• Guests may view all public nodes. However, you must be registered to post.

Do you think Putin will use a tactical nuke on Ukraine?

I put "NO". Let's imagine that by now Russia uses a nuke... against who? Russia is winning the war, and it is using only a little potential of its armory. Actually, Russia is using its soviet stock funds. Have we seen, by now, some terminators, the new kind of tanks? If Russia thinks to lift war's intensity, is more likely that it starts to massively use the aviation, missil bombing, heavy artilley fire, and the new kind of wapons it has.
But if the situation gets worse, for example with a NATO involvement with the NATO's "peace" force proposed by Poland, we don't know what could happen. In that situation it could not be excluded that Russia use a nuke, for example as a demostration.
 
When Russia gets tapped out conventionally and is still losing, possibly. However, the goal of land warfare is to take and hold ground. I would think Iran or NK would be the first to fire into Ukraine so Russia could claim innocence and lick their wounds.
 
I think the use of a nuclear weapon on Ukraine would be about much more than just winning the war against Ukraine. Think back in history to the very first use of nuclear weapons in combat. Truman had other options besides going nuclear. The Soviet Union was going to war against Japan since Germany had been defeated, and between the combined conventional might of the US and the USSR, a total blockade of Japan could have been established, essentially forcing them to surrender or starve. Truman decided to use nuclear weapons on Japan for two reasons: Show Stalin that the US had them and was willing to use them.

Russia's use of a nuclear weapon on Ukraine could serve a similar purpose. His risk of a nuclear response from NATO is slim because Ukraine is not a member of NATO, and the goal would be to demonstrate to NATO Russia's willingness to use nuclear weapons in combat, thereby giving NATO and other western countries pause before getting involved in any conflict involving Russia.

A lot of people forget that nuclear weapons aren't just military in nature; they are also political in nature. Putin's use of a nuclear weapon - of any yield - over Ukraine territory would be designed to send a message to NATO and the US: We have them, and we're willing to use them.

Irony? Or karma?
 
In times of peace people look to the decision to use of nukes in a rational step by step ladder progression of if this happens we do this etc.
In limited conflict it’s still basically the same except the heightened tensions and ongoing military conflict ensures that movements on the ladder progression happen much faster and erratically.
Solders and athletes train constantly to develop muscle and trauma response mechanisms in the individual. If this happens you do this becomes automatic.
Nations command leadership do the same thing to a degree with escalating war tensions but there battle field is much more complicated that the solders.

I think describing and use of a nuke as some form a “demonstrative” use is slightly disingenuous. Only because it gives the image of oh well we’re going to use a low yield detonation up in the air over sea or farms as a benign way of saying “watch out I’ve got a gun”

Anytime a nations begins or continues any form of combat is demonstrative until it’s not.
We are saying we’re going to keep on fighting with all means at our disposal till we can no longer fight or our enemy is defeated.

That’s why I don’t particularly like separating nuclear weapons as some form of when all else fails break glass type weapon.
It is not because I am eager to see them used. But because in keeping them on a pedestal under glass “only to be used in moments of _____”
Will only last so long.
Leaving nations with inadequate experience or understanding of how they impact and are relevant to the ongoing conflict.
 
RiffRaff said:
I think the use of a nuclear weapon on Ukraine would be about much more than just winning the war against Ukraine. Think back in history to the very first use of nuclear weapons in combat. Truman had other options besides going nuclear. The Soviet Union was going to war against Japan since Germany had been defeated, and between the combined conventional might of the US and the USSR, a total blockade of Japan could have been established, essentially forcing them to surrender or starve. Truman decided to use nuclear weapons on Japan for two reasons: Show Stalin that the US had them and was willing to use them.

Russia's use of a nuclear weapon on Ukraine could serve a similar purpose. His risk of a nuclear response from NATO is slim because Ukraine is not a member of NATO, and the goal would be to demonstrate to NATO Russia's willingness to use nuclear weapons in combat, thereby giving NATO and other western countries pause before getting involved in any conflict involving Russia.

A lot of people forget that nuclear weapons aren't just military in nature; they are also political in nature. Putin's use of a nuclear weapon - of any yield - over Ukraine territory would be designed to send a message to NATO and the US: We have them, and we're willing to use them.

Irony? Or karma?
Click to expand...

Yes, but one of the major vaunts of Russia is that is the US to have ever used a nuke on battlefield. I don't think that Russia will lose this "advantage" only for demostration. What you said is plausible, but in order to have Russia using a nuke, it's first necessry that NATO will do something very concrete.
 
Obreid said:
That’s why I don’t particularly like separating nuclear weapons as some form of when all else fails break glass type weapon.
It is not because I am eager to see them used. But because in keeping them on a pedestal under glass “only to be used in moments of _____”
Will only last so long.
Leaving nations with inadequate experience or understanding of how they impact and are relevant to the ongoing conflict.
Click to expand...
Except that is exactly how nuclear weapons are treated. They are on a pedestal because they are in a category of weapon all by themselves, and everyone knows (or at least, they used to) that once that nuclear threshold has been crossed by one country, any hesitation or inhibitions other countries might have had about using them go right out the window.

Think about it - Nuclear weapons have been in existence for longer than most forum members have been alive. And they've only been used twice. That's because even as barbaric a species as mankind is, we recognize that the use of nuclear weapons crosses a moral line in the sand.

That line is no longer clearly defined. The strategy of nuclear weapons use in the 21st century is completely different than what it was in the 20th. Back then, it was commonly understood that once one nuclear weapon was used anywhere by anyone, the situation would escalate to a global exchange, with the possible exception of Pakistan & India. It used to be a commonly shared belief, regardless of political ideology, that a nuclear war of any kind could not be "won."

Not any more. Now we have nuclear powers that will absolutely refuse to use them unless they are attacked with nuclear weapons first, which has led to the rise of nuclear powers that will take advantage of that fact. Everyone here has discussed Russia crossing the nuclear threshold with Ukraine, and how NATO would *probably* not initiate a nuclear response because Ukraine is not a member of NATO. Putin knows this, and now he has a unique opportunity before him. He is most likely the first leader of Russia in over 70 years who has the opportunity to use a nuclear weapon with minimal chance of nuclear retaliation. And in doing so, he will transform Russia into the most feared country on Earth, because they have demonstrated to the world that Russia has the balls to use nuclear weapons.

I stated earlier that nuclear weapons weren't just military in nature, they are also political. I forgot to mention that they are also psychological weapons.

I think we need to watch closely for the "chemical weapons attack" being predicted by western intelligence, because if it happens the way I think it will, Russia will respond to that attack with a nuclear weapon, and claim they are justified in doing so. And that detonation will have bothing to do with military strategy, retaliation, or defeat of an enemy. It will have everything to do with Putin reinventing the Russian Empire and putting the fear of god into anyone who opposes him.
 
RiffRaff said:
Except that is exactly how nuclear weapons are treated. They are on a pedestal because they are in a category of weapon all by themselves, and everyone knows (or at least, they used to) that once that nuclear threshold has been crossed by one country, any hesitation or inhibitions other countries might have had about using them go right out the window.

Think about it - Nuclear weapons have been in existence for longer than most forum members have been alive. And they've only been used twice. That's because even as barbaric a species as mankind is, we recognize that the use of nuclear weapons crosses a moral line in the sand.

That line is no longer clearly defined. The strategy of nuclear weapons use in the 21st century is completely different than what it was in the 20th. Back then, it was commonly understood that once one nuclear weapon was used anywhere by anyone, the situation would escalate to a global exchange, with the possible exception of Pakistan & India. It used to be a commonly shared belief, regardless of political ideology, that a nuclear war of any kind could not be "won."

Not any more. Now we have nuclear powers that will absolutely refuse to use them unless they are attacked with nuclear weapons first, which has led to the rise of nuclear powers that will take advantage of that fact. Everyone here has discussed Russia crossing the nuclear threshold with Ukraine, and how NATO would *probably* not initiate a nuclear response because Ukraine is not a member of NATO. Putin knows this, and now he has a unique opportunity before him. He is most likely the first leader of Russia in over 70 years who has the opportunity to use a nuclear weapon with minimal chance of nuclear retaliation. And in doing so, he will transform Russia into the most feared country on Earth, because they have demonstrated to the world that Russia has the balls to use nuclear weapons.

I stated earlier that nuclear weapons weren't just military in nature, they are also political. I forgot to mention that they are also psychological weapons.

I think we need to watch closely for the "chemical weapons attack" being predicted by western intelligence, because if it happens the way I think it will, Russia will respond to that attack with a nuclear weapon, and claim they are justified in doing so. And that detonation will have bothing to do with military strategy, retaliation, or defeat of an enemy. It will have everything to do with Putin reinventing the Russian Empire and putting the fear of god into anyone who opposes him.
Click to expand...
Agreed that line has become blurred and the pedestal has gotten much shorter.
I probably did not make the observation as you did that this is a change. But I believe we both agree the change has happened.

I would point out the that Putin’s recent statements regarding special deterrence and repeated calls from various Russian politicians hinting at unimaginable destruction have aided in lowering that pedestal.
The implied threat of use of nuclear weapons is now being waved about in response to sanctions or refusal to engage in trade. Or provide military aid to a nation that has been invaded.

The question is what will be the new strategic response to this environment.
Will nations cave to it or will they stand up and refuse to bow to them.
 
RiffRaff said:
Russia will respond to that attack with a nuclear weapon, and claim they are justified in doing so
Click to expand...
So the question is what will the west do if Russia were to use a tactical nuke in Ukraine.
Most will say we have no treaty which would be correct.
But there is more to it than that.
There was no treaty with Kuwait but a multinational army mobilized and drove iraq out.
What will our Eastern European NATO members be thinking and possibly be demanding if one is used.

I suppose my inclination is be very clear that ANY use of nuclear warheads will be met in kind where ever they are used - treaty or not.
And try and raise that pedestal back up a little.
And until if and when that policy statement is made the threat of nuclear weapons hold more power over us than they need to.
 
Obreid said:
So the question is what will the west do if Russia were to use a tactical nuke in Ukraine
Click to expand...
I can tell you that the response will not be to drop a nuke on Russia. That ain't happening.

But it is mind boggling to try and think of what the West will do. I'm guessing a full boycott at least.
 
bartok said:
I put "NO". Let's imagine that by now Russia uses a nuke... against who? Russia is winning the war, and it is using only a little potential of its armory. Actually, Russia is using its soviet stock funds. Have we seen, by now, some terminators, the new kind of tanks? If Russia thinks to lift war's intensity, is more likely that it starts to massively use the aviation, missil bombing, heavy artilley fire, and the new kind of wapons it has.
But if the situation gets worse, for example with a NATO involvement with the NATO's "peace" force proposed by Poland, we don't know what could happen. In that situation it could not be excluded that Russia use a nuke, for example as a demostration.
Click to expand...
A Russian source on Russian military success in Ukraine
Russian pilots filing discharge papers because losses in Ukraine.
www.pravda.com.ua

Due to losses, Russian pilots begin filing discharge papers - General Staff

Russian air force pilots are filing for discharge en masse due to the high amount of casualties in the war against Ukraine.
www.pravda.com.ua www.pravda.com.ua
 
Obreid said:
A Russian source on Russian military success in Ukraine
Russian pilots filing discharge papers because losses in Ukraine.
www.pravda.com.ua

Due to losses, Russian pilots begin filing discharge papers - General Staff

Russian air force pilots are filing for discharge en masse due to the high amount of casualties in the war against Ukraine.
www.pravda.com.ua www.pravda.com.ua
Click to expand...
The source for that article is "Evening briefing of General Staff of Ukraine's Armed Forces".

Not exactly a reliable source for this information.
 
I think that Putin will keep this conventional unless he feels that he has no other option, whether this will happen or not I'm not sure.
 
Last edited:
DEFCON Warning System said:
What would you suggest be done if Russia pops a nuke off in Ukraine?
Click to expand...
The only reasonable thing that could be done is to revise or expand the public position of the US and NATO on their response to the use of nuclear Weapons.
Simply make it clear nukes in Europe won’t be accepted basic MADD
 
If Russia uses a tactical nuclear weapon in Ukraine, I believe the Western response will be to impose much greater sanctions on Russia. The first and certain is an immediate end to the purchase of Russian natural gas and oil. Russia can sell to China, yes, but this change takes time and Putin would be without his main source of income immediately, just when he needs it to cover huge military spending and the internal economic crisis.

In the military area, the most measured response would be the largest military exercise in the history of NATO, with simulations of launching nuclear weapons by ICBMs, submarines and planes. Made by USA, France and England.
 
People still don't seem to understand Putin's situation and just how committed he is to reclaiming Ukraine. There is no turning back, Russias economy in shambles, thousands and thousands of Russian soldiers dead there is simply no off ramp for him to de escalate without destroying his credibility and everything he has worked towards since assuming leadership. His ego is beyond help, if his forces continue to get wrecked he is going to loose a wmd or strategic nuke for a number or reasons. He has already called Natos bluff in Ukraine and has gotten away with it, the old man Biden blinked and fell asleep at the wheel. After a nuke and submitting Ukraine Putin will pave the way to having the neutral and possibly the Nato member Baltic states to think twice about resisting at all. It will also degrade Nato's morale further and diminish their will to challenge him at all. All this fan fare and celebration that Russia is losing and are bogged down while true will only cement his decision to strike a decisive blow on Kiev to send a signal to the world to stay out of his way or face the same consequences. I am sorry but all this proxy support of Ukraine is going to backfire on Nato and spell its doom and when they do decide to retaliate it may be too late. While dropping boots armor and supplies into Ukraine from day 1 might have triggered ww3 that it was the only way to deal with a thug of Putins nature. The more you cower and are afraid of the consequences he will eat you alive.
 
Last edited:
I originally voted no, but after reading the thoughtful posts I am less confident in my answer. All I know for sure is that if one is used, the 24-36 hours that follow will be too stressful to contemplate.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom