4 ms·

>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.

by 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!

ivraatiems 4y ago
> 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! I mean, if you're NATO and you see that... hard to imagine you don't take the invitation and just crush the Russian military into so much melted shrapnel. Every analysis I've seen says that if NATO gets involved, and nukes are otherwise off the table (which in this case they would be, at least for long enough for it not to matter), the thing ends with total NATO victory in very little time. And the attempted use of tactical nukes is the one thing almost guaranteed to step up NATO involvement. But maybe that's wishful thinking on my part. In terms of geopolitical stability, it would make Russia difficult to take seriously as a nuclear power. I don't think it says much about other nuclear states, like the US or China, who are almost certainly not paper tigers like Russia would have proven to be.
- s1artibartfast 4y ago
  Why do you assume that nukes are off the table? If they are, sure, the US could bomb the shit outa Russia. Otherwise, it is MAD.
  - Doxin 4y ago
    The parent comment is replying to the hypothetical of a russian nuke being a dud.
    - s1artibartfast 4y ago
      I don't see how one dud means they all are duds
- HWR_14 4y ago
  Even if most Russian nukes are duds, 5% still working is enough to deter NATO from directly attacking Russian forces. Hell, 1% probably is. Right now NATO is just giving Ukraine weapons and beating Russia that way.
  - ivraatiems 4y ago
    I'll respond to this comment but there are a number in the same vein: "Russia would still have X% working nukes even if Y% don't work, and they have lots of nukes." That is true. However, what's missing from this assessment in my view is the difference between strategic nukes (the kind that level a city) and tactical nukes (the kind you use for specific tactical goals, and the only kind being discussed as likely to be used here). Russia has enough working strategic nukes that any kind of direct offense against the Russian homeland is always gonna be off the table. That is totally true. But nobody, including Russia, has suggested those are going to be used at all. Rather, what is contemplated is using a tactical nuclear weapon to make a statement or accomplish a specific wartime goal. With regards to tactical nukes specifically, I think this claim: > 5% still working is enough to deter NATO from directly attacking Russian forces. is possibly not true. I think NATO might be willing to engage Russia conventionally if it is clear their tactical nukes don't work - and maybe even if they do work, because that may be among what has been threatened as a response to the use of a tactical nuke. If Russia threatens to bomb Warsaw or DC, the situation changes again. But nobody has put that on the table... yet.
lm28469 4y ago
They supposedly have 5000+ warheads, even if 50% straight up don't exist and another 50% of the remaining are duds that's still enough to fuck us up 5 times over
theGnuMe 4y ago
I went to a Titan or Nike missile museum once and they had an exhibit on the probabilities for Russian nukes working and reaching their targets also including interception. They are way lower than USA. That means that Russia had to have considerably more nukes to achieve a high probability of success in hitting intended targets. I'm not sure how that plays now based on disarmament and technological updates.

by TMWNN 4y ago

ivraatiems 4y ago

> 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! I mean, if you're NATO and you see that... hard to imagine you don't take the invitation and just crush the Russian military into so much melted shrapnel. Every analysis I've seen says that if NATO gets involved, and nukes are otherwise off the table (which in this case they would be, at least for long enough for it not to matter), the thing ends with total NATO victory in very little time. And the attempted use of tactical nukes is the one thing almost guaranteed to step up NATO involvement. But maybe that's wishful thinking on my part. In terms of geopolitical stability, it would make Russia difficult to take seriously as a nuclear power. I don't think it says much about other nuclear states, like the US or China, who are almost certainly not paper tigers like Russia would have proven to be.

s1artibartfast 4y ago
Why do you assume that nukes are off the table? If they are, sure, the US could bomb the shit outa Russia. Otherwise, it is MAD.
- Doxin 4y ago
  The parent comment is replying to the hypothetical of a russian nuke being a dud.
  - s1artibartfast 4y ago
    I don't see how one dud means they all are duds
HWR_14 4y ago
Even if most Russian nukes are duds, 5% still working is enough to deter NATO from directly attacking Russian forces. Hell, 1% probably is. Right now NATO is just giving Ukraine weapons and beating Russia that way.
- ivraatiems 4y ago
  I'll respond to this comment but there are a number in the same vein: "Russia would still have X% working nukes even if Y% don't work, and they have lots of nukes." That is true. However, what's missing from this assessment in my view is the difference between strategic nukes (the kind that level a city) and tactical nukes (the kind you use for specific tactical goals, and the only kind being discussed as likely to be used here). Russia has enough working strategic nukes that any kind of direct offense against the Russian homeland is always gonna be off the table. That is totally true. But nobody, including Russia, has suggested those are going to be used at all. Rather, what is contemplated is using a tactical nuclear weapon to make a statement or accomplish a specific wartime goal. With regards to tactical nukes specifically, I think this claim: > 5% still working is enough to deter NATO from directly attacking Russian forces. is possibly not true. I think NATO might be willing to engage Russia conventionally if it is clear their tactical nukes don't work - and maybe even if they do work, because that may be among what has been threatened as a response to the use of a tactical nuke. If Russia threatens to bomb Warsaw or DC, the situation changes again. But nobody has put that on the table... yet.

lm28469 4y ago

They supposedly have 5000+ warheads, even if 50% straight up don't exist and another 50% of the remaining are duds that's still enough to fuck us up 5 times over

theGnuMe 4y ago

I went to a Titan or Nike missile museum once and they had an exhibit on the probabilities for Russian nukes working and reaching their targets also including interception. They are way lower than USA. That means that Russia had to have considerably more nukes to achieve a high probability of success in hitting intended targets. I'm not sure how that plays now based on disarmament and technological updates.