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

Russia Really Could Use A Nuclear Weapon In The Ukraine Conflict

DEFCON Warning System

Director
Staff member
For those of you who are new to The DEFCON Warning System, you’ve probably been seeing a lot of alarming messages. Doom! Fear! Nuclear war! The Community Forum that we run is filled with even more of that, and it’s even more alarming.


But for those of you who have been following The DEFCON Warning System for a while, you know we don’t engage “doom porn” and stamp it out pretty quickly. There is no reason to make alarming proclamations where there is no real threat, and we have little (read “no”) tolerance for others who make their money off of frightening people. Leave the End Of The World On Tuesday predictions to the nutjobs who for some reason seem to look forward to Armageddon.

Is Russia’s war with Ukraine really as bad as it seems?


Okay, enough beating around the bush. Let’s ask the real question: Will Russia use a nuclear weapon?


Even a month ago, we would have said there wasn’t a chance.


But something has changed.


Russia started using language that was very bellicose. “Ukraine is trying to acquire nuclear weapons.” “Nazism.” Extreme language that gave Russia the casus belli that it was looking for to go in.


Somehow, things somehow managed to go even more South after that.

Ukraine put up a massive fight. Far more than Russia was ready for. Russia started taking losses. NATO, far from cowing in the corner, united and launched an economic war that was about as devastating as a nuclear one. Non-aligned countries started clamouring to get into NATO. Weapons poured into Ukraine. And the Russian public came out against the invasion.


The Russian President vastly misread the room.


And now Russia is stuck. It has three options:
  1. Push for a quick resolution.
  2. Get stuck in a quagmire.
  3. Withdraw in humiliation.

A quick resolution can take two forms. It can be Ukraine’s surrender or a negotiation.


A negotiated settlement could happen, but for now the terms are not something Ukraine is willing to swallow. Maybe after a few more cities are taken, that might change.

Russia doesn’t want to get stuck in Ukraine for long. Especially now that it virtually has no economy. Wars cost money and a citizenry who didn’t want the war in the first place is unlikely to tolerate economic hardship.


And if anyone thinks Russia is going to withdraw and face a humiliating defeat at the hands of Ukraine…well, bridge/sale/you get the idea.


Russia wants a quick end to the war. End the Russian losses and end the economic devastation. If Ukraine is unwilling to give them a quick end, what is Russia to do?


And now here is where the calculus gets dangerous.


Already we see Russia attempting to wear down Ukraine by attacking civilians. They are using illegal weapons and targeting illegal targets. Russia is already accused of war crimes.


Inside Russia, the Russian President is facing a military who didn’t want the war and an inner circle that is beginning to think maybe the President needs to be “delt with, Russian style”. After all, a head on a pike would certainly end the war and allow Russia to withdraw with some honour, putting all the blame for the war on the dead guy.

So here is what Russia is facing. And time is running out. Some calculations say Russia can hold out until June. Three months? Can their economy last that long? Ukraine doesn’t need to win. They just need to hold out until Russia collapses.


This brings us to the dangerous option Russia has. A way to possibly end the war quickly.


A nuclear attack, a demonstration bomb over the sea or over Ukraine.


From Russia’s point of view, they could see such an event propelling Ukraine to surrender. Additionally, Russia may think that NATO, fearing what Russia is capable of, would refrain from responding. After all, it wasn’t NATO that was attacked, and any response would certainly invite Russia to counterattack on their home soil.


Would Russia risk it? It’s unthinkable. But is it impossible?


The DEFCON Warning System believes that this is an option that is on the table. Russia has many options. This is one of them. Doesn’t mean they’ll do it. In fact, let’s go so far as to say they won’t do it. But it is something that is considered.


And this is the point we want to make.


We want the public to at least consider the possibility. That maybe, in some horrible lottery, that number — as remote as it may be — might come up.


And so we want you to think about being prepared.


This is why we talk about nuclear war. Why we list articles and opinions and thoughts about this possibility. Because the possibility is there, no matter how much we want to deny it.


No, this is not doom. This is not fear. This is reality. A reality we have to deal with. However remote.

Chances are it’ll never happen. I constantly tell people that if I was really worried that Russia would pop off a nuke, I wouldn’t be wasting time playing video games during my time off.

But I don’t ignore the possibility.

And neither should you.

Make some preparations. It won’t hurt, and if nothing happens you’ll have some extra supplies to use.

Better to be prepared and not need it than not be prepared and not have it.
 
Let's step back and look at reality of Russia (5977 warheads) and USA (5428 warheads), which both have the majority of nuclear warheads in the world. No one else is even in the same universe of these two countries. So yes, every NATO "proxy" battle, does indeed raise the potential of a Russia and USA nuclear conflict. Those who are naive enough to believe the accuracy of START agreement statistics on such nuclear weapons are well-intended. But Russia is a brutal adversary. A hot war with Russia is not convential and irregular warfare with Iraq or Afghanistan. It is not North Korea with missiles with no guidance. It is not terrorists with low yield nuclear or dirty bombs.

A hot war with Russia could lead to RS-28 Sarmat (SS-X-30) ICBMs with 15 warheads, including Avangard hypersonic glide vehicles. A hot war with Russia is with a nation insane enough to build 50 meagton (MT) nuclear warheads like Tsar Bomba. Not simply 1 KT, not 10 KT, not 15 KT nuclear warheads. With the Russia 50 MT nuclear warhead, the cap of the mushroom cloud had a peak width of 59 miles and its base was 25 miles wide. The fireball itself was 5 miles wide. It had shock waves hundreds of miles away. And that 50 MT Russia nuclear bomb was really a test for a product designed for 100 MT.

We will not MANPAD a hot war with Russia away.

In mid-2009, Nikolai Patrushev, the head of Russia’s Security Council, indicated Russia would have the option to launch a "preemptive nuclear strike" against an aggressor "using conventional weapons in an all-out, regional, or even local war." Russia maintains forces that could “inflict guaranteed unacceptable damage on a potential adversary … in any circumstances." (Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Russian Federation, On Basic Principles of State Policy of the Russian Federation, Moscow, June 2, 2020). We are not dealing with Tories or Labor, GOP or Democrats, all of the political wars that the Western public understands. We are dealing with a merciless and unimaginably brutal enemy in Russia, not like in Iraq with fake "weapons of mass destruction," but real and true weapons of mass destruction that could kill millions and millions and millions. Today - this moment - restraint is the ONLY choice available.
 
Let's step back and look at reality of Russia (5977 warheads) and USA (5428 warheads), which both have the majority of nuclear warheads in the world. No one else is even in the same universe of these two countries. So yes, every NATO "proxy" battle, does indeed raise the potential of a Russia and USA nuclear conflict. Those who are naive enough to believe the accuracy of START agreement statistics on such nuclear weapons are well-intended. But Russia is a brutal adversary. A hot war with Russia is not convential and irregular warfare with Iraq or Afghanistan. It is not North Korea with missiles with no guidance. It is not terrorists with low yield nuclear or dirty bombs.

A hot war with Russia could lead to RS-28 Sarmat (SS-X-30) ICBMs with 15 warheads, including Avangard hypersonic glide vehicles. A hot war with Russia is with a nation insane enough to build 50 meagton (MT) nuclear warheads like Tsar Bomba. Not simply 1 KT, not 10 KT, not 15 KT nuclear warheads. With the Russia 50 MT nuclear warhead, the cap of the mushroom cloud had a peak width of 59 miles and its base was 25 miles wide. The fireball itself was 5 miles wide. It had shock waves hundreds of miles away. And that 50 MT Russia nuclear bomb was really a test for a product designed for 100 MT.

We will not MANPAD a hot war with Russia away.

In mid-2009, Nikolai Patrushev, the head of Russia’s Security Council, indicated Russia would have the option to launch a "preemptive nuclear strike" against an aggressor "using conventional weapons in an all-out, regional, or even local war." Russia maintains forces that could “inflict guaranteed unacceptable damage on a potential adversary … in any circumstances." (Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Russian Federation, On Basic Principles of State Policy of the Russian Federation, Moscow, June 2, 2020). We are not dealing with Tories or Labor, GOP or Democrats, all of the political wars that the Western public understands. We are dealing with a merciless and unimaginably brutal enemy in Russia, not like in Iraq with fake "weapons of mass destruction," but real and true weapons of mass destruction that could kill millions and millions and millions. Today - this moment - restraint is the ONLY choice available.
All true a d were having this discussion because of an nuclear Russia willing to invade a third neighbor to once again reestablish territory.
I hear you advice caution.
So what are your parameters for dealing with this snatch and grab, or the next one?

Will you be advising the same course of action if the BAltics are invaded?
Wait and hope.
 
For those of you who are new to The DEFCON Warning System, you’ve probably been seeing a lot of alarming messages. Doom! Fear! Nuclear war! The Community Forum that we run is filled with even more of that, and it’s even more alarming.


But for those of you who have been following The DEFCON Warning System for a while, you know we don’t engage “doom porn” and stamp it out pretty quickly. There is no reason to make alarming proclamations where there is no real threat, and we have little (read “no”) tolerance for others who make their money off of frightening people. Leave the End Of The World On Tuesday predictions to the nutjobs who for some reason seem to look forward to Armageddon.

Is Russia’s war with Ukraine really as bad as it seems?


Okay, enough beating around the bush. Let’s ask the real question: Will Russia use a nuclear weapon?


Even a month ago, we would have said there wasn’t a chance.


But something has changed.


Russia started using language that was very bellicose. “Ukraine is trying to acquire nuclear weapons.” “Nazism.” Extreme language that gave Russia the casus belli that it was looking for to go in.


Somehow, things somehow managed to go even more South after that.

Ukraine put up a massive fight. Far more than Russia was ready for. Russia started taking losses. NATO, far from cowing in the corner, united and launched an economic war that was about as devastating as a nuclear one. Non-aligned countries started clamouring to get into NATO. Weapons poured into Ukraine. And the Russian public came out against the invasion.


The Russian President vastly misread the room.


And now Russia is stuck. It has three options:
  1. Push for a quick resolution.
  2. Get stuck in a quagmire.
  3. Withdraw in humiliation.

A quick resolution can take two forms. It can be Ukraine’s surrender or a negotiation.


A negotiated settlement could happen, but for now the terms are not something Ukraine is willing to swallow. Maybe after a few more cities are taken, that might change.

Russia doesn’t want to get stuck in Ukraine for long. Especially now that it virtually has no economy. Wars cost money and a citizenry who didn’t want the war in the first place is unlikely to tolerate economic hardship.


And if anyone thinks Russia is going to withdraw and face a humiliating defeat at the hands of Ukraine…well, bridge/sale/you get the idea.


Russia wants a quick end to the war. End the Russian losses and end the economic devastation. If Ukraine is unwilling to give them a quick end, what is Russia to do?


And now here is where the calculus gets dangerous.


Already we see Russia attempting to wear down Ukraine by attacking civilians. They are using illegal weapons and targeting illegal targets. Russia is already accused of war crimes.


Inside Russia, the Russian President is facing a military who didn’t want the war and an inner circle that is beginning to think maybe the President needs to be “delt with, Russian style”. After all, a head on a pike would certainly end the war and allow Russia to withdraw with some honour, putting all the blame for the war on the dead guy.

So here is what Russia is facing. And time is running out. Some calculations say Russia can hold out until June. Three months? Can their economy last that long? Ukraine doesn’t need to win. They just need to hold out until Russia collapses.


This brings us to the dangerous option Russia has. A way to possibly end the war quickly.


A nuclear attack, a demonstration bomb over the sea or over Ukraine.


From Russia’s point of view, they could see such an event propelling Ukraine to surrender. Additionally, Russia may think that NATO, fearing what Russia is capable of, would refrain from responding. After all, it wasn’t NATO that was attacked, and any response would certainly invite Russia to counterattack on their home soil.


Would Russia risk it? It’s unthinkable. But is it impossible?


The DEFCON Warning System believes that this is an option that is on the table. Russia has many options. This is one of them. Doesn’t mean they’ll do it. In fact, let’s go so far as to say they won’t do it. But it is something that is considered.


And this is the point we want to make.


We want the public to at least consider the possibility. That maybe, in some horrible lottery, that number — as remote as it may be — might come up.


And so we want you to think about being prepared.


This is why we talk about nuclear war. Why we list articles and opinions and thoughts about this possibility. Because the possibility is there, no matter how much we want to deny it.


No, this is not doom. This is not fear. This is reality. A reality we have to deal with. However remote.

Chances are it’ll never happen. I constantly tell people that if I was really worried that Russia would pop off a nuke, I wouldn’t be wasting time playing video games during my time off.

But I don’t ignore the possibility.

And neither should you.

Make some preparations. It won’t hurt, and if nothing happens you’ll have some extra supplies to use.

Better to be prepared and not need it than not be prepared and not have it.
Good advice. Regardless of which way this turns the current sanctions against Russia are wreaking Havoc on the already strained US supply chain. Skyrocketing energy costs will quickly drive up not only gasoline but everything touched by transportation costs. I heard a small chicken farmer say she would need to charge $11.50 for a dozen eggs just to match current increases in chicken feed and fertilizer. If you like eggs it might be a good idea to buy some powdered whatever Russia decides to do. Personally I continue to believe Putin is doing this to secure the Donbass republics and Crimea. Russia posed 4 conditions for immediate withdraw: 1)Ukraine military lays down arms. 2) Ukraine government amends constitution to enshrine neutrality. 3) Ukraine acknowledges Crimea as Russian territory. 4) Ukraine recognizes new Independent republics of Donetsk and Lugansk. I believe these requests are consistent with the reasons Putin has given all along for initiating his military "operation" It's consistent with what he told the Russian people just prior and it shows this is not a "war of conquest" or attempt to take back the Baltics or restore the Soviet Union to its former glory. As for reports that Russia is "bogged down" and losing...nonsense (Ukraine reported killing 5400 Russians too, clearly untrue). Russia is steadily building its forces in concentric circles of troops and armor designed to secure and hold political and geographic positions. Latest polling shows the Russian people support Putin by 71%. Thus far Russia has made a slow methodical attempt to force regime regime change by using limited force. I would expect if Ukraine continues to resist, the Russian military will continue and increase it's stranglehold somewhat like a big slow Anaconda. Use of Thermobaric weapons is very likely on the table, I think if Russia did think it was losing, or if NATO intervened militarily, anything is possible.... I don't see Russia leaving until Ukraine is firmly in its control. I am not pro Putin or pro war, I am simply making a reasoned analysis based on the cultural and historical context of the region, obviously current data is skewed by fog of war, media bias and big tech censorship, I don't pretend to have the answers, I'm just trying to make sense of things.
 
Last edited:
Make some preparations. It won’t hurt, and if nothing happens you’ll have some extra supplies to use.

Better to be prepared and not need it than not be prepared and not have it.
I think this is a dangerous outlook, nuclear war would be a disaster of genuinely indescribable proportions. If people believe that they can survive it, they have less chance of taking things into their own hands during a crisis and overthrowing their government, this goes for both Russia and NATO. I’m trying to write a series for here on just how horrible it would be, the effect the crisis would have on society, the bomb itself, the firestorms, how absolutely nothing would be left that even resembled the modern world, and how the world would be irreplaceably poisoned. It’s a suicide option and always has been, Putin seems to think so at least, his whole manifesto is based around the idea if Russia dies the world dies.
 
I think this is a dangerous outlook, nuclear war would be a disaster of genuinely indescribable proportions. If people believe that they can survive it, they have less chance of taking things into their own hands during a crisis and overthrowing their government, this goes for both Russia and NATO. I’m trying to write a series for here on just how horrible it would be, the effect the crisis would have on society, the bomb itself, the firestorms, how absolutely nothing would be left that even resembled the modern world, and how the world would be irreplaceably poisoned. It’s a suicide option and always has been, Putin seems to think so at least, his whole manifesto is based around the idea if Russia dies the world dies.
Read our article, You Can Survive Nuclear War
 
I think this is a dangerous outlook, nuclear war would be a disaster of genuinely indescribable proportions. If people believe that they can survive it, they have less chance of taking things into their own hands during a crisis and overthrowing their government, this goes for both Russia and NATO. I’m trying to write a series for here on just how horrible it would be, the effect the crisis would have on society, the bomb itself, the firestorms, how absolutely nothing would be left that even resembled the modern world, and how the world would be irreplaceably poisoned. It’s a suicide option and always has been, Putin seems to think so at least, his whole manifesto is based around the idea if Russia dies the world dies.
Wrong! It's a golden opportunity for a great awakening. The number of deliverable strategic weapons is at an all time low. If we do it now, the globalists, oligarchs, wokesters, eco-spergs, euro-trash marxiods, stormtroopers, rainbow-alphabet creatures and urban hipsters pay the ferryman. We also deplete the arsenals, kill off the maniacs who buy these things and run the wars for their own gratification.
More fascism, and more communism is not the way ahead. Socialism is cancer that ends in metastasizing war.
If it goes deep into the now in progress arms race, there will never be another chance, and the species is finished.
 
All true a d were having this discussion because of an nuclear Russia willing to invade a third neighbor to once again reestablish territory.
I hear you advice caution.
So what are your parameters for dealing with this snatch and grab, or the next one?

Will you be advising the same course of action if the BAltics are invaded?
Wait and hope.
O
 
We needed a negotiated settlement, not simply on our terms and on Ukraine's terms, THEN. But EU, NATO, USA deceived Ukraine that we would "support them"
Your incorrect we should have mobilized and began building up our militaries, pumping oil. Stoped living in a fantasy land of green energy and brought Ukraine in to nato then.
Thankfully nato has woke up and bumping their defense budgets and reviewing their energy policies and soon will be looking at being even more European nations in.
Which is what we should have been doing all along.
We’re off topic start a new thread if you want
 
I think this is a dangerous outlook, nuclear war would be a disaster of genuinely indescribable proportions. If people believe that they can survive it, they have less chance of taking things into their own hands during a crisis and overthrowing their government, this goes for both Russia and NATO. I’m trying to write a series for here on just how horrible it would be, the effect the crisis would have on society, the bomb itself, the firestorms, how absolutely nothing would be left that even resembled the modern world, and how the world would be irreplaceably poisoned. It’s a suicide option and always has been, Putin seems to think so at least, his whole manifesto is based around the idea if Russia dies the world dies.
I think most rational people, especially those who wrote this article, fully understand that. I would suggest creating another thread on that topic, or adding to the thread the author suggests. The idea of survival of nuclear attacks is clearly a controversial one and deserves discussion. But the issue of surviving nuclear attacks is a matter of degree and location. It is a grim issue for certain, but during a disruption of survival essentials, I agree 1000% with the author to have some preparedness in advance, because zero preparedness does not help. Glad to discuss in another thread.
 
Wrong! It's a golden opportunity for a great awakening. The number of deliverable strategic weapons is at an all time low. If we do it now, the globalists, oligarchs, wokesters, eco-spergs, euro-trash marxiods, stormtroopers, rainbow-alphabet creatures and urban hipsters pay the ferryman. We also deplete the arsenals, kill off the maniacs who buy these things and run the wars for their own gratification.
More fascism, and more communism is not the way ahead. Socialism is cancer that ends in metastasizing war.
If it goes deep into the now in progress arms race, there will never be another chance, and the species is finished.
This is so wrong it’s hard to even pick holes in it.
 
Your incorrect we should have mobilized and began building up our militaries, pumping oil. Stoped living in a fantasy land of green energy and brought Ukraine in to nato then.
Thankfully nato has woke up and bumping their defense budgets and reviewing their energy policies and soon will be looking at being even more European nations in.
Which is what we should have been doing all along.
We’re off topic start a new thread if you want
Absolutley true, specifically on the green energy dream. Yes, it is 100% a dream and is not doable, at least with current grid setup, available technlogy, and demand. Pushing electric vehicles only adds to the chaos and demand of the grid. I am a plant supervisor for one of the largest energy suppliers in the US so I am privy to some of this ridiculousness. The cost to the consumer will be unimaginable.
 
I think the government should build underground shelters for the people living in the blast zones around these silos.
 
Those silos will be hit by multiple groundbursts. There is no shelter from that when you're sitting at ground zero, underground or otherwise.
I'm not disagreeing with your assessment, but do you really think they will use multiple warheads on each individual silo? that seems to me to be a waste of a warhead. All they have to do is prevent the silo from opening, or prevent the missile from launching. They don't have to destroy it completely. I doubt there would be any maintenance personnel available to repair the silo during the event. and after the dust settles, neither side will be in any position to continue.
 
Those silos will be hit by multiple groundbursts. There is no shelter from that when you're sitting at ground zero, underground or otherwise.
This is why we do not recommend people using abandoned missile silos as shelters. You don't know if they have been taken off the target list.

but do you really think they will use multiple warheads on each individual silo?
No, but silos are close enough that you really don't want to be near one.
 
Top