ukraine (or fires a "demonstration" shot). If NATO stood down and just abandoned Ukraine as a response, or had them do appeasement style relinquishment of territory, or lifted sanctions, what stops Putin from pulling the nukes out the next time he wants something?
    - sio8ohPi 4y ago
      The relevant Yes Minister: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o861Ka9TtT4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o861Ka9TtT4 "Will you press the button if they invade West Berlin?"
    - anticodon 4y ago
      [flagged]
      - axiolite 4y ago
        > This is why we don't bomb Ukranian cities Ukranian cities are absolutely being leveled by Russian munitions. > or cut the Ukranian gas pipeline (which is the only source of reliable income for Ukraine for all 30 years of its existence). The pipelines are the biggest source of money into Russia as well. Russia has tried to go around Ukraine with the NordStream2 pipeline, but NATO countries stalled that for years precisely because they didn't want to let Russia cut Ukraine out.
ivraatiems 4y ago
I was worried about this earlier, so I spent some time searching this out. Here are some good analyses: https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2022/9/23/little-military-sense-for-nuclear-weapons-ex-russian-general https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2022/9/23/little-military-sen... https://thezvi.substack.com/p/ukraine-post-12 https://thezvi.substack.com/p/ukraine-post-12 https://www.iswresearch.org/2022/09/russian-offensive-campaign-assessment_21.html https://www.iswresearch.org/2022/09/russian-offensive-campai... The TL;DR is that most experts don't think Russia will use tactical nuclear weapons, but there's still a substantial non-zero chance. 10%? 25%? Much higher than anyone would like, that's for sure, and dependent on factors that are out of control of anybody but the Russian government and military. I have not found any sources saying the opposite, though some have higher degrees of confidence than others. The consensus appears to be that this sense of uncertainty is being created by Russia on purpose, and therefore, that it's probably (but not guaranteed to be) a bluff. I have also seen very mixed opinions on whether Russia's tactical nuclear weapons are in suitable condition for use. But I think it is best to assume they are. The odds of Russia intentionally using strategic nuclear weapons, the kind you would target at foreign cities across continents or oceans from you, remain nearly zero. Unlike tactical nuclear weapons, which have theoretical uses in ensuring one wins a conflict, strategic nuclear weapons remain a guarantee of mutual and probably worldwide destruction with no purpose except to deter would-be attackers. The only time I can see even the Putin regime considering the use of such a weapon would be a full-scale, boots on the ground invasion of the Russian homeland (not Crimea or Donbas or other annexed territories). Edit: Another source pointed out elsewhere - https://warontherocks.com/2022/09/russias-plan-to-stay-in-the-war/ https://warontherocks.com/2022/09/russias-plan-to-stay-in-th... - seems reasonable. I am not 100% sure on its credibility but it aligns broadly. (Listen from about 5 minutes to about 14 minutes in.)
- TMWNN 4y ago
  >I have also seen very mixed opinions on whether Russia's tactical nuclear weapons are in suitable condition for use. But I think it is best to assume they are. I've been thinking about this possibility since the start of the Ukraine War: * Putin fires tactical atomic weapon at some empty plot of Ukrainian land, and announces it as a "demonstration" of Russian might. * The weapon is a dud. I'm not sure whether this outcome might not be worse in the long run, in terms of geopolitical stability, than if the weapon performs as expected!
darkteflon 4y ago
Apparently, nobody knows - not even analysts with lifetimes of Russia expertise. We’re in uncharted territory. War on the Rocks[1] generally, and any content featuring Michael Kofman[2] specifically, are great sources on the conflict generally. The ~weekly podcast is great. [1] https://warontherocks.com/ https://warontherocks.com/ [2] https://mobile.twitter.com/KofmanMichael https://mobile.twitter.com/KofmanMichael
- anticodon 4y ago
  LOL, as a Russian I sometimes read US "experts on Russia" for lulz. They either live in a dream world where brown bears walk on streets of Moscow drinking vodka and playing balalaikas, or they just translate this nonsense to the public. Their ignorance is outstanding. Like "Russians will start a revolution because McDonalds and Coca-Cola left Russia market". Actually almost nobody regrets it, and most people are happy that it happened. And so on. Just about every twit from McFaul about Russia is so deranged, that I'm not even surprised anymore, I read him as a good comedy.
  - darkteflon 4y ago
    Mate, if you want to read stupid shit, no one can stop you. Doesn’t mean the rest of us are reading stupid shit too, though.
    - tempestn 4y ago
      Well, I guess we did read his comment.
    - anticodon 4y ago
      Ok, so you have an access to some "real" information about Russia? I guess it must be classified, because when I read something that is openly published on the West about Russia, it's usually very weird and untrue information at best. McFaul is considered an expert on Russia, he even lived here for some time. Still, when he says something about the way we live or the way we think, or anything like that, it's usually so delusional, that I can't understand what was he doing here for two years. Has he even stepped outside of US embassy a single time?.. But on the other hand, I think it's beneficial for us, that all the West lives in a dream that they know everything about Russia.
zeroth32 4y ago
Zero. Russia has plenty of regular weapons to level Ukraine and big part of Europe (look at thermobaric bombs). It also has industry and resources to produce such weapons for long period of time. And it considers Ukraine ethnically related. Many Russians have relatives in Kiev etc.. Using nukes on Ukraine would be huge political problem. It is FUD spread by trigger happy westerners, who want to normalize nuclear war!
- tempestn 4y ago
  You'd think that invading Ukraine would also be looked upon negatively then, no? You also say that like it isn't Putin who has been repeatedly threatening nuclear escalation.

by TekMol 4y ago

_kbh_ 4y ago

> Is there any information out there, how the use of tactical nuclear weapons by Russia against Ukraine would change the war? There’s only vague assertions by the west about what will happen and that is intentional. It’s likely to lead to a heavy retaliatory strike against Russia, I believe one of the options floated was effectively sinking the entire Black Sea fleet if Russia uses a nuke. Keep in mind that any use of a nuke effectively necessitates a large reaction physically to try and avoid nuclear proliferation and use going wild.

epicureanideal 4y ago
> Keep in mind that any use of a nuke effectively necessitates a large reaction physically to try and avoid nuclear proliferation and use going wild. Seems more likely that sinking their fleet would cause them to use more and bigger nukes, and/or to sink every fleet of ours within missile range.
- _kbh_ 4y ago
  > Seems more likely that sinking their fleet would cause them to use more and bigger nukes, and/or to sink every fleet of ours within missile range. There’s no other choice, doing nothing signals to Russia that they can use nukes without repercussions and signals to the rest of the nuclear armed countries they can do the same. You also assume Russia is capable of a strike against US fleets in any decent capacity when they cannot even capture a city less then 300km from there border and lost there Black Sea flag ship to a country with no functional navy.

mongol 4y ago

I don't think we can know. Either it leads to nuclear response, or it does not. If it does not, I think it will embolden Putin, which would not be good news. So I actually think a limited nuclear exchange would be better if that happens Risk is though that it escalates further and then all bets are off.

epicureanideal 4y ago
Or we could de-escalate?
- Teknoman117 4y ago
  You really can't at that point. You'd just be showing them that if they bring out the nuclear weapons, everyone else will just fold. Say Putin nukes Ukraine (or fires a "demonstration" shot). If NATO stood down and just abandoned Ukraine as a response, or had them do appeasement style relinquishment of territory, or lifted sanctions, what stops Putin from pulling the nukes out the next time he wants something?
  - sio8ohPi 4y ago
    The relevant Yes Minister: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o861Ka9TtT4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o861Ka9TtT4 "Will you press the button if they invade West Berlin?"
  - anticodon 4y ago
    [flagged]
    - axiolite 4y ago
      > This is why we don't bomb Ukranian cities Ukranian cities are absolutely being leveled by Russian munitions. > or cut the Ukranian gas pipeline (which is the only source of reliable income for Ukraine for all 30 years of its existence). The pipelines are the biggest source of money into Russia as well. Russia has tried to go around Ukraine with the NordStream2 pipeline, but NATO countries stalled that for years precisely because they didn't want to let Russia cut Ukraine out.

ivraatiems 4y ago

I was worried about this earlier, so I spent some time searching this out. Here are some good analyses: https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2022/9/23/little-military-sense-for-nuclear-weapons-ex-russian-general https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2022/9/23/little-military-sen... https://thezvi.substack.com/p/ukraine-post-12 https://thezvi.substack.com/p/ukraine-post-12 https://www.iswresearch.org/2022/09/russian-offensive-campaign-assessment_21.html https://www.iswresearch.org/2022/09/russian-offensive-campai... The TL;DR is that most experts don't think Russia will use tactical nuclear weapons, but there's still a substantial non-zero chance. 10%? 25%? Much higher than anyone would like, that's for sure, and dependent on factors that are out of control of anybody but the Russian government and military. I have not found any sources saying the opposite, though some have higher degrees of confidence than others. The consensus appears to be that this sense of uncertainty is being created by Russia on purpose, and therefore, that it's probably (but not guaranteed to be) a bluff. I have also seen very mixed opinions on whether Russia's tactical nuclear weapons are in suitable condition for use. But I think it is best to assume they are. The odds of Russia intentionally using strategic nuclear weapons, the kind you would target at foreign cities across continents or oceans from you, remain nearly zero. Unlike tactical nuclear weapons, which have theoretical uses in ensuring one wins a conflict, strategic nuclear weapons remain a guarantee of mutual and probably worldwide destruction with no purpose except to deter would-be attackers. The only time I can see even the Putin regime considering the use of such a weapon would be a full-scale, boots on the ground invasion of the Russian homeland (not Crimea or Donbas or other annexed territories). Edit: Another source pointed out elsewhere - https://warontherocks.com/2022/09/russias-plan-to-stay-in-the-war/ https://warontherocks.com/2022/09/russias-plan-to-stay-in-th... - seems reasonable. I am not 100% sure on its credibility but it aligns broadly. (Listen from about 5 minutes to about 14 minutes in.)

TMWNN 4y ago
>I have also seen very mixed opinions on whether Russia's tactical nuclear weapons are in suitable condition for use. But I think it is best to assume they are. I've been thinking about this possibility since the start of the Ukraine War: * Putin fires tactical atomic weapon at some empty plot of Ukrainian land, and announces it as a "demonstration" of Russian might. * The weapon is a dud. I'm not sure whether this outcome might not be worse in the long run, in terms of geopolitical stability, than if the weapon performs as expected!

darkteflon 4y ago

Apparently, nobody knows - not even analysts with lifetimes of Russia expertise. We’re in uncharted territory. War on the Rocks[1] generally, and any content featuring Michael Kofman[2] specifically, are great sources on the conflict generally. The ~weekly podcast is great. [1] https://warontherocks.com/ https://warontherocks.com/ [2] https://mobile.twitter.com/KofmanMichael https://mobile.twitter.com/KofmanMichael

anticodon 4y ago
LOL, as a Russian I sometimes read US "experts on Russia" for lulz. They either live in a dream world where brown bears walk on streets of Moscow drinking vodka and playing balalaikas, or they just translate this nonsense to the public. Their ignorance is outstanding. Like "Russians will start a revolution because McDonalds and Coca-Cola left Russia market". Actually almost nobody regrets it, and most people are happy that it happened. And so on. Just about every twit from McFaul about Russia is so deranged, that I'm not even surprised anymore, I read him as a good comedy.
- darkteflon 4y ago
  Mate, if you want to read stupid shit, no one can stop you. Doesn’t mean the rest of us are reading stupid shit too, though.
  - tempestn 4y ago
    Well, I guess we did read his comment.
  - anticodon 4y ago
    Ok, so you have an access to some "real" information about Russia? I guess it must be classified, because when I read something that is openly published on the West about Russia, it's usually very weird and untrue information at best. McFaul is considered an expert on Russia, he even lived here for some time. Still, when he says something about the way we live or the way we think, or anything like that, it's usually so delusional, that I can't understand what was he doing here for two years. Has he even stepped outside of US embassy a single time?.. But on the other hand, I think it's beneficial for us, that all the West lives in a dream that they know everything about Russia.

zeroth32 4y ago

Zero. Russia has plenty of regular weapons to level Ukraine and big part of Europe (look at thermobaric bombs). It also has industry and resources to produce such weapons for long period of time. And it considers Ukraine ethnically related. Many Russians have relatives in Kiev etc.. Using nukes on Ukraine would be huge political problem. It is FUD spread by trigger happy westerners, who want to normalize nuclear war!

tempestn 4y ago
You'd think that invading Ukraine would also be looked upon negatively then, no? You also say that like it isn't Putin who has been repeatedly threatening nuclear escalation.