Will Putin get desperate for a victory and use a Tactical Nuke??

[Gary R Lukas]

I'm just taking a consensus from the community and wondering how many people think that Putin may use a Tactical Nuke in Ukraine?? I personally think that if he gets desperate for a victory, any kind of victory, that he will use a small Tac Nuke somewhere in the Ukraine, especially when his southern offence commences in the south within the next few days. I believe that the Ukrainian Army will hold up his offence in the south and that the Ukrainian Army will severely disrupt his plans, and if so, this would really look bad for the Russian Victory celebration on May 9th, 2022. I also believe that he is going to try to send a message to the west, that he's not playing when it comes to them sending all of these weapon systems to Ukraine that are literally destroying this units deployed to Ukraine. May 9th is a Russian celebration to mark its defeat of Hitlers Nazi regime in 1945. Now Putin is trying to obliterate the so-called Ukrainian Nazi's, and it's NOT WORKING, so he needs to save face to the Russian people. I pray that I'm wrong about this, but if Putin does use a Tac Nuke against Ukraine, then maybe NATO will get off their hind ends and really step up as far as sending equipment to the Ukrainians that President Zelenskyy has been asking for since day one of this Russian Invasion.

[womble]

It's certainly something I think's a possibility. Though it's looking less likely that it'll be used to galvanise a stalling attack as the RA's options to attack grow more limited in scope. I think there's maybe also a question mark over whether the authorisation to use could reach a faltering, critical point in time to make any difference. I think I worry more that tac-nukes will get used to attempt reduce a bastion city, either Mariupol's indomitable defenders, or maybe Kharkiv, in the north.

If Russia don't actually manage to activate their "big attack", I get the feeling that there will be no "one thing" that could cause the theatre commander to feel he has to drop the nuclear hammer. That would be good.

[Vergeltungswaffe]

I'm hopeful that one of the general staff will vote for option 9, 7.62, or 5.45 if Vlad even thinks about doing something the world would regret.

[Erwin]

Since the largest Thermobaric charges are larger than a small nuke, our dilemma is what to do if Thermo's are used, or BioChem...  In fact, I thought Chem has already been used(?)

[womble]

3 hours ago, Erwin said:

Since the largest Thermobaric charges are larger than a small nuke, our dilemma is what to do if Thermo's are used, or BioChem...  In fact, I thought Chem has already been used(?)

I don't think the size of the immediate destruction is the big question. It's the long-lived consequences that make nukes more of a game changer than plain old chemical explosives. Also, the escalation from "tactical nuke" is "strategic nuke", rather than "That really big FAB"... and that's another consideration, I'm sure you'd agree.

There was a claim that chemical weapons had been used, but last I saw, it could have been a phosphorus weapon, or just a consequence of fighting in an industrial area where nobody's handing out the COSSH sheets any more; chemical weapon use hadn't been confirmed. I freely admit I may've missed something there, but I think there might've been headlines if it had actually been confirmed.

[Ultradave]

2 hours ago, womble said:

Also, the escalation from "tactical nuke" is "strategic nuke"

Which is the entire reason that there has been a concerted effort over the years to drastically reduce/eliminate IRBMs and tactical/battlefield weapons. The consensus has been that once any kind of nuclear weapon is used, whether it be a "tactical" weapon or limited use (like one or two) strategic weapons, that things would immediately escalate out of control.

Keep in mind that many (not all) tactical nuclear weapons are in the multiple KT range. Hiroshima and Nagasaki were 10-20KT weapons. So consider the devastation they left and even divided by 3, 5, or even 10, and you are STILL in the "lay waste to an entire city" area. 

I HOPE that even Putin in his current state would pause and reconsider such a path.  Also, I believe the prevailing weather blows towards Russia, but on the other hand, he/they may just not care about such consequences.

Dave

[womble]

1 hour ago, Ultradave said:

Also, I believe the prevailing weather blows towards Russia, but on the other hand, he/they may just not care about such consequences.

I would imagine that if he starts on the nuclear escalator, he's fully aware that he's probably ending the human race, out of spite. Cos he won't be able to stop using Tac Nukes once he starts, and someone will have to find a way to stop him...

[db_zero]

Unfortunately it appears to be a very real possibility. Putin knows he's a dead man if the Ukraine venture fails. He has nothing to lose. I would hope the military doesn't comply, but the purges Putin has executed may be so he can put people in place who will carry out his orders no matter what.

[MikeyD]

If one gets used will Ukrainians then simply lay down their arms and accept slavery? Or will they spend the next 20 years mercilessly butchering every Russian occupier who dares leave his barracks in revenge?

[Aragorn2002]

On 4/18/2022 at 6:59 PM, db_zero said:

Unfortunately it appears to be a very real possibility. Putin knows he's a dead man if the Ukraine venture fails. He has nothing to lose. I would hope the military doesn't comply, but the purges Putin has executed may be so he can put people in place who will carry out his orders no matter what.

Apart from forcing a decision in Ukraine Putin may also use it as a warning to the West. Showing how far he prepared is to go to save his own miserable neck.

Edited May 8, 2022 by Aragorn2002

[db_zero]

Deleted 

Edited May 8, 2022 by db_zero

[TheVulture]

The question is, how exactly is using nukes going to give Putin a win though? It's not like there are massed formations where a well placed tactical nuke or two could take out a large chunk of the Ukrainian military. Its hard to see how battlefield nukes could have a big military effect, unless used on such a scale that reprisals would be forthcoming.

And don't forget that this war isn't a game fought in isolation. The aim isn't to 'win' be beating the enemy, getting the game over screen, and going to get some lunch. The war was started by Russia in an attempt to achieve certain political aims. That's probably shifted somewhat since plan A (Ukraine turned into another Belarus) failed spectacularly. The there are still real-world aims that Russia is intending to achieve through the use of force, and the question is whether using nuclear weapons (along with all the chain of consequent side effects and reactions) enable Russia to achieve those aims, or at least get closer to them.

And again, its hard to see a scenario where Russia's aims are advanced by the use of nuclear weapons.

That's leaving aside the issue of stated Russian doctrine on the use of nuclear weapons, which also rules out there use in Ukraine, barring the long off and extremely unlikely event of Ukraine posing a threat to the existence of the Russian state.

[Gary R Lukas]

On 4/17/2022 at 5:07 PM, Ultradave said:

Which is the entire reason that there has been a concerted effort over the years to drastically reduce/eliminate IRBMs and tactical/battlefield weapons. The consensus has been that once any kind of nuclear weapon is used, whether it be a "tactical" weapon or limited use (like one or two) strategic weapons, that things would immediately escalate out of control.

Keep in mind that many (not all) tactical nuclear weapons are in the multiple KT range. Hiroshima and Nagasaki were 10-20KT weapons. So consider the devastation they left and even divided by 3, 5, or even 10, and you are STILL in the "lay waste to an entire city" area. 

I HOPE that even Putin in his current state would pause and reconsider such a path.  Also, I believe the prevailing weather blows towards Russia, but on the other hand, he/they may just not care about such consequences.

Dave

When Chernobyl exploded, besides Ukraine, Belarus, Poland, East and West Germany received a large dose of radiation. The first country to report high levels was Sweeden and look how far away they are. I agree that the wind blows over Russia but remember the rotation of the planet earth, it revolves from west to east so Western Europe got Huge Doses of radiation. I do have to say that the only reason that I know this is that I had read a few books on it, plus I have watched the HBO Mini Series Chernobyl around 10 or so times LMAO

[Ultradave]

53 minutes ago, Gary R Lukas said:

When Chernobyl exploded, besides Ukraine, Belarus, Poland, East and West Germany received a large dose of radiation. The first country to report high levels was Sweeden and look how far away they are. I agree that the wind blows over Russia but remember the rotation of the planet earth, it revolves from west to east so Western Europe got Huge Doses of radiation. I do have to say that the only reason that I know this is that I had read a few books on it, plus I have watched the HBO Mini Series Chernobyl around 10 or so times LMAO

Yes, and I do know this because it's been my job        (I'm not trying to be snarky with that so I hope it doesn't come across that way).

However, I'd counter that with the fact that Chernobyl released an absolutely massive number of Curies of radioactive material, more than would be released by a tactical nuclear weapon. Remember that nuclear weapon explosions are air bursts which maximize the blast and immediate direct radiation radius, while minimizing fallout (minimizing being a relative term, of course). So the immediate downwind area is the most prone to significant fallout. Doesn't mean it won't be detected elsewhere, but it would be more localized than Chernobyl, and detectably elsewhere, unlikely to be in the range of any health worry.

Also, I'd point out that Western Europe did NOT get "Huge Doses of radiation"  The typical dose in Westerly European countries was about 1/3 of the average yearly background dose for individuals. In comparison that total is still half what someone living in Denver, CO receives for yearly background (the difference being entirely altitude). Even Chernobyl, while measurable all over Europe, was of great effect more in the immediate area. There, the dose rates and contamination were severe. Apart from the 28 first responders who needlessly died from acute radiation exposure (there was nothing they could do, so their deaths were pointless), and a couple hundred who recovered, by far the major issue has been a large increase in thyroid cancers in the immediate area. This is entirely due to uptake of I-131, a short lived fission product. This is the reason that KI tablets are issued in areas near nuclear reactors. Floods the thyroid with good iodine so the I-131 is biologically eliminated since it has no place to "dock". Fortunately, thyroid cancer is among the most treatable and survivable cancers. There are other issues but on a much smaller scale.

I haven't seen the HBO Chernobyl movie (don't have HBO), so I can't comment on its accuracy but I do know quite a bit about what happened and why it happened due to my work, and the continuing monitoring, cleanup and sarcophagus replacement.

Dave

[The_MonkeyKing]

 

 

[billbindc]

China and India are the two largest countries and economies that are semi-friendly to Russia...and they are both strong no-first-use states. He loses them immediately if he drops a nuke. Ukraine is a huge country with an in depth defense. A tactical nuke somewhere doesn't win the war. Indiscriminate use destroys the aim of the war. Any use at all brings in NATO in a variety of ways that Russia cannot handle. Nuclear Armageddon is clearly not very useful to anyone. None of he cases above change the calculus in a way that overall benefits Putin.

Until someone can map out a solid path for using nukes that redounds in any significant way to Putin/Russia's benefit I think it highly unlikely and if then an accident rather than a planned escalation.

 

 

Edited May 18, 2022 by billbindc

[chuckdyke]

6 minutes ago, billbindc said:

Until someone can map out a solid path for using nukes that redounds in any significant way to Putin/Russia's benefit I think it highly unlikely and if then an accident rather than a planned escalation.

 

It will ruin the world economy for a very long time and there won't be an economic miracle like we had in the fifties of the last century. I won't quote human suffering because the powers to be I am afraid won't give the foggiest. 

[Gary R Lukas]

On 5/14/2022 at 7:46 PM, Ultradave said:

Yes, and I do know this because it's been my job        (I'm not trying to be snarky with that so I hope it doesn't come across that way).

However, I'd counter that with the fact that Chernobyl released an absolutely massive number of Curies of radioactive material, more than would be released by a tactical nuclear weapon. Remember that nuclear weapon explosions are air bursts which maximize the blast and immediate direct radiation radius, while minimizing fallout (minimizing being a relative term, of course). So the immediate downwind area is the most prone to significant fallout. Doesn't mean it won't be detected elsewhere, but it would be more localized than Chernobyl, and detectably elsewhere, unlikely to be in the range of any health worry.

Also, I'd point out that Western Europe did NOT get "Huge Doses of radiation"  The typical dose in Westerly European countries was about 1/3 of the average yearly background dose for individuals. In comparison that total is still half what someone living in Denver, CO receives for yearly background (the difference being entirely altitude). Even Chernobyl, while measurable all over Europe, was of great effect more in the immediate area. There, the dose rates and contamination were severe. Apart from the 28 first responders who needlessly died from acute radiation exposure (there was nothing they could do, so their deaths were pointless), and a couple hundred who recovered, by far the major issue has been a large increase in thyroid cancers in the immediate area. This is entirely due to uptake of I-131, a short lived fission product. This is the reason that KI tablets are issued in areas near nuclear reactors. Floods the thyroid with good iodine so the I-131 is biologically eliminated since it has no place to "dock". Fortunately, thyroid cancer is among the most treatable and survivable cancers. There are other issues but on a much smaller scale.

I haven't seen the HBO Chernobyl movie (don't have HBO), so I can't comment on its accuracy but I do know quite a bit about what happened and why it happened due to my work, and the continuing monitoring, cleanup and sarcophagus replacement.

Dave

Well although I'm No Expert on nuclear weapons, I do know some of the basics, and I hope and pray it never comes to that!!!! From what I recall, Chernobyl was releasing approximately x2 Hiroshima or Little Boy Bombs worth of fall out every hour that the Reactor was open, and I don't know off hand how long it took them to cover up the reactor with Boron and Sand, but it was around 10 days or so. That is a Lot of Radiation being released into the atmosphere. I've heard rumors in the U.S. that Putin has Thyroid Cancer and now they are saying it's blood cancer, and was kind of wondering where was he when Chernobyl exploded?? I know that when the Berlin Wall came down that he was in East Germany, but where was he during the Chernobyl incident?? I'm just curious? Biological and Chemical weapons are bad enough, but those poor guys at the plant, the engineers and the firemen all died a slow painful death from radiation poisoning, so bad that the Doctors and Nurses couldn't even find a vein to administer morphine. I continue to try to learn as mush as I can about nuclear weapons, and your reply was a big help, thank you.

[Ultradave]

14 hours ago, Gary R Lukas said:

Well although I'm No Expert on nuclear weapons, I do know some of the basics, and I hope and pray it never comes to that!!!! From what I recall, Chernobyl was releasing approximately x2 Hiroshima or Little Boy Bombs worth of fall out every hour that the Reactor was open, and I don't know off hand how long it took them to cover up the reactor with Boron and Sand, but it was around 10 days or so. That is a Lot of Radiation being released into the atmosphere. I've heard rumors in the U.S. that Putin has Thyroid Cancer and now they are saying it's blood cancer, and was kind of wondering where was he when Chernobyl exploded?? I know that when the Berlin Wall came down that he was in East Germany, but where was he during the Chernobyl incident?? I'm just curious? Biological and Chemical weapons are bad enough, but those poor guys at the plant, the engineers and the firemen all died a slow painful death from radiation poisoning, so bad that the Doctors and Nurses couldn't even find a vein to administer morphine. I continue to try to learn as mush as I can about nuclear weapons, and your reply was a big help, thank you.

No idea about Putin, but as I said, Thyroid cancer is one of the most treatable cancers there are, with a very high survivability rate. As for blood cancers, there are a wide variety, and many of those are pretty treatable too. I was diagnosed with non-Hodgkin's Lymphoma in 2018. Had chemo, and here I am. As my oncologist told me, "You're going to get treated, and then go on with your life" (with the caveat that my oncologist is now my 6 month interval visit for life friend). My office mate before I retired has Hairy Cell Leukemia. He had treatment 12 years ago, and is doing just great. Now that's not to say there aren't blood cancers that are less treatable and have poorer prognoses, but many are not technically curable, but very treatable. I've been told to consider it a chronic condition that may require periodic treatment.

For Putin, if he has something like that, I can say that DURING chemo, I felt and looked like death warmed over, which was over a 4 month period. It wasn't a lot of fun, I'll tell you.  All speculation of course. There are about a dozen or so types of NHL, and who know how many types of leukemia.

Dave

[-SIBERIANWOLF-]

should not happen coz they are more a power balance thing against big nation and other nations with nukes  so unless putin wants to **** it up for all of us we should be ok also why? for what? for destroyed ukraine with radiation directly on the border for going with a bang maybe would be a wild ride next elections protests... dont see it happen

[Bulletpoint]

On 4/17/2022 at 11:07 PM, Ultradave said:

Keep in mind that many (not all) tactical nuclear weapons are in the multiple KT range. Hiroshima and Nagasaki were 10-20KT weapons. So consider the devastation they left and even divided by 3, 5, or even 10, and you are STILL in the "lay waste to an entire city" area. 

Since you're knowledgeable about nuclear weapons, there's something I'd like to ask you that I've been wondering for years:

How much of the devastation of Hiroshima was caused by the direct heat and blast of the bomb itself, and how much was caused by the following fires as the city was ignited?

As I understand it, Japanese cities at the time were largely constructed of low, wooden buildings, so when we seee photos from Hiroshima showing a completely burnt and devastated landscape, it's not really clear how much was from the atomic bomb itself and how much from the following firestorm.

Thanks for any info.

[Vergeltungswaffe]

Ultradave will have a much better answer, but if I recall correctly, the blast wave from Little Boy at Hiroshima destroyed just about everything within a mile radius of the epicenter.

 

[Ultradave]

2 hours ago, Vergeltungswaffe said:

Ultradave will have a much better answer, but if I recall correctly, the blast wave from Little Boy at Hiroshima destroyed just about everything within a mile radius of the epicenter.

 

That's about right. And since the construction of the structures was not robust, there was probably more than if the same sized weapon was detonated over a similar size US city.  You can see in some of the aftermath pictures there are some more substantial structures still standing, even though gutted. I don't know what was around those before the bombing, but I imagine they were probably unusual compared to the majority. You can see in many photos the absence of rubble, which would make you think a lot of wooden structures that were completely vaporized or burned. At Nagasaki, there is more rubble visible in pics I've seen, but still almost total destruction. 

The blast and heat sets off the firestorm though, so really it's all part of the same overall effect. The air comes rushing back into the center and feeds the fire with massive quantities of oxygen.

Not sure if that's any help. Thankfully, we don't have others to compare to and these are our only two examples. Tests set up to test blast effects used few and isolated objects/buildings so not much to compare to.

Dave

[Machor]

I can chime in with something interesting I learned from the History Channel's 75th Anniversary of Hiroshima documentary: At the time, there were physicists who thought that nuclear weapons were a pipe dream, and Japan's top physicist was among them. The day after Hiroshima, he was flown there to observe the aftermath from the air, and his immediate reaction was something like: "So, they made it." Of course, this need not have been deduced from analyzing the blast damage; it would have been the only explanation for how a single bomb could cause so much damage be it through the blast or fires.