Russian President Vladimir Putin has made a lot of frightening nuclear threats since the start of Russia's war in Ukraine, and his forces are losing ground, which could lead to the use of weapons of mass destruction, a nightmare scenario.
"Russia remains one of the most powerful nuclear states, and any enemy that attacks it will face defeat and ominous consequences," he said on the day he launched his "special operation" in Ukraine.
The world was reminded of Russia's nuclear might in the months since Putin claimed to have put Russia's nuclear deterrent forces on high alert.
In September, Putin made a veiled reference to nuclear weapons while promising to defend Russia'sterritorial integrity. Putin warned that "we will protect our land with all the forces and means at our disposal" after the US used nuclear weapons against Japan in World War II.
Putin has been accused of nuclear saber rattling by world leaders. The UN Secretary-General warned that the world is one misunderstanding away from nuclear destruction.
The US has privately communicated to Russia that there would be "catastrophic consequences" if nuclear weapons are used.
Nuclear experts say that Putin's threats should be taken seriously regardless of whether or not they are bluffs.
Military and nuclear weapons experts say that Putin is more likely to use a tactical nuclear weapon in Ukraine than a strategic nuclear weapon.
Tactical or non-strategic nuclear weapons are meant for more limited strikes or use on the battlefield over a shorter period of time while strategic nuclear weapons are meant to be used against targets farther from the front lines.
According to the Federation of American Scientists, Russia has the largest nuclear arsenal in the world with 5,997 warheads, but not all of them are deployed.
Russia has 1,912 tactical nuclear weapons in its arsenal and is able to deliver them to their intended targets by land, air and sea.
Russia has low-yield nukes that fall below one kiloton, which is less than the bomb's maximum yield of 100 kiloton.
These weapons are still very strong. The US dropped an atomic bomb on Nagasaki during World War II, but it didn't kill as many people as expected. Tactical nuclear weapons are four times more powerful than ordinary nuclear weapons.
According to the executive director of the Arms Control Association, tactical nuclear weapons are devastating and indiscriminate.
Despite Putin's rhetoric, a senior researcher at the United Nations Institute for Disarmament Research doesn't believe that Russia is close to breaking the atomic taboo.
There is a consensus among people who have been looking at this that the use of nuclear weapons on the battlefield is out of the question. This isn't a war like that.
There probably wouldn't be a chance to take out thousands of soldiers in a strike. About a dozen tanks could be destroyed by a single tactical nuclear weapon. It would be a logistical nightmare for a military that early on was struggling to feed its own troops.
You need to work together. He said that you need to deal with all the contaminated material. It's hard.
Even if the intent of such a strike were to simply demonstrate Russia's resolve and willingness to escalate, Podvig doesn't think that would happen with a battlefield nuke. It would have to be shocking if the Kremlin wanted an effective demonstration.
An explosion over the Black Sea will not suffice to deliver the shock. He said it would take a lot of people to kill him. You would have to do that a lot.
The destruction caused by a nuke could undermine Putin at home. He sold this conflict to his population on the basis of shared history with Ukraine, creating a potential backlash were he to oversee the destruction of cities or the mass killing of Ukrainians. Sentiments have not prevented other atrocities.
The Basic Principles of State Policy of the Russian Federation on Nuclear Deterrence was released in 2020. According to the document, the Russian president decided to use nuclear weapons.
According to the Congressional Research Service, the Russian President has the power to use nuclear weapons.
It's Putin's call if Russia uses a nuke, but it's not easy to let one go.
It is1-65561-65561-65561-65561-65561-65561-65561-65561-65561-65561-65561-65561-65561-65561-65561-65561-65561-65561-65561-65561-65561-65561-65561-65561-65561-65561-65561-65561-65561-65561-65561-65561-65561-65561-65561-65561-65561-65561-65561-65561-65561-65561-65561-65561-65561-65561-65561-65561-65561-65561-65561-65561-65561-65561-65561-6556 There is no way of knowing if anyone would stand up against the Russian leader, who has a history of killing his opponents.
Hans M.Kristensen, director of the Nuclear Information Project at the Federation of American Scientists, said that the process begins with a decision by Putin. The military in the United States has to cooperate.
It would likely take longer to use a tactical nuclear weapon than a strategic one given that these weapons are not.
Russia's non-strategic nukes are in central storage and would have to be brought out of their Bunker first and transported to the Launch Units that would fire them. According to recent reports, there is no indication that Putin is about to use a nuclear weapon.
Given their age and time in storage, some of these nukes could be unreliable.
According to a military researcher, most of the warheads stored there are very old. It's difficult to say how suitable they are without testing, because many of them are past their expiration date.
The document released by Russia in 2020 lays out four scenarios that could lead to the use of nuclear weapons: the use of nuclear weapons against Russia or its allies, conventional aggression that threatens Russia's existence, and missiles that are already in flight and heading for Russia.
The risk of Putin ignoring Russia's official nuclear doctrine and using a weapon of mass destruction remains low, but his recent threats suggest that he may.
There is an evolving debate over whether Putin would use a nuclear weapon, but there is widespread agreement that the risk of a nuclear crisis has risen to a level not seen in decades.
According to him, it's unlikely that Russia has nuclear weapons inUkraine. He said that it would have to be a direct clash between NATO and Russia.
"That said, they've certainly rattled the sword and threatened something that looks like a scenario going beyond what Russia's declaratory policy is," he said, adding that if Russia chose to use a nuclear weapon it would likely turn to a nuclear-armed Iskander short-
The risks of Putin using a nuclear weapon in the short-term are still low, according to a former senior intelligence officer. The decision of Putin to annex four Ukrainian territories increased those risks.
She said that the risk of Putin using a tactical nuke on the battlefield in Ukraine has gone up because he is so invested in the situation.
Military and Russia experts agree that Putin will probably wait and see how his risky decision to announce a partial military deployment plays out before he considers using a nuclear weapon.
Russia is more likely to sabotage infrastructure in the future. Russia attacked Kyiv for the first time in months this week after carrying out strikes acrossUkraine.
According to an assessment from the Institute for the Study of War, if Putin decided to use a nuclear weapon in Ukraine, it would be in hopes of shocking Ukraine into surrender or the West into cutting off aid to the country. "These attacks would be very unlikely to force Ukraine or the West to surrender, however, and would be tremendous gambles of the sort that Putin has traditionally refused to take," I SW said.
One of the most pressing questions surrounding the potential use of a nuclear weapon by Russia is how the west would respond.
Ukranian is not a nuclear power. The US is a member of NATO and has nuclear weapons of its own.
Most of the world's nuclear weapons are held by the US and Russia. During the Cold War, the two countries came dangerously close to nuclear war, but were able to avoid it.
There would be serious consequences if Russia used nuclear weapons, but it has not been stated. Not going nuclear in response is advised by experts.
I don't think the United States and its allies should put a nuclear response on the table. Rose Gottemoeller, a former senior State Department official for arms control and non proliferation issues and a former deputy secretary general of NATO, said during a conference call that we need to stay on the side of a military response. The response could target where Russia's nuclear attack began, but the US could also use offensive cyber capabilities.
"Any such attack would be designed to be proportional and to be responsive to what would be an egregious attack on a Ukrainian target using a nuclear weapon," she said.
All Rights Reserved © 2024
