What if Russia uses tactical nuclear weapons in Ukraine?

[Darkstar One]

What do you think will have if Putin crosses this line? What do you think should happen?

Personally, I think that if he uses nuclear weapons the US/NATO should make a conventional response--the reports that sinking the Russian Black Sea Fleet would be under consideration would seem to be a good start.

What do I think WILL happen? If Putin goes nuclear I think a base in Western Russia gets a dose of instant sunshine.

[Kraken]

I've read that Biden has a contingency plan and it has been communicated to Putin. I don't think it involves a nuclear reprisal, more likely a massive conventional NATO response.

[Defiant]

I'm thinking Putin thinks this, based on past performance:

[LawBeefaroni]

Depends on the yield I'd imagine but at minimum it would mean the end of their Ukraine ambitions and we'd see pre-2014 borders.

Remember that tactical nukes can be relatively low yield so it can be more of a matter of crossing the philosophical nuclear line than inflicting massive damage or ecological disaster.

[Kurth]

Depends on the yield I'd imagine but at minimum it would mean the end of their Ukraine ambitions and we'd see pre-2014 borders.

Remember that tactical nukes can be relatively low yield so it can be more of a matter of crossing the philosophical nuclear line than inflicting massive damage or ecological disaster.

But I’m not sure what this gets Putin. Why cross that philosophical line if you’re not going to get a military advantage out of it? Does he seriously think that the global reaction to him going nuclear — even if low yield — will be to back off? It will just convince the world even more that he is a global threat that must be dealt with.

This is why I don’t think Putin will go this route. It’s not really plausible to me, unless he’s completely unhinged and not a rational actor at this point.

[LawBeefaroni]

I don't see him doing it but I didn't see him trying to go all the way to Kiev either.

Bad information can make people do really dumb things.


And I was trying to get at the fact that the response is based on the line being crossed rather than the explosive yield. Don't expect muted response to a small 10t explosion.

[YellowKing]

Heck, at this point who knows if he could even get his top brass to sign off on such a strike. I've seen articles suggesting the ordering of a nuclear deployment could just result in the last shreds of his military command turning on him.

[Kurth]

Heck, at this point who knows if he could even get his top brass to sign off on such a strike. I've seen articles suggesting the ordering of a nuclear deployment could just result in the last shreds of his military command turning on him.

That’s another reason for optimism that Russia isn’t about to play the nuclear card: Not only would Putin have to be entirely irrational, but he’d also need the Russian military to sign off on it. As little faith as I have in the Russian military, I think it’s highly likely an order to go nuclear would most likely be the end of Putin.

[Holman]

Heck, at this point who knows if he could even get his top brass to sign off on such a strike. I've seen articles suggesting the ordering of a nuclear deployment could just result in the last shreds of his military command turning on him.

Speaking of which, yesterday was Stanislav Petrov Day.

[The Meal]

I can't see him trying the nuke tactical strike either. It's embarrassing when your tanks don't work so well. What is it if your nuke doesn't go off (right away)?

[Isgrimnur]

[Unagi]

What is it if your nuke doesn't go off (right away)?

Post mature detonation. PMD

[Jaymon]

We are trying to apply reason and logic to what Putin would do. Very little of what he has done lately is reasonable or logical.

[hepcat]

I can't see him trying the nuke tactical strike either. It's embarrassing when your tanks don't work so well. What is it if your nuke doesn't go off (right away)?

In my head, I'm seeing Putin Capricorn One-ing it by setting up a sound stage and projecting art from Fallout 4 on the backdrop as someone frantically wails "Utter destruction as Russian nukes go off in the Ukraine!"...then a kid pushing a bike accidentally walks across the screen because they forgot to close the set to the public.

[LordMortis]

I was seeing Slim Pickens meets the Gremlin with a hammer from Bugs Bunny.

[El Guapo]

We are trying to apply reason and logic to what Putin would do. Very little of what he has done lately is reasonable or logical.

I'm not sure that's true. His actions make sense (even if he's not always smart about how he executes things) in the context of what he thinks and what he is after. He seems to genuinely believe that Ukraine is a kind of fake nation that is and should be properly part of Russia (at least the bulk of it). As long as Ukraine remained a vassal state loyal to Russia, he could live with it having nominal independence. But after the pro-Russian government fell in 2014, Ukraine tilted firmly towards the west, and various efforts to destabilize it / bring it back into line (the Crimea seizure and the separatist fighting in Ukraine's east) failed, there wasn't much prospect on the horizon of Ukraine coming back into the Russian fold.

Given that, Putin could essentially do nothing, which would likely lead to Ukraine drifting further and further away from Russia and into the EU / Western orbit. Or he could launch an invasion - obviously that's risky, but nothing all that bad came out of the Crimea action, plus his advisors were all presumably telling him that they could roll over Ukraine in a week. And if they had...the western sanctions would be bad, but might well have been livable.

Whereas with nukes, it is hard to see how using nukes would help him win in Ukraine. On top of that, it would greatly increase the risk that the west directly intervenes in the UKraine fighting, and the risk that western leaders push to oust Putin himself. Is it possible that Putin miscalculates? Sure. But hard to see him making the call.

[Carpet_pissr]

Just chiming in to say Putin doesn’t SEEM to be acting irrationally/unstable enough to use nukes. Miscalculations and some bad results coming from an inept army, sure.

[LawBeefaroni]

Heck, at this point who knows if he could even get his top brass to sign off on such a strike. I've seen articles suggesting the ordering of a nuclear deployment could just result in the last shreds of his military command turning on him.

That’s another reason for optimism that Russia isn’t about to play the nuclear card: Not only would Putin have to be entirely irrational, but he’d also need the Russian military to sign off on it. As little faith as I have in the Russian military, I think it’s highly likely an order to go nuclear would most likely be the end of Putin.

Keep in mind that tactical nukes are much smaller, require less by way of chain of command to release and use, and may already be possessed by any number of operational units. They have already used the same delivery systems (Iskander, etc) in their Special Military Operation. It's not like their equivalent of the Joint Chiefs have to turn keys in unison or anything.

[hepcat]

Honestly, I think Putin will fall back on his KGB training and go more for assassinations, sabotage and other forms of warfare he can use that will still allow him to deny any involvement as the war goes on. I think he'll then spread that around increasingly to countries supporting Ukraine as well. I believe we've already seen that with the pipeline incident recently.

He's a despotic tyrant who is capable of great acts of evil, in my opinion. I'm betting we'll see more and more of that as the pressure for a win/withdrawal from inside his country increases.

[El Guapo]

Everything else aside, what I have read about tactical nukes is that they're not all that useful against conventional military units. Given the delay in targeting vs. hitting the targets, and conventional units ability to, well, move, destroying a conventional army with nukes vs. just hitting them with a shit ton of artillery doesn't make much sense. So there's not much reason in that for Putin to use them.

[LawBeefaroni]

Everything else aside, what I have read about tactical nukes is that they're not all that useful against conventional military units. Given the delay in targeting vs. hitting the targets, and conventional units ability to, well, move, destroying a conventional army with nukes vs. just hitting them with a shit ton of artillery doesn't make much sense. So there's not much reason in that for Putin to use them.

They can be delivered exactly like conventional artillery, rockets, and missiles. That's the whole point. Same package, bigger boom.

[Grifman]

Everything else aside, what I have read about tactical nukes is that they're not all that useful against conventional military units. Given the delay in targeting vs. hitting the targets, and conventional units ability to, well, move, destroying a conventional army with nukes vs. just hitting them with a shit ton of artillery doesn't make much sense. So there's not much reason in that for Putin to use them.

They can be delivered exactly like conventional artillery, rockets, and missiles. That's the whole point. Same package, bigger boom.

The problem is that modern armies are fairly dispersed. Any bomb big enough to do serious damage would threaten his own forces, unless he aimed at an HQ or logistical hub.

That said, I think the Western response depends upon the nature of the attacks. What if Putin does a demonstration attack on Snake Island as a warning? What if he hits a military HQ or logistics hub? What if he hits Kyiv or Lviv? I think each of those calls for a different response.

I think very little happens if there is just a demonstration other than NATO starts moving assets to show/warn Putin - they call his bluff. If he attacks a military target, then I think NATO attacks significant Russian military asserts. If he hits a major city, then NATO launches an air campaign to destroy the Russian army in Ukraine.

That said, from my reading I am very concerned he will possibly launch a nuke attack.

[Holman]

Yeah, there is really no tactical use for nuclear weapons. Their tactical effect can be easily matched by conventional weapons without crossing the nuclear line.

Maybe the only exception is a "small" nuclear strike that cripples a naval fleet at sea, but even then there are strategic/political effects that a conventional strike wouldn't introduce.

[Blackhawk]

Especially when you are attacking upwind.

[Holman]

I assume there is some back-channel communication going on, and that the message is that tacnuke strikes in Ukraine will be met with conventional strikes on all possible launch sites of such weapons.

The point isn't to persuade Putin but to suggest to local Russian commanders that their special keys actually don't work.

[Darkstar One]

I've seen a couple of articles (can't speak for sources) stating the Russians were told that the use of a tactical nuclear weapon in Ukraine would result in the destruction of the entire Russian Black Sea Fleet.

[Carpet_pissr]

Petraeus:

He told ABC News: “Just to give you a hypothetical, we would respond by leading a Nato – a collective – effort that would take out every Russian conventional force that we can see and identify on the battlefield in Ukraine and also in Crimea and every ship in the Black Sea.”

Asked if the use of nuclear weapons by Russia in Ukraine would bring America and Nato into the war, Petraeus said that it would not be a situation triggering the alliance’s Article 5, which calls for a collective defense. That is because Ukraine is not part of Nato – nonetheless, a “US and Nato response” would be in order, Petraeus said.
Petraeus acknowledged that the likelihood that radiation would extend to Nato countries under the Article 5 umbrella could perhaps be construed as an attack on a Nato member.