No way Russia uses even a very small tactical nuke against Ukraine and no risk of it attacking NATO
In 2022, Zelensky warned about the possibility of Russia using small tactical nukes against Ukraine not against NATO. He was referring to CIA director Burns who said they don’t see any evidence that Russia plans to use nukes.
Putin would NOT use tactical nukes. The reason is Russia would lose just about all its international friends and Putin would not be able to hide it from his own people. Even though the tactical nukes can be very small and not harm civilians.
Summary graphic
TEXT ON GRAPHIC: A small sub kiloton tactical nuke COULD hit only a military target with minimal or no effects on civilians.
Drop it at one end of a military runway and civilians would survive at the other end if they know what to do if fallout goes their way.
However Putin will NEVER do this because
- China and India would immediately have to condemn it
- NATO likely sinks his Black Sea fleet (told Putin what they'd do)
- may even lose UN Security Council seat
- many other consequences
- he can achieve the same effects with multiple conventional bombs fired at the same target as with advances in Donbas.
Main issue: a small tactical nuke that doesn’t harm any civilians still breaks the partial test ban treaty.
No world war
What a tactical nuke would look like from the height of a passenger jet (simulates a 1 kiloton nuke detonated in Hostomel airport near Kyiv)
View from 12 km - it rises to above the tops of cumulus clouds but below the middle level altocumulus
Can survive in the open at the other end of the runway here
- with not much radiation sickness so long as you avoid the fallout dust.
Depending on wind direction, some fallout could reach Kyiv along a narrow plume - people who stay indoors would be safe
Why Putin will NOT do this
Putin loses remaining support from China and India
NATO likely uses conventional cruise missiles to sink the Black Sea fleet (Putin knows what they would do, details secret)
Background image: 3D model of one kiloton mushroom cloud generated with nuke-map here: NUKEMAP by Alex Wellerstein and then superimposed on Google Earth
(nuke_hostomel2.png)
As the Wasthington Post put it:
QUOTE Detonate a one kiloton weapon on one side of Kyiv’s Zhuliany airport, for instance, and Russian President Vladimir Putin sends a next-level message with a fireball, shock waves and deadly radiation. But the blast radius wouldn’t reach the end of the runway.
I can’t find figures for the yields of Russia’s tactical nukes. But the USA's smallest B61 dual purpose tactical / strategic nuke can probably be dialed down to 0.3 kilotons (dropped from bombers).
This is much less than Nagasaki at 20 kilotons and Hiroshima at 15 kilotons.
TACTICAL NUKES WOULD JUST LEAD TO MORE UNITED SUPPORT OF UKRAINE AGAINST RUSSIA - AND US HAS PRIVATELY TOLD PUTIN WHAT HAPPENS NEXT, LIKELY INCLUDING USE OF NUKES TO SINK THE ENTIRE BLACK SEA FLEET (UPDATE)
This is an old post from early in 2022, so this section updates it with some new material.
First, as this post explains, tactical nukes don't make sense militarily - it would achieve nothing, just lead to much more united support against Russia. The Ukrainians would be better equipped to fight in a battlefield with radioactive fallout soon after the nukes than the Russian soldiers. But more than that. The US has told Putin exactly what they would do in that situation.
If Putin used a single nuke in Ukraine.
1. He lose all the good will he has from places like Southern Africa and South America and much of Asia.
2. China and India, both nuclear states and signatories of the non proliferation treaty will immediately disown Russia. Both warned him to not even bluff about nukes. They won't want to be associated in any way with a country that has made first use of a nuke.
3. The US will use CONVENTIONAL small cruise or medium range ballistic missiles to destroy numerous targets in the Black Sea and occupied Ukraine (informed guess by General Patreus) - probably including the entire Black Sea fleet? Just quietly sinking without fuss. No mushroom clouds.
- and not a surprise. Putin will know it is going to happen.
Whatever the US secret contingency plan is, they already told Putin. Putin knows his air defences can't protect against the Tomahawk cruise missiles and other weapons from NATO.
At a guess, either the US would use them themselves or hand a bunch of them over to Ukraine and tell them they have permission to sink the Black Sea fleet in response to the use of a nuke on their territory. Whatever, Putin knows what they would do, he's been told privately. He can't stop it.
This would be so humiliating and his own people would KNOW what Russia did, you can't hide a mushroom cloud or blame it on someone else.
Though he doesn't advertise this to the world, Putin knows he can't stop them. Throughout this war the western missiles that NATO countries have given to Ukraine have gone through Russia's air defences and can't be stopped, NATO has far longer range precise cruise missiles and ballistic missiles that can hit anywhere in occupied Ukraine or Crimea or the Black Sea and their F-35 fighter jets are effectively invisible to Russian radar, or they might launch them from their subs or from bases in Europe.
So they can tell him privately precisely what they will do knowing there is not a thing he can do to stop it even warned in advance. They have already done this. We can't know what they said but Putin knows. It would be the end of Putin's regime.
He also loses all his remaining support from China and India. They already said he must not even bluff about nukes.
This is about what China and India have said to Putin also has Boris Johnson's remarks about how it would turn Russia into a rogue nation.
SMALLEST TACTICAL NUKES ARE CLOSE IN YIELD TO THE LARGEST CONVENTIONAL EXPLOSIVES
Tactical nukes are slightly more powerful than the biggest conventional nukes. The smallest tactical nukes are far less powerful than Nagasaki or Hiroshima.
They are far harder to make and very advanced technology. The US made one that is even smaller called the Davy Crockett that comes into the range of yields from conventional explosives. Equivalent to only 20 tons of TNT.
. Davy Crockett (nuclear device) - Wikipedia
The US "Mother of all bombs" is 11 tons of TNT GBU-43/B MOAB - Wikipedia
The Russians claim to have detonated an even larger bomb at 44 tons in 2007 which would be more than double the yield of the Davy Crockett smallest
nuke but Western sources dispute this. Father of All Bombs - Wikipedia
The Bierut blast was 500 tons of TNT or about half the yield of a 1 kiloton tactical nuke. Beirut blast was 'historically' powerful
So a tactical nuke even at 1 kiloton is indeed a powerful bomb but it is small enough so it could plausibly be used in battlefield conditions without endangering civilians significantly.
The main reason countries don't use tactical nukes is because of the stigma of using nukes, because of the partial test ban treaty - and because they would become a rogue nation if they used them.
JUST SPECULATION - SENATOR NUNN ASKED IF CIA DIRECTOR BURNS SAW ANY EVIDENCE OF TACTICAL NUKES AND HE SAID NO
It is just speculation -CIA director Burns answered a question from Senator Nunn about tactical nukes.
In reply Burns said the CIA saw rhetoric (i.e. bluffs) but nothing to suggest that Russia is deploying tactical nukes on a practical level
Detailed interview below.
There is more possibility of chemical weapons than tactical nukes. That’s because Russia could plausibly use chemical weapons as a false flag, claim that Ukraine was attacking itself with them. It wouldn’t convince anyone else but it would convince their own people who still think Ukraine is run by neo nazis who might attack their own people in that way.
The US prebunked the chemical weapons false flag which makes it much harder for Russia to do it because their strategy has been laid bare for China, India or anyone else to see.
Tactical nukes couldn’t be used as a false flag, it would be obvious it was Russia did it even within Russia.
For the background see
A LOCAL COMMANDER WOULD NOT BE GIVEN THE AUTHORITY TO DECIDE TO USE TACTICAL NUKES - THE AUTHORIZATION WOULD HAVE TO COME FROM THE TOP
Also - Senator Nunn didn’t ask this but you get some people claim it would be an on the spot decision by a local commander.
But there is no way that Russia would supply them with tactical nukes and leaave it to a command decision. The reason is that to use a tactical nuke would be a very serious political decision. It would be a clear breach of the partial test ban treaty which prohibits all nuclear explosions in the sea, air or in space which Russia has signed and ratified
Russia also signed and ratified the comprehensive test ban treaty which prohibits even underground nuclear explosions
The comprehensive test ban treaty has never gone into force and the US, India, China and others never signed it - but all countries except North Korea have behaved as if it was in force, even though not signed.
There is no way that Russia would delegate the decision to break both those treaties to a local commander in the field.
CHINA AND RUSSIA WOULD FIND IT IDEOLOGICALLY IMPOSSIBLE TO SUPPORT USE OF TACTICAL NUKES - AND RUSSIA COULDN’T HIDE IT FROM THEIR OWN PEOPLE INDEFINITELY
China has no first use policy of nukes and would probably have to oppose Putin if he used nukes.
India is worried about Pakistan which has tactical nukes and would also have to oppose Putin if he used nukes as it would raise the prospect of Pakistan using them against India in some future conflict
Even a small tactical nuke is impossible to hide - everyone in Russia would soon see the photos of the fireball and the small mushroom cloud over Ukraine and would know that Putin used a nuke -
From the BBC
QUOTE Dr Heather Williams, nuclear expert at Kings College London, says one problem is that it is unclear what "winning" in Ukraine would look like for Putin - and thus what might drive Russia to use a nuclear weapon.
…
Dr Williams says there is a further reason why Russia might not use nuclear weapons - China.
"Russia is heavily dependent on Chinese support, but China has a 'no first use' nuclear doctrine. So if Putin did use them, it would be incredibly difficult for China to stand by him. If he used them, he would probably lose China."
From the Washington Post:
QUOTE Detonate a one kiloton weapon on one side of Kyiv’s Zhuliany airport, for instance, and Russian President Vladimir Putin sends a next-level message with a fireball, shock waves and deadly radiation. But the blast radius wouldn’t reach the end of the runway.
QUOTE Plenty of observers believe Putin would not risk even a low-grade nuclear attack. Doing so could trigger deeper sanctions than the ones already crippling the Russian economy, increase war opposition at home, negatively impact his all-important alliance with the Chinese and change perceptions in nations still hedging their bets with Russia, including India, Brazil and South Africa.
QUOTE Many in the West have questioned Putin’s state of mind. But a number of experts — including the director of the CIA — appear to have determined he remains more or less within the parameter of sanity. They estimate him, however, to be isolated and angry — conditions that could rapidly escalate as the Russian army makes far less progress than the Kremlin likely calculated.
Britain's armed forces minister James Heappey recently called the possibility of Russia using a tactical nuclear weapon, "vanishingly small"
. uk-dismisses-lavrovs-bravado-says-no-imminent-threat-of-escalation-in-Ukraine
A TACTICAL NUKE IN UKRAINE WOULD NOT BE AN ATTACK ON NATO - AND WOULD BE AN “OWN GOAL” FOR RUSSIA
An attack on Ukraine would not be an attack on NATO. It would be an “own goal” for Russia. NATO would surely provide humanitiarian response. And step up even more on sanctions and on weapons to send to Ukraine. It might do special ops and cyber attacks. But it wouldn’t attack back in kind and no way NATO would respond by using its own tactical nukes (NATO does have tactical nukes too in the form of gravity bombs dropped from planes).
Though it is reasonable for Zelensky to ask for help with drugs against radiation just in case. Because you need to prepare even for the exceptionally unlikely in a war situation.
If a tactical nuke was detonated on Gostomel airport outside Kyiv
You could survive with not much radiation sickness at the far end of the runway
(depending on wind direction or if you can get to shelter from the radioactive dust that falls from the sky after a nuke, fallout)
But VERY unlikely Russia uses a tactical nuke - hard to hide a mushroom cloud from its own people and it would lose most of what support it has from China and India.
Simulation with nuke-map here
A TACTICAL NUKE WOULD CREATE A SMALL MUSHROOM CLOUD, BUT STILL, IMPOSSIBLE TO HIDE
The mushroom cloud would reach up to 2.78 km according to NukeMap. Jet planes fly at a height of around 12 km so if you were flying over it would be just one of the clouds far below you.
The mushroom cloud would be about three times the height of the world’s tallest building the Burj Khalifa - Wikipedia
This is what it would look like flying over in a passenger jet at a height of 12 km looking down on the mushroom cloud
What a tactical nuke would look like from the height of a passenger jet (simulates a 1 kiloton nuke detonated in Gostomel airport near Kyiv)
View from 12 km - it rises to above the tops of cummulus clouds but below the middle level altocummulus
Can survive in the open at the other end of the runway here
- with not much radiation sickness so long as you avoid the fallout dust.
Depending on wind direction, some fallout could reach Kyiv along a narrow plume - people who stay indoors would be safe
- I exported the mushroom cloud from NukeMap and imported it into Google Earth - for some reason it shows it as black and I just flood filled the graphic in white to change the colour.
In this graphic the eye height is set at just short of 12 km (11.99 km):
A tactical nuke mushroom cloud rises to higher than cummulus clouds but below the altostratus or middle level cloud.
If it was a groundburst it would make a small crater, 10 meters deep and 40 meters in diameter to the outside lip of the crater.
That is enough to destroy a skyscraper with a single blast. It’s about twice the power of the Bierut explosion which had a yield of around 500 tons (though it could have been as high as 1.1 kilotons at the upper end of the range of estimates).
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-54420033
. Beirut blast was 'historically' powerful
NukeMap estimates 30 deaths and 100 injuries on the assumption that 355 people are in the airport at the time of the bomb within the blast radius - this depends a lot of course on where the bomb hits - their model of the distribution of population surely isn’t accurate to that level - and it would depend on time of day, whether it is back to normal functioning etc..
For link to these settings see: NUKEMAP by Alex Wellerstein
This isn’t the smallest ever nuke, the US Davy Crockett was far smaller, at 0.02 kilotons or 20 tons it’s less than double the yield of the largest conventional bomb used in combat, the US’s Mother of All Bombs (11 tons yield).
According to Nukemap, the Davy Crockett would make an even smaller mushroom cloud less than a kilometer high and a shallow crater 10 meters in diameter. But it is no longer in use. Was in use until 1971. NUKEMAP by Alex Wellerstein
The smallest one I can find is the Special Atomic Demolition Munition which can be dialed down to 10 tons, same as the Mother of All Bombs.
YOU ARE SAFE FROM THE FALLOUT IF YOU STAY INDOORS FOR 2 DAYS - AND HAVE 10 OR 15 MINUTES TO GET INDOORS
Depending on wind direction, some of the fallout could reach central Kyiv
That is for a 15 miles per hour wind. The fallout is just dust falling from the cloud after the blast - and you can protect yourself from it if you can keep out of the dust and as far away from it as possible.
People indoors in Kyiv would be protected just by being indoors. After a nuclear explosion, you have 10 or 15 minutes to get indoors to get out of the fallout and the further you can get form the outside the better - if you have a good thick wall between you and the dust that’s best of all.
If you don’t have anything else, it would help to be in a car even rather than outside.
The worst of the fallout is over within a couple of days. They would surely clean it up as best they can, remove radioactive soil if there are hot spots e.g. of Caesium and treat casualties.
SO - IT’S LIKELY NOT MANY DIE COULD EVEN BE NO CASUALTIES - BUT ENORMOUSLY IMPORTANT SYMBOLICALLY AS A BREACH OF THE COMPREHENSIVE TEST BAN TREATY THAT RUSSIA RATIFIED AND CHINA SIGNED AND AGAINST THE IDEOLOGIES OF CHINA AND INDIA - EVEN THOUGH IT’S NEVER COME INTO FORCE
If it is a small tactical nuke not even many would die depending where they detonate it, could even be no casualties and only damage, say a bridge or other equipment - or harm nobody and nothing as a demonstration, or only harm some soldiers.
But symbolically it is important. It would be a very clear breach of the comprehensive test ban treaty which Russia ratified which prohibits even underground explosions.
. Russian Federation ratifies Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty
The comprehensive test ban treaty has never gone into force, but all countries except North Korea have behaved as if it was in force.
Even though China didnt ratify it yet, and India didn’t sign it, neither of them have done any nuclear tests even underground this century either.
Since the conclusion and opening for signature of the CTBT, nuclear testing has become taboo. Today, even those nuclear-armed states that have not signed or not ratified the CTBT, including India, Israel, and Pakistan, observe nuclear testing moratoriums. Only one country has conducted nuclear test explosions in this century, and even that country—North Korea—halted nuclear testing in 2017. Although the CTBT has not formally entered into force, the treaty has, for now, achieved it primary goal: ending nuclear weapon test explosions.
The Annex 2 states all need to sign it for it to come into force so it isn’t in force.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comprehensive_Nuclear-Test-Ban_Treaty
China’s statement on the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty (CTBT) - that it supports early entry into force of the treatey and signed it. However they never ratified it.
The Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty (CTBT) is conducive to preventing nuclear weapons proliferation and promoting the nuclear disarmament process. It is an important step towards complete prohibition and thorough destruction of nuclear weapons.
China supports an early entry into force of the CTBT and has signed the treaty on the first day that it opened for signature. The Chinese Government has submitted the Treaty to the National People's Congress (NPC). NPC will consider and ratify the Treaty according to the due legal procedures.
https://www.fmprc.gov.cn/ce/cgvienna/eng/dbtyw/cjyjk/CTBT/t127376.htm
ALSO AGAINST THE LIMITED TEST BAN TREATY WHICH PROHIBITS TESTS IN THE SEA, AIR AND SPACE BUT NOT UNDERGROUND - WHICH MOST COUNTRIES INCLUDING INDIA HAVE RATIFIED - BUT NOT CHINA
Any use of nukes in war is also against the limited nuclear test ban treaty which India has ratified but China hasn’t signed.
For the text and list of signatories, see: Limited Test Ban Treaty (LTBT)
For more about it, Limited Nuclear Test Ban Treaty.
The lmited test ban treaty prohibits tests or use of nukes in the atmosphere, in the ocean or in space but doesn’t prohibit underground tests.
LIMITED TEST BAN TREATY DOESN’T HAVE ANY EXEMPTION FOR PEACEFUL USE OF NUKES OR FOR USE OF NUKES IN WAR
To use a tactical nuke would be a breach of the partial test ban treaty. The partial test ban treaty doesn't have an exemption for nukes used in a war, even though missummarized by some as if it does.
If you read the text of the treaty it is clear there is no exemption for peaceful or for war time use of nukes. It totally prohibits all uses of nukes except underground, and for underground nukes there has to be no release of radioactivity outside the territory of the state that does the tests. Here is the text of the treaty:
QUOTE 1. Each of the Parties to this Treaty undertakes to prohibit, to prevent, and not to carry out any nuclear weapon test explosion, or any other nuclear explosion, at any place under its jurisdiction or control:
(a) in the atmosphere; beyond its limits, including outer space; or under water, including territorial waters or high seas; or …
COMMENT: so, the “any nuclear weapon test explosion, or any other nuclear explosion” applies to the whole of (a) So they can’t carry out ANY nuclear explosion, test, war, peaceful explosion in the atmosphere ,outer space or underwater or territorial waters or high seas.]
It then goes on to say
QUOTE (b) in any other environment [i.e. an environment not in the atmosphere, outer space or underwater or territorial waters or high seas] if such explosion causes radioactive debris to be present outside the territorial limits of the State under whose jurisdiction or control such explosion is conducted.
COMMENT: So they can’t carry out a test or any other explosion underground if the radioactive debris from the explosion goes outside the territorial limits of the state
There is nothing in the text to say that “nuclear weapon test” only applies to (a) and that “any other nuclear explosion,” only applies to (b).
Also this is how the US government summarizes it:
QUOTE The Test Ban Treaty of 1963 prohibits nuclear weapons tests "or any other nuclear explosion" in the atmosphere, in outer space, and under water. While not banning tests underground, the Treaty does prohibit nuclear explosions in this environment if they cause "radioactive debris to be present outside the territorial limits of the State under whose jurisdiction or control" the explosions were conducted. In accepting limitations on testing, the nuclear powers accepted as a common goal "an end to the contamination of man's environment by radioactive substances."
Some people do interpret it as N
Here is an example:
. Project Plowshare: AEC Program for Peaceful Nuclear Explosives Slowed Down By Test Ban Treaty
But this fails fact check. It actually prohibits peaceful use except underground.
In theory project ploughshare was still possible but only for underground explosions that didn’t leak radioactive debris beyond the boundaries of a state.
Nuclear explosions in the air, sea, outer space are prohibited in all circumstances, peaceful or in war time.
To read it the other way would be rather bizarre as it would specifically prohibit using nukes in war, except in one cases, that a country would be permitted to use their own nukes to attack themselves - not as a test in its own territory, but presumably for peaceful use, apart from that the only permitted aggressive use would be to attack people and structures it regards as already being on its own territory and while doing so to be careful not to let any nuclear debris extend beyond what it already considers to be its territory.
Anyway that’s not what it says.
BOTH INDIA AND CHINA ARE ALSO CONCERNED ABOUT TACTICAL NUKES
India and China both have only the larger strategic nukes, while Pakistna, Russia, and the USA have tactical nukes so they are also particularly concerned about tactical nukes.
It would be hard for China or India to continue to support Russia because of that and because both for different reasons are concerned about first use of tactical nukes and don’t want to suggest it is okay.
So it would be for psychological reasons not for military reasons.
But it's just incredibly unlikely. Make Russia even more isolated.
SUGGESTION - RUSSIA USING A TACTICAL NUKE COULD BE CATALYST LEADING TO THEM BEING EJECTED FROM THE UN SECURITY COUNCIL
This is my own thinking here :). See what you think about it.
As we saw above, to use a tactical nuke would be a breach of the partial test ban treaty. The partial test ban treaty doesn't have an exemption for nukes used in a war, even though missummarized by some as if it does.
If Russia did use a tactical nuke ever, I think that would likely be the catalyst leads to them being ejected from their special status as permanent members of the UN Security Council. Even China couldn't support them after that.
You get people saying that Russia can’t be removed, but actually there are ways to do it. There are three ways of doing it. All have disadvantages.
1. if Russia boycotts the Security council the rest can vote it out - not likely to do that.
2. by claiming Russia isn't the Soviet Union. However no objections in 30 years makes that complicated.
3. as a procedural matter, only needs 9 votes and with 10 rotating members, doesn't need ANY permanent members to vote.
The main issue with 3 is that if allowed as precedent would let other countries like US be removed. But it might be considered a risk worth taking.
https://diplomaticacademy.us/2022/04/24/russia-un-security-council
I think there would certainly be a call to find a way to remove them from the security council if they were to even symbolically detonate a tactical nuke over the Black Sea.
The 3rd possibility there seems most likely, as a procedural matter, if all the other members of the council were against it.
The 2nd option also seems possible, to argue that Russia is not the former Soviet Union. Again if all the members were in agreement except Russia then they might be prepared to visit this again, 30 years of not using this approach doesn’t prohibit them from using this approach again. As Robert Downes says there have been big changes in the territory of the former USSR.
Collapse of the CSTO could be another factor to take into account:
https://twitter.com/JimmySecUK/status/1570871277019340802
This suggests Russia is no longer the former USSR and doesn’t have the influence even in Eastern Europe the USSR had.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collective_Security_Treaty_Organization
Also there’s the reduced influence of Russia in the world as well as exclusion from many other international bodies could also be a factor in deciding that Russia is no longer the former USSR.
On the first possibility, Russia is not likely to boycott the UN Security council, so the only possibility is to physically prevent it attending which seems unlikely
IF ANYONE USES A NUKE IT WOULD NOT MEAN EVERYONE STARTS TO USE NUKES
Some people argue that if anyone uses a nuke just once in war, from then everyone will start to use nukes.
However, I think the opposite, try to explain.
The only reason the general public support nukes at all is because they are a deterrent and are never used.
If any government uses nukes they are no longer a deterrent but a horrible weapon and then even the nuclear powers would likely join the treaty for the abolition of nuclear weapons. This went into force on 22nd January 2021 and has 60 signatories already. Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons - Wikipedia
The first thing would happen after a nuclear weapon on a civilian population would be the humanitarian operation to help all the people harmed.
Also social media would be full of videos of what happened to people hit by nukes.
YES RUSSIA COULD USE A TACTICAL NUKE IN UKRAINE - IF IT DIDN’T CARE ABOUT WHAT INDIA OR CHINA DOES - DEPENDING WHERE IT IS USED IT COULD HARM NOBODY OR ONLY A FEW DOZEN SOLDIERS - BUT THIS WOULD LEAVE IT EVEN MORE ISOLATED IN THE WORLD
If Russia didn't care about what China or India does,
Russia COULD drop a nuke in the Black sea or an uninhabited or desert area of Ukraine and not harm anyone - just some residual radioactivity for a short time and everyone has to avoid the area.
Russia COULD even drop a nuke on an airport runway and if nobody is on the runway at the time nobody would die - it is so small you would survive the nuke at one end if a 1 kiloton nuke was dropped at the other end
Russia COULD drop a tactical nuke on some genuine military target and harm only soldiers.
A tactical nuke could harm nobody or only kill a few soldiers.
BUT - this would have very serious downsides for Russia - it would be more isolated in the world even than North Korea with almost no friends left.
IF RUSSIA DROPPED A TACTICAL NUKE IN UKRAINE THAT IS NOT AN ATTACK ON NATO - NATO WOULD OF COURSE PROVIDE HUMANITARIAN RELIEF, MORE SANCTIONS, MORE WEAPONS - BUT IT WOULD BE AN “OWN GOAL” FOR RUSSIA AND LIKELY THE END OF PUTIN’S REGIME ONCE HIS PEOPLE REALIZE WHAT HE DID
Note - if Russia did drop a tactical nuke in Ukraine that is NOT an attack on NATO.
NATO wouldn't need to do much in response, it would be an own goal for Russia.
Instead provide humanitarian relief, more defensive and offensive weapons for Ukraine and publicize the video of the attack widely - and sooner or later the truth would come out in Russia, probably in days to weeks not years. And then that would likely be the end of Putin's regime.
CIA DIRECTOR BURNS SAYS SOME RUSSIAN LEADERS HAVE TALKED ABOUT THE POSSIBILITY OF TACTICAL NUKES IF NATO SENDS IN TROOPS ON THE GROUND - BUT BIDEN WON’T SUPPORT THAT - APART FROM THAT - THEY DON’T SEE THE DEPLOYMENTS TO SUPPORT A CONCERN ABOUT TACTICAL NUKES BUT MONITOR CLOSELY
The CIA director Burns says that they see nothing to suggest they plan to use nukes - only rhetoric not actual deployment of tactical nukes and are monitoring the situation closely.
He says some Russian leaders have talked about using tactical nukes if NATO sent in troops on the ground in Ukraine and that Biden has made it clear that the US will not support that.
This is the conversation journalists turned into those click bait headlines - which shows how inaccurate they can be.
Senator Nunn:
PARAPHRASE: We've heard of the policy to escalate to tactical nukes to deescalate a conflict. Also to escalate to victory. More encouragingly we also heard that Russia would only use nukes to defend an existential risk to Russia itself? Can you comment?
Director of CIA, Burns:
PARAPHRASE: What some Russian leaders have talked about is using tactical nukes if NATO intervenes militarily on the ground in Ukraine. Biden has made it clear that NATO won't do that.
PARAPHRASE: None of us can take the threat lightly to resort to tactical nukes. However while we've seen rhetorical posturing by Russia we don't see a lot of the deployments or military dispositions that would support a concern about use of tactical nukes. CIA watch for this intently as one of our primary responsibilities.
Here are the actual quotes I just paraphrased:
Senator Nunn:
QUOTE President Biden has a tremendous responsibility to both healthy trade, but also to avoid world war three. That was a huge, huge responsibility to both help Ukraine, but also to avoid World War III, and that’s a huge responsibility that many do not fully grasp. In terms of risk assessment, I'm sure a lot of that's going on now, but Russia has announced a lot of different type of policies, or at least some of that conversation indicates that on the use of nuclear weapons, particularly small or tactical nuclear weapons, we've heard the policy escalate to tactical nuclear weapons to deescalate a conflict. We've also heard the policy of escalate to victory, and we've heard most recently, a little bit more encouraging, that nuclear weapons would be used by Russia only to defend the existential threat to Russia itself. Would you like to just comment on that kind of risk assessment and what the agency is thinking
I.e.
Biden has a huge responsibility to help Ukraine
Also to avoid World war 3
Some Russian conversation about policies seems to be about nuclear weapons, especially small or tactical nukes
Russia has a policy of “escalate to deescalate” [i.e. to go big to end a war]
However we also heard that Russia will only use nuclear weapons to defend against an existential threat to Russia itself
Can you comment on that risk assessment and what the CIA is thinking?
Director of CIA, Burns:
QUOTE You're right, that Russian military doctrine holds, that you could escalate to deescalate, in other words, that faced with an overwhelming conventional military threat that you could resort to a first use of tactical or low-yield nuclear weapons. So in that circumstance, what some Russian leaders have talked about is a circumstance in which, you know, NATO would intervene militarily on the ground in Ukraine in the course of this conflict, and that's not something, as President Biden has made very clear that’s in the cards.
I.e. that
some Russian leaders have talked about first use of tactical nukes
only in response to NATO intervening militarily on the ground.
And that Biden has made very clear that NATO won't do this.
He continues
QUOTE But you know, given the potential desperation of President Putin and the Russian leadership, given the setbacks that they’ve faced so far militarily, none of us can take lightly the threat posed by a potential resort to tactical nuclear weapons or low-yield nuclear weapons. We don’t, while we’ve seen some rhetorical posturing on the part of the Kremlin, about moving to higher nuclear alert levels, so far we haven’t seen a lot of practical evidence of the kind of deployments or military dispositions that would reinforce that concern. We watch for that very intently. It’s one of our most important responsibilities at CIA.
I.e. that
none of us can take the threat of potential use of tactical nukes lightly given the setbacks and desperation of Putin.
But so far though the CIA have seen rhetorical posturing by the Kremlin [i.e. bluffs]
the haven't seen practical evidence of deployments that would reinforce concern about tactical nukes
They watch for any sign of deployment of tactical nukes very intently.
CIA./Director-Burns-Speech-and-QA-Georgia-Tech
INSITTUTE FOR STUDY OF WAR ASSESSMENT - WHILE THEY CAN’T RULE IT OUT IT REMAINS HIGHLY UNLIKELY THAT RUSSIA USES TACTICAL NUKES - WHICH WOULD LEAD TO MORE NATO SUPPORT FOR UKRAINE IN THE WAR
The Kremlin remains unlikely to use a tactical nuclear weapon in Ukraine during this phase of the war.
The Kremlin likely assesses that the use of a nuclear weapon would trigger greater NATO involvement in the war, making the Russian use of a nuclear weapon a net loss for Russia.
Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov denied that Russia would use nuclear weapons in Ukraine and claimed that Russia is only considering using conventional weapons in statements on April 19 that Kremlin-run media outlets subsequently heavily promoted.
Russian Foreign Ministry Spokesperson Maria Zakharova said on April 20 that Russian law enforcement should investigate anyone who spreads disinformation about Russia considering the use of nuclear weapons and reiterated Lavrov‘s statement that Russia will only use conventional weapons in Ukraine. State-run media outlets circulating her statement emphasized Russia’s signatory status on nuclear control treaties.
Two US officials “familiar with recent intelligence assessments” told CNN on April 20 that the United States has not seen any indicators of Russian preparations to use nuclear weapons. The United States and its allies would almost certainly publicly warn of any indicators that the Kremlin was preparing to use a nuclear weapon in Ukraine.
The Kremlin likely seeks to avoid such a massive escalation that would likely lead to direct NATO involvement and instead seeks to frame itself as nonaggressive. The Kremlin will likely rely on conventional and possibly chemical weapons capabilities to achieve its objectives in Donbas.
While we cannot completely rule out the Russian use of a tactical nuclear weapon in Ukraine, the Kremlin is highly unlikely to use one during this phase of the war.
https://www.understandingwar.org/backgrounder/ukraine-invasion-update-24
HOW TO SURVIVE A NUCLEAR BOMB - IF YOU HAVEN’T BEEN KILLED BY THE FIREBALL - QUICK ACTION CAN PROTECT YOU FROM THE SHOCK WAVE AND FALLOUT
In the remote case that Russia uses a small tactical nuke in Ukraine many would survive even of those close to the blast, and even in the path of the fallout. The main thing is they need to know what to do.
Yes you can survive a nuclear bomb, many surivived Hiroshima and Nagasaki and they didn't even know what it was. Obviously not if you are at ground zero but if you are a bit away. You can survive even at ground zero if you are in a basement -for instance, the undergrounds in Kyiv double as bomb shelters designed to protect even from nuclear bombs.
The idea that you can't survive is wrong - a widely believed urban myth. With the right precautions it is no different from any other explosion.
I grew up at the height of the cold war when the UK was the target of Russian nuclear bombs and we felt they might attack us at any moment. We had instructions like this if you looked up what to do if there was a nuclear explosion. Nowadays it is online.
If you see a nuclear explosion, the first thing that happens is the blast wave.
If the blast wave hasn’t hit you yet, take cover behind anything that would give protection.
Watch out for flying glass, any windows likely to break and debris will be blown your way as well, away from the explosion.
You have only seconds to react as the blast wave will arrive seconds later (unless it is a large distant explosion could be up to half a minute later).
Ducking and covering also helps to protect your exposed skin from heat / sun burn.
This is an old advice film, which is still valid today for the very first thing you have to do:
That is a 1951 film - they didn’t know about the fallout risks at that point so they only have step 1. See Duck and cover - Wikipedia
1. When you see the explosion, duck and cover
2. Once the shock wave is over you have 10-15 minutes to get to shelter until the radioactive fallout falls from the sky
3. Get as far away from any outer walls as you can and treat any dust contaminated clothes as radioactive materials
4. Stay indoors for at least 24 hours and drink only bottled water or water collected before the fallout and food not contaminated with fallout
5. Expect largest humanitarian relief operation in human history.
So it’s
Duck and cover
Once the blast is over get to shelter quickly. You have 10 to 15 minutes, as that is how long it is before the fallout starts falling
Get - inside a building, as far away from the outside walls as possible. Ideally in an inside room.Once inside the building, don't leave for at least 24 hours (unless you have to e.g. building on fire).
If any of your clothes have been covered in fallout, remove them and treat them as radioactive materials. If any fallout got onto your skin wash it off or clean it off.
This obviously only applies if you were not able to get into shelter before the fallout began.Only drink botttled water (unless you collected some water before the fallout began)
Only eat food that has not been exposed to the fallout.
Don't leave the building to get food. The worst radioactivity is in the first few minutes after the fallout and through to the first few hours.
This is because with an air burst most of the radioactive atoms have very short half-lives and become safe within a few tens of minutes. The worst radioactivity is over in hours. There is some long lasting radioactivity as well e.g. caesium, but so long as you aren't eating radioactive food, then it is not going to harm you much. We have radioactive materials in our bodies already - the potassium particularly - so you don't die from just a small dose of radioactivity.
You need to stay indoors for at least 24 hours.
It is better to wait for several days if you can. Wait for instructions as you should be a focus of an immense emergency relief operation from the rest of the world - remember half off the world is a nuclear free zone.
Those are the basic instructions.
IODINE PILLS ARE NOT GOING TO PROTECT AGAINST RADIATION FROM A NUKE - THEY ARE FOR A SPECIAL SITUATION SUCH AS CHILDREN DRINKING MILK FROM COWS THAT HAVE BEEN EXPOSED TO RADIATION FROM A NULCEAR REACTOR - IN MOST CASES GETTING INDOORS WITHIN 15 OR 20 MINUTES FOR PROTECTION FROM FALLOUT - AND THEN EVACUATION - IS THE WAY TO STAY PROTECTED
It is reasonable for Zelensky to ask for help with drugs that can protect civilians against radiation just in case. Because you need to prepare even for the exceptionally unlikely in a war situation.
However, iodine pills do nothing to protect you from external radiation instead you have 10 to 15 minutes to get indoors after a nuclear attack to protect yourself from fallout. The fallout is just radioactive dust falling from the sky - which loses most of its radioactivity within a day or two so if you can get indoors quickly you won’t risk radiation sickness.
There are drugs too to treat radiation sickneses after you get it.
But the iodine pills are for a different situation. They protect your thyroid gland from cancer years leter, and you take it if you have consumed food with radioactive iodine in it, either immediately before or soon after. You aren’t protected by taking iodine long before you are exposed and it can be harmful if you have an overactive thyroid.
Iodine also has to have time to get into the food chain. You are less likely to get it from vegetables as most people wash vegetables which would wash away the iodine dust - the main risk is from milk from cows that grazed on grass with radioactive iodine.
So it’s not an especially ilkely scenario so long as we know that food is potentially contaminated before we eat it. It’s not going to affect food you bought or that got to the shops before the leak.
See:
Jackson is an international expert and researcher on developing medical countermeasures against radiation sickness.
“Potassium iodide pills treat internal radiation exposure, not external radiation exposure, which is the predominant cause of acute radiation sickness in a nuclear incident,” she said.
An example of potassium iodide pills’ intended use would be for children who ingested milk from cows grazing in a contaminated field.
Evacuation is the most effective protective measure in the event of a radiological emergency because it protects the whole body (including the thyroid gland and other organs) from all radionuclides and all exposure pathways.
However, in situations when evacuation is not feasible, in-place sheltering is substituted as an effective protective action. In addition, administering potassium iodide is a reasonable, prudent, and inexpensive supplement to both evacuation and sheltering. When the population is evacuated out of the area, and potentially contaminated foodstuffs are interdicted, the risk from further radioactive iodine exposure to the thyroid gland is essentially eliminated.
Most radioactive iodine comes from the nuclear tests. But half is gone in 8 days.
Iodine-131, called “I-131,” which exposes the thyroid gland for about 2 months after each nuclear test, was the most important harmful radioactive material (isotope) in global fallout. People exposed to I-131, especially during childhood, may have an increased risk of thyroid disease, including thyroid cancer many years later. Thyroid cancer is uncommon and is usually curable.
Thyroid cancer is very rare and is treatable too.
I-131 breaks down rapidly in the atmosphere and environment
Exposure was highest in the first few days after each nuclear test explosion
Most exposure occurred through drinking fresh milk
People received little exposure from eating fruits and leafy vegetables as compared to drinking fresh milk because although I-131 was deposited on fruits and leafy vegetables, the I-131 in fallout was deposited only on the surface; people generally wash or peel fruits and leafy vegetables
Thyroid cancer is uncommon, usually curable, and approximately 2 to 3 times more common in women
IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO ELIMINATE NUKES WITH A “PRE-EMPTIVE STRIKE”
Take the example of the UK. Our only nukes in service are in Scotland on subs in HMNB Clyde
It is impossible for Russia to eliminate NATO's nukes or its conventional forces even if it used all its nukes.
No matter how barbarian and ruthless theywere, this is a military impossibility
If Russia wanted to do a first strike against the UK they would hit our nuclear submarine base HMNB Clyde on Gare loch
But this wouldn't work because we always have one submarine at sea
A nuclear sub in action is very quiet and can't gbe detected with sonar or radar
It is IMPOSSIBLE for Russia to destroy NATO's ability to attack them.
If Russia wanted to try a preemptive strike on UK's nukes they would hit the submarine base.
But there is always one sub at sea at any time so they wouldn't hit that one. Nuclear subs are very quiet and impossible to detect from the surface and they can’t be detected using radar because radar doesn’t go through water and they can’t be seen with sonar either at a distance. So - they are invisible to Russia.
Similarly Russia’s nuclear’ subs are invisible to us when on active duty.
So it is impossible to do a pre-emptive strike against UK's nukes.
There is no way that they would do that.
A prepemptive strike against nukes is impossible.
USA has many nuclear submarines at sea at any time.
USA also has air and, land based nukes and station some of their air based nukes in Europe - nukes carried on stealth bombers.
There is no way that Russia could eliminate the air based nukes or the land based nukes either in a first strike especially since the US can shoot down most of the incoming IDBM’s.
Also the US line of presidential succession ensures the US will always have a president even if Russia used nukes to kill both Joe Biden and Kamala Harris.
The US also has underground nuclear bunkers and could continue to command its nuclear and conventional forces even after a big all out nuclear strike on all their facilities by Russia.
Also the NATO conventional forces aren't concentrated like for Pearl Harbour - they are spread out, dispersed too, so there is no way that Russia can destroy the NATO conventional capability with a first strike either.
There is just no way that Russia would even contemplate a first strike no matter how barbarian and ruthless they might be.
ARTICLE 5 IS DEFENSIVE NOT RETALIATORY - BIDEN IS VERY CAREFUL NOT TO SEND NATO TROOPS ON THE GROUND TO UKRAINE - BUT EVEN A TACTICAL NUKE USUED AGAINST NATO TROOPS IN UKRAINE WOULD NOT TRIGGER ARTICLE 5 - AND EVEN IF USED AGAINST A NATO COUNTRY IT DOESN’T COMMIT NATO TO RETALIATE
Article 5 is much misunderstood, it's defensive, it is triggered if Russia attacks NATO territory. Article 5 is also defensive not retaliatory - it isn't a commitment to attack Russia back just a commitment to defend NATO. And the actual level of defence each country provides to the attacked country is at their own discretion, though there is a preliminary force of up to 40,000 that is immediately rushed to defend any country attacked by a non NATO country. They hold the ground while NATO decides what to do next.
If more people understood these basics about article 5 there would be much less social media / twitter panic.
Even an attack on NATO troops in Ukraine wouldn’t trigger it if they are there to support Ukraine rather than to protect NATO.
And even if Russia attacks NATO, even if impossibly they dropped a tactical nuke in Poland, say, article 5 doesn’t compell any action on NATO countries. The article leaves it for each individual country on its own to decide what to send to Poland (say) to protect the attacked country.
The only commitment is to send a rapid responses force of up to 40,000 soldiers to Poland to help defend it - while NATO decides what to do next. Then individual countries make up their minds what they can send to help Poland in this cae.
Article 5 does NOT commit NATO countries to retaliatory action. Article 5 is defensive not retaliatory.
As an example, the 9/11 attacks triggered article 5. AFAIK the only time it’s been triggered. It did lead to offensive action - but only to eliminate the terrorist threat against NATO.
Article 5 didn’t commit NATO to attack skyscrapers in Afghanistan or Syria in retaliation for 9/11.
When you put it like that, it would be obvious to everyone. Well it’s the same for tactical nukes. If Russia did a war crime and dropped a tactical nuke on a civilian target in Poland, say, on a city, that is a war crime and an atrocity.
It does NOT commit NATO to commit a similar war crime against Russia.
Same as for chemical weapon attacks. If Russia attacked NATO with chemical weapons they would NOT be committed to use chemical weapons against Russia.
They would respond in many other ways.
NATO HAS MANY WAYS TO RESPOND TO A TACTICAL NUKE WITHOUT ESCALATING - DELIBERATELY VAGUE BUT LIKELY INCLUDES MORE WEAPONS, MORE SANCTIONS, LEGAL AND PROTECTIVE ACTION
If Russia uses a chemical or biological weapon or a nuke, then NATO is deliberately vague about that.
Because if they said what they would do, then Putin would weigh it up and decide whether to take that risk.
Putin hates vagueness.
NATO thinks by staying vague they make it much less likely Putin does anything.
Using a tactical nuke would surely not be just a decision by a local commander, it would have to come from the very top because it would go against the partial nuclear test ban treaty.
A local commander can't make a decision like that.
And if Russia did use a tactical nuke, then NATO would decide what to do next. Unlikely to send in troops on the ground. No way respond with nukes.
An expert interviewed on the BBC, Jamie Shea, former NATO official and now professor of strategy at Exeter university, said that if they are found to use chemical weapons, he no longer is privy to these discussions, and if he were he couldn’t say - but the likely options they have likely prepared would include
more and stronger weapons and defensive systems for Ukraine, heavier, longer range, more sophisticated and give Ukraine more training in using them.
special secret ops to interfere with the command structure
including cyber attacks and secret options.
the legal process of investigation of weapons of war,
even stronger sanctions
REMINDER OF WHY PUTIN AND HIS GENERALS, HOWEVER RUTHLESS, WOULD NOT HAVE WORLD WAR / NUCLEAR WAR AS AN OBJECTIVE - IT WOULD ONLY MAKE THINGS FAR WORSE FOR HIM AND FOR RUSSIA - WITH NEW USE STRATEGY RATHER THAN NUKES IT WOULD INCLUDE SECRET SPECIAL OPS AND CYBER ATTACKS WITH PUTIN HIMSELF A LEGITIMATE TARGET AT THAT POINT
Remember nukes always make their own situation worse. They are a deterrent and if they are used it means the deterrent failed. Russia can’t “win” a war against NATO with nukes. There is no “Pearl harbour” - no concentration of forces for Russia to attack. The US learnt that lesson decades ago.
So, it’s impossible for Russia to destroy NATO’s capabilities to strike back either in conventional way or with nukes by attacking them with nukes. A first strike doesn’t have any military use, it always would make Russia’s situation worse.
With the new strategy dating back to Trump, the US would absorb any attack, shoot down as many as it could, and respond in other ways, conventional and unconventional non nuclear including special ops in Russia whie dispersing their nuke capable stealth bombers and subs to be ready if needed. There is no way Putin wants that indeed he would be a first target himself.
And Putin isn’t mad, and he isn’t like some toddler who destroys everyone’s sandcastles because he didn’t win the sandcastle competition. He is an adult. So are his generals
SEE ALSO
. Big humanitarian crisis in Ukraine - you can donate to help
HOW I CAN DO THESE FACT CHECKS
I have no military or political experience I just know how to fact check for reliable sources. It's a case of knowing who are the reliable sources in a complex situation, with lots of fake news being shared - and then listening to what they say. If there is a wide range of experts to listen to them all - and then summarize.
With the Ukraine war I relY a lot on the BBC interviews with experts, carefully selecting for ones who really are expert on what they say, the Institute for the Study of War, sometimes the Ukraine center for defense strategies and various other sources depending on the topic.
I also follow various experts on Ukraine and on military strategy on Twitter.